hey everyone,

I wrote a little rant in another thread, and decided that it could be interesting as a thread topic itself.

as you should know, we are spending $300,000,000,000 (thats 3x10^11) on a war than many believe to be useless. so I ask you, what else could we have spent the money on?

god damn spiedergoat! =]

you failed to mention the 300+ billion dollars we could have used for... anything.

want national healthcare? I am pretty sure $300,000,000,000 would cover the transition (and the transition is all we really have to pay for, once we have everyone paying into one plan, the well support the sick)

want to be more energy independent? you could build about a hundred large scale nuclear reactors for that price (probably much more than a hundred, as you only have to design it once, and just build many of them)

want to put a man on mars? $300,000,000,000 would get you there easy. hell, we could build a starbucks on mars for that price.

is there anything about America you think could be improved? I bet $300,000,000,000 could go a long way toward fixing it.

and don't forget, that is just what is appropriated so far, that could go much higher.

here is an interesting site:
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

I would have spent the money in invading Iran instead. :)

i would spend 300billion on health care

yeah, I would also. it probably would not even cost that much though.

"The legislation would cost the federal government an estimated $50 billion to $60 billion annually for the first several years."
source (http://www.gooznews.com/archives/000463.html)

Isn't a lot of the money borrowed anyway? The interest payments must be huge. Don't bother borrowing the money in the first place.

I would take the 1.3 trillion in various wealth redistribution programs, double the war spending, and give a 1 trillion dollar tax cut.

-Dale

you can't just redistribute wealth. it does not work so well. commies have tried that many times, it always ends it disaster.

Isn't a lot of the money borrowed anyway? The interest payments must be huge. Don't bother borrowing the money in the first place.
very good point. but when talking about the war in iraq, people often don't care that we borrowed the money. I was putting a new spin on it by getting people to think about what else they could have done instead of blowing shit up half way around the world.

... double the war spending,...-Dale do you have any particular items in mind or just more men, more bombs, more planes etc.?

I ask as having feed at the military trough for almost 30 years, I know how much waste there is. For example, billions for systems whose effectiveness can be neutralized for less than 0.000,1% of their cost. I would love to tell of one I spent more than a year helping develop / demonstrate that it would work for US Navy but if the" enemy" knew of it and how it works, they could defeat in with 100% certainty and zero cost (only a slight change in their SOP). It would be relatively large and external to US subs and impossible to keep its existence secrete.

I felt morally obligated to point this out and was told “that was not our task” and the physics was very interesting, so after that, I help burn up money with the best of them. - I think someone in the Navy finally understood it was silly, as one day the group leader told us the project was terminated.

I can go into more detail about one for the Strategic Air Command, SAC contract QRC65* I worked on one summer while still in school. SAC wanted it "yesterday" as it was a penetration aid which might help at least one of their nuclear bombers get thru to Moscow. I was first and only person hired by the small company for this job. - all the others were "body shopper engineers" rented from a NYC firm at approximately $1000 / day.

My job was to design the power supply and the cables associated. As there was no information initially about what voltages, currents would be required, and there was considerable delay in getting the MIL spec. cable wires (weeks) I became concerned and ask the boss what I should do. His answer was simple - order about a mile of all colors and sizes that you can imagine we may need. - It was a cost plus percentage contract, so that made a lot of sense and I did it.
--------------------------------------
*QRC = Quick Reaction Contract. -As I recall, the two-prototype units were due in four months. I had to return to school before that, but think one got finished in time to earn the huge “on-time” bonus. (The other would also have met the schedule, but roughly my last day there, some technician was drilling on the case and destroyed some internal parts. - he was fired on the spot and gone by lunch time!)

It was a good job for me: double time pay after 40 hours, and triple time after 60 - one week I put in 75 hours.

you can't just redistribute wealth. it does not work so well. commies have tried that many times, it always ends it disaster.I agree with your statement, but I think you missed my point. We already redistribute 1.3 trillion dollars annualy. The 300 billion over the several years of the war is a pittance compared 1.3 trillion annually. If you want to talk about saving money talk about eliminating wealth-redistribution, the cost of the war is negligible in comparison.

-Dale

I must admit that I know very little about wealth redistribution. you mean taxing middle and upper classes to support lower classes?

do you have any particular items in mind or just more men, more bombs, more planes etc.?

I ask as having feed at the military trough for almost 30 years, I know how much waste there is. For example, billions for systems whose effectiveness can be neutralized fro less than 0.000,1% of their cost.No, I am just making a point. The war spending is not the predominant cause of our deficits and it is actually a relatively small drain on the budget. Our socalist spending is much more problematic and expensive.

-Dale

I must admit that I know very little about wealth redistribution. you mean taxing middle and upper classes to support lower classes?That is the predominant form of wealth redistribution in the US, there is also a large amount of taxing individuals to support corporations and industries. I am opposed to all forms of coersive redistribution of wealth. So questions like this thread really irritate me with the implicit assumption that we can and should spend other people's money. This thread is more focused on how we spend it than on should we spend it.

-Dale

The war spending is not the predominant cause of our deficits and it is actually a relatively small drain on the budget. Our socialist spending is much more problematic and expensive.
expensive to whom?

if you are talking about what I think you are talking about (you are not very clear). you mean taxation of middle and upper classes that to fund programs that are primarily used by lower classes.

if I am correct, you are wrong =). because where is the cost? where does the money this is costing us go? middle class people who work for the bureaucracies? thats not a big deal to me. its when the money leaves the US to be sunk into another country that is the problem.

I do partially agree though, smaller government means less people have to do jobs that accomplish little more than taking a check from one person and handing it to another. however, I don't think we should abandon most of our social programs, as there would be a huge separation between upper and lower classes. I think we have a moral obligation to avoid mass poverty and starvation.

I would have been homeless and starving as a child if it were not for food stamps. as it was, there was a period where I ate government peanut butter by the spoon for dinner as we could not afford bread to put it on.

-----edit-----

I don't believe making children starve is the best method for saving money. I do, however, believe that if people accept government aid, that they should either be "fixed" or have temporary birth control implants put in. I think they last like 5 years.

Firstly I'd take that money and use it to produce Neutron bombs that would be extremely large, then cover Iraq and most of the middle-east with them.

Secondly I'd take down all LAN lines in favor of wireless communications.

Thirdly I would build a space base on the moon (one is long overdue).

Fourth I would use some to kill people that were desperately ill, better to put them out of misery sooner rather then waiting.

Fifth I would work on construction of an orbiting space-station much like Babylon 5 only smaller.

Idon't think we should abandon most of our social programsThen you have no right to complain about the cost of government.

I think we should abandon all government social programs; all social programs should be private. I think you are kidding yourself if you think that people would starve in the US, yourself included, simply because the government stopped stealing money and redistributing it. Americans are more generous than that.

-Dale

Firstly I'd take that money and use it to produce Neutron bombs that would be extremely large, then cover Iraq and most of the middle-east with them.

Secondly I'd take down all LAN lines in favor of wireless communications.

Thirdly I would build a space base on the moon (one is long overdue).

Fourth I would use some to kill people that were desperately ill, better to put them out of misery sooner rather then waiting.

Fifth I would work on construction of an orbiting space-station much like Babylon 5 only smaller.
oh dear, how many people do you tell of your views, especially 1 and 3, no wonder you have no friends, are you drunk, stoned etc... i never expected you to come out with this.

I think we should abandon all government social programs; all social programs should be private. I think you are kidding yourself if you think that people would starve in the US, yourself included, simply because the government stopped stealing money and redistributing it. Americans are more generous than that.

you've lost your goddamn mind! do you know how cold the winters got for me? literally freezing! you could leave a glass of water in my room when I went to bed, and it would be frozen by morning. I didn't see anybody lining up to help me.

Then you have no right to complain about the cost of government.
so it is better to let people starve and freeze to death, than go to war with Iraq?

you are living in a fairytale world dale.

Americans are more generous than that.
no they are not, the rich let the poor rot in the slums

The secret to peace and prosperity, the key to the survival of civilization, is educating women. I would go into the dark corners of the earth--and some these days not even so dark--where women are kept in ignorance, and build schools for women. I don't care if they are coeducational, I don't care if the women have to cover their heads or wear veils or walk around in spacesuits. Just get them educated.

Google the Central Asia Project. This fellow in Montana had a mountain-climbing accident in some remote area in the Middle East and was stuck there for a few months seeing that life first hand. He came home and has devoted his life to helping the kind strangers who took him in and nursed him back to health despite their abject poverty: by building schools for their girls.

To date the project has built more than fifty schools in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other countries that we consider hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. They are either co-ed or girls-only, but they all accept female students.

This is not just a dream, it speaks to a very practical concern. In many Muslim countries there is no effective public education network. Poor families who want to send their kids to school have only one choice: the thinly disguised terrorist training camps established and financed by... wait for it... our dearest friends, our president's hand-holding daisy-strolling soul mates, the House of Saud. People who are not politically opinionated, or who even have pro-American sentiments, have no choice for their children's education except these SS scout camps. And of course they only accept boys, so the girl children of less prosperous families have no opportunity for education at all.

The presence of women always inspires men to behave in a more civilized fashion. That's the reason that college fraternities with their degrading initiation rites--like Bush's "Skull and Bones"--are segregated by sex. That's why the military doesn't want women, and certainly not in combat where men are expected to act like perverted little boys who were raised without mothers. But this is just an extra bonus. Educated women are a powerful force in civilization. I'm not saying they're any better than we are, I'm just saying that a balance of masculine and feminine energy is healthier than what we've been limping along on for the past seven or eight thousand years.

The Central Asia Project gets by on far less than a hundred million dollars a year. Just imagine what it could do with several thousand times as much money.

thedevilsreject

I don't really think the idea of building a moonbase is a bad one :-( Why do you say it is?

Also I don't think bombing the middle-east with neutron bombs is a bad idea, it would obliterate all organic life leaving behind their stuff. This can only help to get rid of them. It's gonna happen anyways :_P

you've lost your goddamn mind! do you know how cold the winters got for me? literally freezing! you could leave a glass of water in my room when I went to bed, and it would be frozen by morning. I didn't see anybody lining up to help me.And why should they? They all thought the government was taking care of it. Nevermind that the government is as inefficient at charity as it is at everything else.

There are two good things about charity, generosity on the part of the giver and gratitude on the part of the recipient. When the goverment is involved generosity is replaced by armed robbery and gratitude is replaced by entitlement. The government ruins charity. It could be done more efficiently and ethically if done privately.

-Dale

thedevilsreject

I don't really think the idea of building a moonbase is a bad one :-( Why do you say it is?

Also I don't think bombing the middle-east with neutron bombs is a bad idea, it would obliterate all organic life leaving behind their stuff. This can only help to get rid of them. It's gonna happen anyways :_P

1.) i meant 4
2.) that response shows what a tool you are, that you justify with that

I would take the 1.3 trillion in various wealth redistribution programs, double the war spending, and give a 1 trillion dollar tax cut.

-Dale

Haha. That's priceless. Thanks for the chuckle.

Oh. Wait.

That's actually a good idea!


For the most expensive and failed war ever waged, see: War on Poverty. Number two would be: War on Drugs.

no they are not, the rich let the poor rot in the slumsYour class-envy rhetoric does not stack up to reality (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm):

"Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. "

Americans are generous, they take better care of their poor than the rest of the world takes care of their middle class. That is not to say that true poverty does not exist in the US but it is usually temporary and it is actually quite uncommon.

-Dale

I would have spent the 311 Billion on research to find solutions for replacing the three biggest tech dinosaurs.

1. The internal combustion engine.
2. The incandescent light bulb.
3. The baseboard heater.

I also like Billy's idea of making higher university education free...as long as the student can score 80%+ on the prerequisites.

'what would you have spent $300B+ on? '

Pants! I've never got enough pants and that 300bill would come in handy for that.

"Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
so maybe those people should not get as much government aid. I think our social policies need to be reformed, but by no means drop them all together.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
that is a useless statistic. European cities are, on average, crowded.

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
in America, a car is not a luxury, its a necessity. like the above statistic, America does not have as many densely populated areas. when both parents must work to make ends meet, they both need a car.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. "
useless statistic.

Americans are generous, they take better care of their poor than the rest of the world takes care of their middle class. That is not to say that true poverty does not exist in the US but it is usually temporary and it is actually quite uncommon.
it is far from uncommon. I don't know where you grew up, but you need to take off the blinders. Americans may be generous, and our social policies may need to be reformed, but dropping them would cause chaos.

Americans may be generous, and our social policies may need to be reformed, but dropping them would cause chaos.I am not advocating dropping them "cold turkey". That would indeed cause chaos. But I believe that it would be possible to have a smooth gradual transition from government charity to private charity.

-Dale

I would donate it to the Communist Party of Cuba.

...we are spending $300,000,000,000 (thats 3x10^11) on a war than many believe to be useless. so I ask you, what else could we have spent the money on?
Eliminating teacher unions and bureaucrat curriculum coordinators -- giving our fellow citizens real world educations whereby each is able to recognize value other than self-esteem.

Eliminating teacher unions and bureaucrat curriculum coordinators -- giving our fellow citizens real world educations whereby each is able to recognize value other than self-esteem.Yes! Let's bust up those teachers unions and get some low paid labor in asap! :rolleyes: In KC at least upper middle class and wealthy school districts perform well above average, inner city schools and areas with a low tax base do poorly. You get what you pay for. Teachers are underpaid if anything. Leave it to a tighty righty to yearn for minumum wage educators. :rolleyes:

Yes! Let's bust up those teachers unions and get some low paid labor in asap! :rolleyes:
Why pay too much for too little?

Why do lefties complain that minimum wagers are underpaid if all the overpaid teachers are capable of over-performing, thereby turning out over-performing graduates able to compete for higher-than-minimum wage jobs?

Hmm?
Leave it to a tighty righty to yearn for minumum wage educators. :rolleyes:
Leave it to a minimum wager to chest thump -- oblivious to the humor of the situation.

bullet train mass trans system that spreads across the country andor alternative fuel research

Why do lefties complain that minimum wagers are underpaid if all the overpaid teachers are capable of over-performing, thereby turning out over-performing graduates able to compete for higher-than-minimum wage jobs?
I think you messed this statement up. in the above statement, you support the raising of teacher salary because it will produce higher performance in the graduates.

why not spend $100B on a study of exactly what makes students learn best, and spend $200B implementing it? surely that is enough money to make a huge difference, as long as you make sure you are treating the problem, and not the symptoms.

I would have spent the 311 Billion on research to find solutions for replacing the three biggest tech dinosaurs.
1. The internal combustion engine.
2. The incandescent light bulb.
3. The baseboard heater.
I also like Billy's idea of making higher university education free...as long as the student can score 80%+ on the prerequisites.Glad you like my idea.
On (1):
The ICE is subject to Carnot cycle limits (actually considerable more stringent ones as it is not a Carnot cycle) but light weight and relatively cheap (uses iron, not copper and high quality magnetic alloys as electric motors do, not to mention the battery cost and disposal pollution problems). Thus, it is OK with me except for only very minor modifications are required for alcohol fuel and essentially zero research needed - just steal from technology Brazil has developed for alcohol fuel ICE.
On (2):
Here by Libertarian tendencies will be exposed. In some thread I suggested that if the time to return of investment was less than 1/%, where % is the average interest rate on the 30 year bond (averaged over last 1/% years) then government should not be allowed to spend tax payers money on that research - leave it to private industry. Just to be clear with numerical example, assume % = 0.05, then 1/% = 20 years. fortunately private industry is in the processes of getting rid of the inefficient incandescent light bulb. It has already commercialized florescent bulbs that screw into the old incandescent sockets and I think in less than a decade even these will be replaced by still more efficient and much longer lasting solid state light sources. -No government funds needed - they would probably just delay the progress in this area.
On(3):
This is one of the few things 100% efficient and cheap. Certainly heat pumps are more efficient and to be preferred, despite their grater initial cost and need for more working fluid at disgusting frequent intervals. They are not directly polluting in any way, as the fluid leaking heat pump is and certainly much less so than the oil furnace. Nuclear powered base board heaters could reduce oil needs significantly as well as pollution. They occupy little space, can last essentially for ever, require no government development funds.

Why not spend money on establishing an AEC that was primarily concerned with nuclear power plant safety instead? The French have a good model to follow and get about 85% of the electric power that way, even after exporting considerable to Germany etc: They do not let a bunch of technically ignorant business school graduates specify how the power plant control room should uniquely look inside. Instead, France requires that they all be essentially the same so, if there is a problem developing, the experts called in do not need to spend hours learning where and what each control and dial does etc. (Shades of Three Mile Island do not occur in France.) All French reactors are of only a few, government researched designs, set up for safety first, not profits, and not result of the unique and untested low-bidder contract, as in US. I could go on, but stop here as point is nuclear power can be very safe, if safety replaces profit motive in the reactor design and control systems. Then base board heaters are a very advanced, low cost heating technology.

Why not spend money on establishing an AEC that was primarily concerned with nuclear power plant safety instead? The French have a good model to follow and get about 85% of the electric power that way, even after exporting considerable to Germany etc:


All French reactors are of only a few, government researched designs, set up for safety first, not profits, and not result of the unique and untested low-bidder contract, as in US. I could go on, but stop here as point is nuclear power can be very safe, if safety replaces profit motive in the reactor design and control systems. Then base board heaters are a very advanced, low cost heating technology.

I have plugged the french model of nuclear in my e-mails to the Canadian government recently...Ontario is trying to decide at the moment whether to build new Canadian designed reactors (Candu), or opt for the French design. We need a lot more power and wind isn't going to cut it.

The thing I like about the french system is that it refines the radioactive waste products so that some percentage can be reused, leaving only mildly radioactive elements (that are dangerous for less than one hundred years) for storage in underground chambers.

The reason I included baseboard heaters as a classic tech clunker is because I use them in my own place, and they are much more expensive to operate than oil or gas. We need a better way of translating electricity into heat that will make it economically viable.

I've been looking into these new convection heaters as a substitute:
www.eheat.us

http://www.eheat.us/images/heatcirculation2.jpg
yeah, couse you don't want all that warm air down by your feet, its put to much better use 2 feet above your head =]

sorry, had to be an ass.

I think it would be a better idea to just use less heat, or change your fuel. pellet stoves I guess are pretty cheap, although I have not really looked into it.

http://www.eheat.us/images/heatcirculation2.jpg
yeah, couse you don't want all that warm air down by your feet, its put to much better use 2 feet above your head
Well that diagram is deceiving huh. The panels aren't THAT big, and are placed as close to the floor as possible, so the convecting heat is flowing into the room around about 2 feet off the floor.

The ICE is subject to Carnot cycle limits (actually considerable more stringent ones as it is not a Carnot cycle) but light weight and relatively cheap (uses iron, not copper and high quality magnetic alloys as electric motors do, not to mention the battery cost and disposal pollution problems). Thus, it is OK with me except for only very minor modifications are required for alcohol fuel and essentially zero research needed - just steal from technology Brazil has developed for alcohol fuel ICE.
Recently I listened to a podcast from a science site with some energy expert being interviewed, and the guy asking the questions brought up your often sited idea about how it would be a lot cheaper to import ethanol from brazil.

There was a pause, and then the expert (can't remember his name) said something like, "Can you imagine the howling and shrieking in congress if that was seriously considered?" That was his only response.

The ICE, regardless of whatever it burns, is very primitive. Its expensive to run, noisy, and polluting. Using electricity to move things is cheap, quiet and clean, but of course the motor isn't the problem, its the batteries.

The ICE will be defeated eventually by better batteries/capacitors.

...Ontario is trying to decide at the moment whether to build new Canadian designed reactors (Candu), or opt for the French design...I no longer remember why (perhaps it uses ordinary water, not heavy water, in the reactor, or is inherently safer?) but years ago I thought the Candu design much better than those the US was using.

...The ICE will be defeated eventually by better batteries/capacitors.I think there is a good chance you are correct on this, but doubt I will live long enought to see it. I have been having discussion with new member My_Name_Steve who for reasons I can not get him to clearly state seems to think the electric hybrid is a necessary step towards the 100% alcohol car. I think that that is just backwards - you have it correct. Alcohol may be the path to a liquid fuel more rapid charge battery/ capacitor hybrid car.

yeah, I would also. it probably would not even cost that much though.

"The legislation would cost the federal government an estimated $50 billion to $60 billion annually for the first several years."
source (http://www.gooznews.com/archives/000463.html)
Please. Those estimates are always way off. They lowball it to get it passed. Some examples:
Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion
Estimate Dwarfs Bush's Original Price Tag http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html
And that was just to add a drug benefit to a small portion of the population! You claim nationalized health care could be completely paid for with only 300 billion?
Medicare spending has grown at substantially higher rates over its 40-year history. Program spending on a per capita basis has grown about twice as fast as GDP per capita since 1980. Using a growth rate in line with historical experience through 2040 and assuming much slower growth in spending subsequently, the government's unfunded liability amounts to $21.9 trillion.[13] That is about double the size of the U.S. economy this year.

As large as those figures are, they do not capture the full magnitude of Medicare's financial crisis. In addition to the new drug benefit, Medicare Parts A and B are also underfunded. According to the trustees, the entire Medicare program falls short by some $61.6 trillion in today's dollars.[14] http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21993/pub_detail.asp
So you see, we can't even afford the limited nationalized healthcare we have now, let alone putting the rest of the country on the dole.

It would go a very long way to giving clean water to everyone in the world--that would be a good start.

All 300 billion will go into research for a new energy source that can replace fossil fuels.



All outcome of the research will be patent free. Or since americans steal everything the outcome will be patented and the right given to anyone to use it for free.

Why pay too much for too little?

Why do lefties complain that minimum wagers are underpaid if all the overpaid teachers are capable of over-performing, thereby turning out over-performing graduates able to compete for higher-than-minimum wage jobs?

Hmm?

Leave it to a minimum wager to chest thump -- oblivious to the humor of the situation.Shall we go 3rd World style and lower wages for all but pink corporate monkeys and make sure there are only very poor and a few rich parasites profiting on their labor like in the early 1900's? I pull in 30k at my job per year after taxes so I am paid above $5 an hour. No American citizen should be paid under $12 an hour. Leave it to a high school wannabe richboy to bash his own people. :rolleyes:

Shall we go 3rd World style and lower wages for all but pink corporate monkeys and make sure there are only very poor and a few rich parasites profiting on their labor like in the early 1900's?
It's the Land of Opportunity, dude.

You'd don't have to be a slave to the Man. You can choose to be a Green Master.

If you've got the nuts for it.
I pull in 30k at my job per year after taxes so I am paid above $5 an hour.
Still just Slave wages. Go self-employed. Some of us saw that payscale three decades ago.
No American citizen should be paid under $12 an hour.
No American citizen should be paid more than their own worth in the free market.
Leave it to a high school wannabe richboy to bash his own people. :rolleyes:
So, why are you hounding my ass?

Here. It's all the pocket change I have on me. Do good with it.

you are clearly wrong Mr. G, just give it up. there is no way we should drop the minimum wage. if you drop the minimum wage, welfare would skyrocket. some people are stuck in bad situations, and have no choice but to work for minimum wage. those people would just become welfare Dependants. if you drop welfare, they will starve.

you are clearly wrong Mr. G, just give it up. there is no way we should drop the minimum wage. if you drop the minimum wage, welfare would skyrocket. some people are stuck in bad situations, and have no choice but to work for minimum wage. those people would just become welfare Dependants. if you drop welfare, they will starve.
Isn't it repulsive that so many tighty righties assume every citizen that isn't wealthy is some sort of human garbage? 3% is the amount of welfare fraud there is in the program according to an article I saw a few years ago. What is the Bush/Halliburton/contractor fraud amount at now? Do they think all that work lower paying jobs are less human than they? Less deserving of life? The right wants a subclass of serfs to replace better paid workers, explaining conservative love for outsourcing. Soon, with enough REpublican wins the search for 3rd World labor will finally end as millions of impoverished, unemployed Americans line up outside their factories/mansions and plead for 2cents an hour. They built that system once and their dream is to dust it off and breath life into it again. Bust unions, erase health coverage, delete benefits, extend the 40 hour workweek, cut wages, lower the minimum wage, eradicate welfare and unemployment insurance, job training and safe working conditions and continue building their massive police state to protect their stolen wealth and to keep the dirty masses under their jackboots. We're all cannon fodder to the ruling elite, soon enough it will be too late to stand up to them.

so much hate.i think its because people are jealous of other people succes.

so much hate.i think its because people are jealous of other people succes.Yep. Wealth achieved by exploiting workers is not success. It's theft and the role of a parasite. Not something to admire or emulate.

Yep. Wealth achieved by exploiting workers is not success. It's theft and the role of a parasite. Not something to admire or emulate.
if someone achieved that by exploitin that is surely wrong,but if he did in a honest way like some people i know and is providing people with products they need whats wrong with that?not all employees are being exploited.

there are rich people who infact started as poor people.

you are clearly wrong Mr. G, just give it up.
Beggers can't be choosers. Sorry.
there is no way we should drop the minimum wage. if you drop the minimum wage, welfare would skyrocket. some people are stuck in bad situations, and have no choice but to work for minimum wage. those people would just become welfare Dependants. if you drop welfare, they will starve.
Value given for value received.

If you can't support yourself, why should you expect anyone else to be obligated to see to their own needs and to your's, too?

Why does your personal failure automatically obligate everyone else to make up for your own incompetence?