total anarci 2 purge da week!!!!!!1

shill

The real question is how many people are going to spend a long period of time as the wealthiest 1%, 10%, 20% etc. And while people are indeed richer today than in the past, I'm generally a person who believes that too much inequality is a bad thing, and leads to total domination by a specific group, which in turn leads to an elimination of democracy.

So you're just an edgy teen?

Just like us?

Just like us?

I'm 27 you shill

I know you're a teen, kike.

Edited 5/15/2016 03:21:22

I am a teenager, but wouldn't consider myself edgy. Secondly, since when does age impact how someone views the world?(I happen to know a person who is in their late 50s, and has an almost identical ideology to me. We basically only disagree on the issue of total legalization of all drugs. I am for legalizing and taxing ones that are in prevalent use, and banning the others, he is in favor of legalizing and taxing all of them)

Skipped everything. Anyway, if everyone is well-to-do, no one would want to do shit jobs, and we would be fucked. We need low wages to keep poor people from having a bunch of kids they can't get to college. We also need to get rid of welfare for having kids. Make the population decrease as we approach the point where robots take the poor people's jobs. Inequality isn't bad; if the rich have more per capita power than the poor, so what? If the poor care, they can get together and overcome it through numbers, if they don't, even better. The rich are smarter and more educated; the founders realized that. That's why we have an Electoral College and Senators elected by state legislatures, except now lefties have made both of those disappear and given more power to the masses.

Bernie quit actiling like a toddler man up taco bell hmmmmmm..
Hilllary your a tight virgin flower eh whaaa ya rigggggh ...
Class Warfaree tgere should be none but we should take care of the poor and disableddd yes
Immigrants have more opportunity in this country an more sympathy than citizens
if people are poor they should not be stereling from the rich becauseee them and
...there parents have plen ty of oppportunitey to have made money 98% of the time
u reap what u sow

I'm wapo by choice and I luv poor grammer mmmmmm
I'mm also a famousss vikingg troll and I eat 4 poundsss of beef a day. MMMMMM wapo dis shittt

The rich are smarter and more educated
Well they may be more educated because ya know they could actually afford to pay for it. Secondly, not always true, there are some fairly intelligent poor people that are now fleeing the country for places like Germany to get a good education as they cannot afford college in the US, which is reducing the talent pool here. Also rich people can be pretty stupid: basically name some sports star.
We need low wages to keep poor people from having a bunch of kids they can't get to college.
We actually have colleges closing due to a lack of enrollement, and happen to have a decreasing native population. Your suggestion would result in even more immigrants into the US, more closing of colleges.
Anyway, if everyone is well-to-do, no one would want to do shit jobs, and we would be fucked.
Most of those jobs would probably be taken over by either robots, or immigrants. They are currently being taken over mostly by immigrants and people new to the workforce, as most people are unwilling to do such jobs
We also need to get rid of welfare for having kids. Native population is still decreasing despite this welfare, and secondly raising children is expensive, so it makes sense to have the community chip in a bit to help cover the cost.
Inequality isn't bad; if the rich have more per capita power than the poor, so what? If the poor care, they can get together and overcome it through numbers, if they don't, even better. Well, you can welcome the Russian revolution, the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, and many more to your front door. Also, there is a correlation between inequality and crime rate: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-01-06/want-to-fight-crime-address-economic-inequality
the founders realized that. That's why we have an Electoral College and Senators elected by state legislatures, except now lefties have made both of those disappear and given more power to the masses. And now I can officially brand you as a proponent of the oligarchy of the Rich.

The ruling class in America has successfully tricked most folk into hating corporations and the rich , and now have a good base of support as long as they use anti-rich stigma to their advantage.

PE's ideology is so backward gosh... He literally plans to give up centuries of evolution and improvement of society, his ideal society is basically the one that existed during feudal Europe: a cast of people rich enough to afford to have some education (the nobility) and 99% of people not having the chance to be part of it and working like slaves and paid peanuts (or nothing at all). Welcome back in the Middle Age!

We actually have colleges closing due to a lack of enrollement

You only posted a link about small colleges closing, which is probably happening since university in America is now lowered to nothing but brands, in which small universities don't really have.

Your suggestion would result in even more immigrants into the US

No, it wouldn't, and "at worst", you can just bar all immigration.

Well, you can welcome the Russian revolution, the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, and many more to your front door.

These are all a while ago. In the 1800s, it was still ok to talk about Africans and Indians as if they weren't fully human, it was still ok to be racist, many countries still had slavery, and most folk didn't have a healthy diet and poor folk starved. Today, there's Africa, filled with income disparity and starvation, and instability, just wield newer exemples.

Russian revolution, started by some protestors in Petrograd after International Woman's Day marches. Their trouble was that there was little rye bread imported (mostly thanks to organised leftist work union rail work strikes), and there were rumours spread about by anti-government forces that soon there was going to be bread rations (ironically, which were put into work by the Russian Republic, no plans in the Russian Tsardom). Most Russians actually did not know on what grounds Nikolai II stepped down from the throne, most of Russia was sterling on supplies, and not affected by the war (out of all countries involved in the First World War, Russia had the lowest draft % population, and the lowest death rates amongst the army).

French revolution, taxes on bread.

The 1848 revolutions, I don't know them as well, but seems to be more driven by want of democracy, want of civic freedoms, ending serfdom, and ethnic nationalism more than anything.

Valid points. 1848 also had the fun fact of mass hunger due to mass inequality in Eastern/Central Europe, and it was a Europe-wide revolution(Adverted in Russia due to immediate military put down and mass oppression of the populous, and in Britain, when a liberalizing ministry successfully got through enough measures in a fast enough time to reduce the mass support of Chartism), and generally unsuccessful due to post-revolution fractures across the continent. Otherwise you got the rest of the causes correct, as I understand them. There was mass inequality in the France and Russia before their respective revolutions, while I would agree those acts ignited the revolution, I would argue the revolution was set up by mass inequality in the respective countries that went unaddressed.

You only posted a link about small colleges closing, which is probably happening since university in America is now lowered to nothing but brands, in which small universities don't really have.
Yes, there is a lack of brand issue, but even so I would argue that the lack of brand leads to a lack of enrollment, which leads to them closing. College in the US has generally been a thing of brands, but previously these schools had managed to remain open due to high enough enrollment and tuition costs to cover the costs of providing higher education. That's why I believe that college costs should be reduced, with gov't subsidies to keep these universities functioning, even as tuition goes down.

I didn't read all the text walls before this because I didn't want to, but I'll just throw something out there:
The upper class enable the lower class to work and have a good income, and keep the standard of living up in their country.
If this statement goes against a previous post I didn't read, please point it out in a nutshell so that I can 'feel the bern' or whatever.

Europe-wide revolution(Adverted in Russia due to immediate military put down and mass oppression of the populous, and in Britain, when a liberalizing ministry successfully got through enough measures in a fast enough time to reduce the mass support of Chartism)

Britain had one of the highest living standards in Europe, although this didn't stop some riots against machines and Englishmen. As for Russia, no clue why it didn't happen in 1848, it certainly did a few times later.

College in the US has generally been a thing of brands, but previously these schools had managed to remain open due to high enough enrolment and tuition costs to cover the costs of providing higher education. That's why I believe that college costs should be reduced, with gov't subsidies to keep these universities functioning, even as tuition goes down.

Have you thought about the grounds why it's so expensive now is that already so many folk are joining them that they don't need so many folk and so are economically narrowing their intake by raising prices?

University is not for everyone, anyone, and should never be a need for a job.

Free university for everyone would just further deflate the value of universities in America

Edited 5/17/2016 00:39:16