We're all in this together!

[DanaC]

For clarity by the way, I am not suggesting that their lives have been without trouble or sorrows, or suffering, or fear. David Cameron and his wife suffered probably the harshest pain anybody ever could, when they buried their first child.

But even that becomes tainted when it enters the political arena. Their grief, and their experiences of emergency admissions and sleeping in hospital chairs, and the years of negotiating care for their son. It was offered to us as proof that he could be trusted with the NHS.

Safe in his hands he said. Of all things the NHS was close to his heart he said. Die hard leftie and general cynic that I am when it comes to politics, on that claim, and that alone, I believed him.

And now general practitioners, consultant specialists and hospital administrators, not best known for their collectivist attitudes, have joined with the nurses and other healthcare workers to condemn the scale of change this government is determined to usher through, and the remaining barriers to complete privatisation are being battered away.

Safe in his hands. I dont think so.

[Happy Monkey]

Listen, kid, we're all in it together.

[infinite monkey]

EVERYBODY SING! :snapfingerssmilie:

[Rhianne]

Stormieweather has said everything I'd like to.

[DanaC]

Well, apparently the wealthy do. Thats the problem.

[TheMercenary]

Cool. Define "Wealthy".

[TheMercenary]

So would "Wealthy" be someone who makes 1) $100 a week more than you? 2) $200 a week more than you? 3) $400 a week more than you? 5)$1000 more a week than you? 6) Or someone who just is not on public assistance? 7) for fun... $10,000 more a week than you?

[piercehawkeye45]

How are you suppose to define terms that are completely subjective?

In a civil society, everyone is going to get fucked over one way or another. It just depends on how you look at it.

[TheMercenary]

My point exactly. SO what is "Wealthy"? Because that seems to be the watch word in this day and age. Please define. That seems to be the term that defines those who think they give enough and those that don't.

[classicman]

Is this your senior year - PH45?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Is this your senior year - PH45?

My senior year was two years ago. I am planning on completing my Master's in a month and going to move on to a PhD once that is completed.

I don't mean to come off as an arrogant d-bag (it is largely tone which can be hard to pick up online) but why you ask?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

My point exactly. SO what is "Wealthy"? Because that seems to be the watch word in this day and age. Please define. That seems to be the term that defines those who think they give enough and those that don't.

I know that is your point. I agree that wealthy cannot be defined as 'someone who makes more than me'. Yet, there has to be some benchmark that determines whether someone is wealthy or not in the eyes of the state. A benchmark that both makes practical economic sense (yes that is subjective as well) and will not get people marching with pitchforks. This benchmark is going to end up being completely subjective anyways so trying to find a rational one is pointless.

Honestly, I feel that most of the anger is not against people who make more than them but the feeling that they are disproportionally bearing the load (many possible definitions) while these "other" people are not. The "poor" are just mooching off your tax dollars. The "rich" are just using the law and society to make them money for themselves without paying back. This is not fair but any 'debt solution' must take this feeling into account. The details are not important. What is important is that the "poor" feels like the "rich" are going to pay more in taxes and the "rich" need to feel that the "poor" are not mooching off their tax dollars. It is more symbolic than anything.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I know that is your point. I agree that wealthy cannot be defined as 'someone who makes more than me'.

Cool, define it. TO date no one can do it.

Yet, there has to be some benchmark that determines whether someone is wealthy or not in the eyes of the state.

In a Free Market Economy the "State" has no legal or Constitutional Right to define it.

A benchmark that both makes practical economic sense (yes that is subjective as well) and will not get people marching with pitchforks. This benchmark is going to end up being completely subjective anyways so trying to find a rational one is pointless.

Well, sort of depends doesn't it? Homeless dude with no income teamed up with the disgruntled Anarchist who went to Harvard and can't pay his educational degree in French Lit off.... who is more worthy?

Honestly, I feel that most of the anger is not against people who make more than them

Not how the press is making it out to be...

...but the feeling that they are disproportionally bearing the load (many possible definitions) while these "other" people are not.

Great, define it in quantifiable terms that can be measured and studied for validity.......

The "poor" are just mooching off your tax dollars. The "rich" are just using the law and society to make them money for themselves without paying back. This is not fair but any 'debt solution' must take this feeling into account. The details are not important. What is important is that the "poor" feels like the "rich" are going to pay more in taxes and the "rich" need to feel that the "poor" are not mooching off their tax dollars. It is more symbolic than anything.

What is really "symbolic" here is the idea that the "poor" exists.... Bull shit.... fucking DEFINE IT!. "This is not Fair"... fucking someone define "FAIR". "Feeling" My ass. Where in our Constitution is shit defined as "Fair"? This is totally manufactured BS for a collective re-election campaign. And guess what? In 4 years the poor will still be poor, and the disadvantaged will still be disadvantaged..... It is fucking Kabuki Theater....

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Cool, define it. TO date no one can do it.

???

Of course no one can define 'wealthy' because it is entirely subjective. It means something completely different to a middle class American, lower class American, and piss poor Somali. Yet, you can't just use that to justify throwing away tax brackets all together (or whatever point you are trying to make).

What is your overall point BTW?

Originally Posted by classicman

YW - PhD eh .... We'll have to call you Dr. soon enough.

I've already "allowed" my friends and family to call me Doctor. None have taken up on the offer yet. Not sure why....

Your timing sounds perfect too - the job market should start picking up in 4-6 years too.

Yeah. It largely depends on the field. I wasn't in a good position two years ago (Structural engineering was shit) but my goal is to make myself marketable enough that I will get a job no matter how bad the economy is doing.

[classicman]

No reason really - I kinda thought/remembered that you were close to graduating
I just effed up the masters part. Congrats!