[quote]pittbulll wrote:
America can hold her own when it comes to poverty
[/quote]
Come on man…
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Its no suprise when I say I like Sanders the most of the current crop of candidates and it is perhaps a futile excercise to argue for Sanders on this forum, but fuck it I feel like Don Quixote today.
First let me try to ease your minds my socialistphobic brethren when it comes to Sanders’s socialist label. If you listen to what he says and his policy proposals, the man is much more of a Keynes, than a Marx. He is not calling for the expropriation of all private property over the means of production and the end of capitalism, but are rather proposing a more progressive tax system and more government spending within a capitalist framework. I know this ain’t glad tidings for conservatives, but it makes him more of a tax and spend liberal, than the second coming of Stalin. In a sense is his message kinda “reactionary” in so far that he is calling for a return to the “liberal consensus” of the 50’s. 60’s and 70’s.( Offcourse without segregration, the cold war etc ). One can say that his message in some way is the mirror image of the tea-party movement with its call’s for a return to the “golden days” of the founding of your country.
Secondly his main cause is anti-corruption rather than class-warfare. He rightly warns about the growing influence of money in the political sphere and how its influence are transforming your democratic republic into a plutocratic republic. Last time I checked it was the classical-liberalist’s who first championed democracy and republicanism over autocracy and monarchism. And on this issue he is not only talking the talk, but he also walks the walk. He has refused to take money from Super Pac’s and most of his contributions are from regular voters( average contribution is roughly 40$ ) and labor unions( btw union are not big money compared to huge corporations ). You might disagree with him on 99% of the issues, but thats more one can say of Hillary who also have voiced concern over the citizens united ruling while she at the same time is saturated in corporate money.
Thirdly he is dead right on income inequality. Now some will say this is pure class-warfare and pandering, but the reality is that the class-war is allready here and the working class( or middle-class and working family’s as Sanders says ) is loosing and have been for a long time( to paraprhase Warren Buffet ). Now his policy proposals to combat this is anti-etical to what most here believes, but atleast he have some proposals. Offcourse some of the GOP candidates have also given lip-service to this problem, but no real solutions. The fact is that the only solution to combating income inequality is taxing the rich more and increase spending directed at poor people. Now if you dont give a shit about income inequality, then you can keep on arguing for less taxes( or a more regressive tax system ) and less public spending directed against the poor and still be consistent. But to pretend to care, but offer no solutions is just disgusting.
Fourthly he seems more genuin and less coached than the typical politician. Now this is probably what Countingbeans is calling “voting with your feelings” rather than your intellect and I agree that this kinds of factors should be at the bottom of the list for why you vote for someone. Still compared to especially Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, Bernie comes off as an actual human, while they come off as trained dogs. I can add I think Jeb Bush comes off as a human too( So I am not 100% partisan, only 99,9% ).
I know I am not making any friends here for posting this, but one positive Sanders post in here will not end the world.
Btw: I hope Beans prediction is right, but I doubt it Bernie wins.
ps. I am not an American citizen and cannot vote in this race, but are watching from the outside and finds it fascinating.
[/quote]
Well written and articulated. Our political ideologies share little in common, can see where you are coming from and share some one your concerns, especially concerning the widening income inequality.
[/quote]
Thank you Jeaton.[/quote]
I think that goes for me as well–i always like reading your posts because even though i usually don’t agree with anything you said, you present things in a civil, unassuming, and clear way so i can see where you’re coming from and get a different perspective. nice post.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would like to take you Beans on a tor of Phx AZ underbelly , where you can bask in the luxury the poor live in:)
[/quote]
Yes, and you can come up here and I’ll show you the same bullshit.
Then, when you’re done with you youtube videos about chronic homeless in AZ, why don’t you post some of the squalor in about 160 other countries where the vast majority of populations live in conditions much worse than anything you’ve link thus far.
Your perspective, as always, sucks massive cocks. [/quote]
You suck massive cock and take it in the ass too 
now that we got that out of the way .
Arizona is probably the hub for the homeless , especially in the winter . I have been to countries that were supposed to be inferior but they were not . America can hold her own when it comes to poverty
[/quote]
Makes me wonder how many of them are illegal aliens. They come across the border expecting to be taken care of the rest of their lives (and Obama is really trying hard to make that a reality) and suddenly they are impoverished much like they were in Mexico.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You see taking someone’s money who earned it and deserves it and handing it over to someone who did not earn it and does not deserve it is immoral.
[/quote]
Yeah… I’ve never seen a good explanation of this…
Why is it moral to use the threat of violence (men with guns, prison) to take what one person earns? What is moral about that?
Is a bank robber moral? How about a home invader? The mafia crew that forces your participation in their neighborhood “protection” program?
Why is it when government does these things they are moral?
[/quote]
Because the government taking is done with your consent, and the others are not.
C’mon. Libertarianism doesn’t have to be nihilism about basic democratic government. Again, c’mon. Taxation isn’t theft.
I think Jeb’s approach is to be the last man standing in a crowded field. I think he expects others to flame out at some point, and he will be the safe, sensible choice.
It’s not a bad strategy, given his competitors. They all have major weaknesses, and sitting on all his money, time is in Jeb’s side.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You see taking someone’s money who earned it and deserves it and handing it over to someone who did not earn it and does not deserve it is immoral.
[/quote]
Yeah… I’ve never seen a good explanation of this…
Why is it moral to use the threat of violence (men with guns, prison) to take what one person earns? What is moral about that?
Is a bank robber moral? How about a home invader? The mafia crew that forces your participation in their neighborhood “protection” program?
Why is it when government does these things they are moral?
[/quote]
Because the government taking is done with your consent, and the others are not.
C’mon. Libertarianism doesn’t have to be nihilism about basic democratic government. Again, c’mon. Taxation isn’t theft.
[/quote]
Oh I have no issue with paying my taxes, and no issue with our progressive taxation system. In fact I prefer it to a flat tax in a lot of ways, however a lot fo states of flat tax, and it’s got it’s ups and downs.
I was speaking more towards Flor’s post. He’s a collectivist. In a republic, in a nation where individuals have protected rights, and can own their property, be it land or capital, taxation is fine. In a nation of “from each of their ability to each of their need” where individuals have no rights, and can’t own their capital, taxation is theft. (Well, your entire life is stolen from you, but that’s another post.)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think Jeb’s approach is to be the last man standing in a crowded field. I think he expects others to flame out at some point, and he will be the safe, sensible choice.
It’s not a bad strategy, given his competitors. They all have major weaknesses, and sitting on all his money, time is in Jeb’s side.[/quote]
That’s a pretty good call TB. The only danger in doing that however is that one of those “weaker” candidates might catch fire during the primary season thus pushing Jeb out of the number one spot. Then a horse race ensues.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Your perspective, as always, sucks massive cocks. [/quote]
You suck massive cock and take it in the ass too now that we got that out of the way .
[/quote]
Welcome back.
You here through the election or what?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You see taking someone’s money who earned it and deserves it and handing it over to someone who did not earn it and does not deserve it is immoral.
[/quote]
Yeah… I’ve never seen a good explanation of this…
Why is it moral to use the threat of violence (men with guns, prison) to take what one person earns? What is moral about that?
Is a bank robber moral? How about a home invader? The mafia crew that forces your participation in their neighborhood “protection” program?
Why is it when government does these things they are moral?
[/quote]
Because the government taking is done with your consent, and the others are not.
C’mon. Libertarianism doesn’t have to be nihilism about basic democratic government. Again, c’mon. Taxation isn’t theft.
[/quote]
Oh I have no issue with paying my taxes, and no issue with our progressive taxation system. In fact I prefer it to a flat tax in a lot of ways, however a lot fo states of flat tax, and it’s got it’s ups and downs.
I was speaking more towards Flor’s post. He’s a collectivist. In a republic, in a nation where individuals have protected rights, and can own their property, be it land or capital, taxation is fine. In a nation of “from each of their ability to each of their need” where individuals have no rights, and can’t own their capital, taxation is theft. (Well, your entire life is stolen from you, but that’s another post.)[/quote]
If you read my post, it was perfectly clear I was talking about how to combat income inequality with in the current system( a republic where people have property rights ) and not how to combat the problem with in what you think my ideal-society are( a collectivst hell-hole where the population are stripped of their basic rights ). So Thunderbolt’s post is relevant to our discussion and dear I say spot on.
It’s fine to hold the belief that taxes are theft if you are consistent( meaning that you are a anarcho-capitalist ), but to use it as an argument when you are not actually in favor of repealing all taxes is inconsistent and dishonest. It’s nothing more than a cheap talking point. The american revolutionary’s slogan was “No taxes without representation” and not “No taxes ever under any circumstances”.
Btw: Thank you Aragorn, means alot coming from a upstanding guy like you and ditto.
Edited.
[quote]florelius wrote:
It’s fine to hold the belief that taxes are theft if you are consistent( meaning that you are a anarcho-capitalist ), but to use it as an argument when you are not actually in favor of repealing all taxes is inconsistent and dishonest. It’s nothing more than a cheap talking point. The american revolutionary’s slogan was “No taxes without representation” and not “No taxes ever under any circumstances”. [/quote]
And my position is no different than theirs.
In a governmental system where the people have their rights protected and can own and direct their own property, taxation isn’t theft, as it pays for the government that protects their rights, and allows them use of their property, along with protects them, and in modern society, facilitates some common services that are simpler if administered by the government. (Plowing, street service, trash pickup, so on and so forth.)
In a government system where the individual has no protected rights, owns not his or her own capital and can’t direct the use and flow of property, there is no representation, only oppression. Therefore taxation is theft, but like I said, one’s entire life has been stolen by the government/“common good”/society anyway, so what is 40% of your income in the end?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
It’s fine to hold the belief that taxes are theft if you are consistent( meaning that you are a anarcho-capitalist ), but to use it as an argument when you are not actually in favor of repealing all taxes is inconsistent and dishonest. It’s nothing more than a cheap talking point. The american revolutionary’s slogan was “No taxes without representation” and not “No taxes ever under any circumstances”. [/quote]
And my position is no different than theirs.
In a governmental system where the people have their rights protected and can own and direct their own property, taxation isn’t theft, as it pays for the government that protects their rights, and allows them use of their property, along with protects them, and in modern society, facilitates some common services that are simpler if administered by the government. (Plowing, street service, trash pickup, so on and so forth.)
In a government system where the individual has no protected rights, owns not his or her own capital and can’t direct the use and flow of property, there is no representation, only oppression. Therefore taxation is theft, but like I said, one’s entire life has been stolen by the government/“common good”/society anyway, so what is 40% of your income in the end?
[/quote]
And since this discussion is about a system where people have rights( the actual existing system in your country right now ), then I guess we can agree that taxation is not theft in that context.
Edited.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
It’s fine to hold the belief that taxes are theft if you are consistent( meaning that you are a anarcho-capitalist ), but to use it as an argument when you are not actually in favor of repealing all taxes is inconsistent and dishonest. It’s nothing more than a cheap talking point. The american revolutionary’s slogan was “No taxes without representation” and not “No taxes ever under any circumstances”. [/quote]
And my position is no different than theirs.
In a governmental system where the people have their rights protected and can own and direct their own property, taxation isn’t theft, as it pays for the government that protects their rights, and allows them use of their property, along with protects them, and in modern society, facilitates some common services that are simpler if administered by the government. (Plowing, street service, trash pickup, so on and so forth.)
In a government system where the individual has no protected rights, owns not his or her own capital and can’t direct the use and flow of property, there is no representation, only oppression. Therefore taxation is theft, but like I said, one’s entire life has been stolen by the government/“common good”/society anyway, so what is 40% of your income in the end?
[/quote]
And since this discussion is about a system where people have rights( the actual existing system in your country right now ), then I guess we can agree that taxation is not theft in that context.
Edited.
[/quote]
Okay, fine.
What is immoral about a person keeping what they earn?
What is moral about the government requiring a minority of people to pay for the representation enjoyed by all?
You said income inequality was a moral issue, and at the very least insinuated one that government could solve. SO, how’s it do it?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
It’s fine to hold the belief that taxes are theft if you are consistent( meaning that you are a anarcho-capitalist ), but to use it as an argument when you are not actually in favor of repealing all taxes is inconsistent and dishonest. It’s nothing more than a cheap talking point. The american revolutionary’s slogan was “No taxes without representation” and not “No taxes ever under any circumstances”. [/quote]
And my position is no different than theirs.
In a governmental system where the people have their rights protected and can own and direct their own property, taxation isn’t theft, as it pays for the government that protects their rights, and allows them use of their property, along with protects them, and in modern society, facilitates some common services that are simpler if administered by the government. (Plowing, street service, trash pickup, so on and so forth.)
In a government system where the individual has no protected rights, owns not his or her own capital and can’t direct the use and flow of property, there is no representation, only oppression. Therefore taxation is theft, but like I said, one’s entire life has been stolen by the government/“common good”/society anyway, so what is 40% of your income in the end?
[/quote]
And since this discussion is about a system where people have rights( the actual existing system in your country right now ), then I guess we can agree that taxation is not theft in that context.
Edited.
[/quote]
Okay, fine.
What is immoral about a person keeping what they earn?
What is moral about the government requiring a minority of people to pay for the representation enjoyed by all?
You said income inequality was a moral issue, and at the very least insinuated one that government could solve. SO, how’s it do it?
[/quote]
The moral principle underlying my position on inequality is perhaps best summed up with a statement made by the Norwegain prime minister Einar Gerhardsen( He was PM after world war 2 ):
“No one should eat cake before everyone has bread”.
[quote]florelius wrote:
The moral principle underlying my position on inequality is perhaps best summed up with a statement made by the Norwegain prime minister Einar Gerhardsen( He was PM after world war 2 ):
“No one should eat cake before everyone has bread”.
[/quote]
And if I’ve earned the ingredients for that cake through the efforts of my own, mixed them and baked the cake on top of a fire I started myself, it is more moral for someone to come and stop me, because someone 2,000 miles away might have missed a meal?
And why should some arbitrary government official get to take my cake, when I could just turn around and give it to a local charity if not for the State in the first place?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
The moral principle underlying my position on inequality is perhaps best summed up with a statement made by the Norwegain prime minister Einar Gerhardsen( He was PM after world war 2 ):
“No one should eat cake before everyone has bread”.
[/quote]
And if I’ve earned the ingredients for that cake through the efforts of my own, mixed them and baked the cake on top of a fire I started myself, it is more moral for someone to come and stop me, because someone 2,000 miles away might have missed a meal?
And why should some arbitrary government official get to take my cake, when I could just turn around and give it to a local charity if not for the State in the first place?[/quote]
LOL
To be clear: The Norwegian government did not send people around stopping people from eating cake untill everyone had bread. The quote simply expresses a sentiment I agree with and that I think should be a guiding principle for any society wich strives to be good for all. Now the sentiment is that “we” as a society should be troubled if people are starving, living in missery etc while others are living in exccess. It’s a sentiment that should be a part of the concept of a social contract, or atleast Gerhardsen thought so and so do I.
In practical politics this sentiment can manifest itself through a progressive tax system, public pensions, public education, public health care, disability and unemployment benefits, workers rights etc. Gerhardsens statement is the underlying logic of the nordic welfare model so to speak.
Hope that answered your question.
Edited.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
The moral principle underlying my position on inequality is perhaps best summed up with a statement made by the Norwegain prime minister Einar Gerhardsen( He was PM after world war 2 ):
“No one should eat cake before everyone has bread”.
[/quote]
And if I’ve earned the ingredients for that cake through the efforts of my own, mixed them and baked the cake on top of a fire I started myself, it is more moral for someone to come and stop me, because someone 2,000 miles away might have missed a meal?
And why should some arbitrary government official get to take my cake, when I could just turn around and give it to a local charity if not for the State in the first place?[/quote]
LOL
To be clear: The Norwegian government did not send people around stopping people from eating cake untill everyone had bread. The quote simply expresses a sentiment I agree with [/quote]
Why do you assume I’m being literal here? Why can’t I also be speaking figuratively?
Fine.
I’m not touching social contract.
Stuff we have here, yet “income inequality is a moral issue that needs to be solved.”
[quote]Hope that answered your question.
Edited.[/quote]
It didn’t, but you know that.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
The moral principle underlying my position on inequality is perhaps best summed up with a statement made by the Norwegain prime minister Einar Gerhardsen( He was PM after world war 2 ):
“No one should eat cake before everyone has bread”.
[/quote]
And if I’ve earned the ingredients for that cake through the efforts of my own, mixed them and baked the cake on top of a fire I started myself, it is more moral for someone to come and stop me, because someone 2,000 miles away might have missed a meal?
And why should some arbitrary government official get to take my cake, when I could just turn around and give it to a local charity if not for the State in the first place?[/quote]
LOL
To be clear: The Norwegian government did not send people around stopping people from eating cake untill everyone had bread. The quote simply expresses a sentiment I agree with and that I think should be a guiding principle for any society wich strives to be good for all. Now the sentiment is that “we” as a society should be troubled if people are starving, living in missery etc while others are living in exccess. It’s a sentiment that should be a part of the concept of a social contract, or atleast Gerhardsen thought so and so do I.
In practical politics this sentiment can manifest itself through a progressive tax system, public pensions, public education, public health care, disability and unemployment benefits, workers rights etc. Gerhardsens statement is the underlying logic of the nordic welfare model so to speak.
Hope that answered your question.
Edited.[/quote]
Do you believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to administer what is or isn’t moral and/or administer morality (in this example, bread for cake)? It’s my understanding that morality rests solely on the individual to act morally and to seek morality through his actions. It is no longer moral if I am compelled to act in a way that one has deemed moral, in which I have no say, as I may not be acting naturally.
Also, to be slightly pedantic and nit-picky, I disagree that the sentiment expressed can manifest itself through public pension and you’ll have to be clear exactly what you mean by “worker’s rights” as that’s a broad term which can encompass a myriad of things. A worker’s right to what exactly? My reasoning behind my disagreement regarding public pension is this implies those receiving the benefits indeed met the predetermined (which is arbitrary) minimum requirements of employment and, thus, contributed to the system of said pension, like an individual retirement account but from a pool.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
The moral principle underlying my position on inequality is perhaps best summed up with a statement made by the Norwegain prime minister Einar Gerhardsen( He was PM after world war 2 ):
“No one should eat cake before everyone has bread”.
[/quote]
And if I’ve earned the ingredients for that cake through the efforts of my own, mixed them and baked the cake on top of a fire I started myself, it is more moral for someone to come and stop me, because someone 2,000 miles away might have missed a meal?
And why should some arbitrary government official get to take my cake, when I could just turn around and give it to a local charity if not for the State in the first place?[/quote]
LOL
To be clear: The Norwegian government did not send people around stopping people from eating cake untill everyone had bread. The quote simply expresses a sentiment I agree with [/quote]
Why do you assume I’m being literal here? Why can’t I also be speaking figuratively?
Fine.
I’m not touching social contract.
Stuff we have here, yet “income inequality is a moral issue that needs to be solved.”
[quote]Hope that answered your question.
Edited.[/quote]
It didn’t, but you know that.[/quote]
-
I know you where not literal, I just pointed it out. And yes offcourse you can be figurativ, I am not after all the cheif of the state censorship department.
-
Yes you have a welfare state, but this is where our disagrement lies, should it be expanded( with the consequences that entails ) or should it be reduced( with the consequences that entails ). This is basic conflict between the leftwing and rightwing the last 40 years a across the western world in one sentence. An expansion of the welfare system and raising of taxes of the wealthy will close the gape between the rich and the poor and offcourse improve the lives in many ways for the latter.
If you on the other hand cut taxes on the wealthy and reduce the welfare system, then offcourse the natural outcome will be a widening gap between the rich and the poor and with negative outcomes for the latters living conditions and opportunities. Policy’s have consequences and it comes down to cost and benefits. If me and the Sanders of the world get our way the benefits are a better life for the poor( more opportunity’s and better living conditions ), but where upper-middle class and the upperclass pay more in taxes. If the rightwing agenda wins then the benfit will be that the upper-middle class and upper class pay less taxes, but the cost will be eaten by the poor( less opportunity and worse living conditions ). Now the question is wich cost or negative effect is worse? If the rich get taxed more, then yes they will have less money than they have now, but they will still be rich and their way of life will not change at all( or atleast in any meaningfull and tangible way ). If we on the other hand for example cut health benefits to the poor then some might die and if you cut back on the entire welfare system then the poor faces a world of shit. I think it is clear wich cost is worse and ergo it is evident from my perspective that the former cost is the way to go.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
The moral principle underlying my position on inequality is perhaps best summed up with a statement made by the Norwegain prime minister Einar Gerhardsen( He was PM after world war 2 ):
“No one should eat cake before everyone has bread”.
[/quote]
And if I’ve earned the ingredients for that cake through the efforts of my own, mixed them and baked the cake on top of a fire I started myself, it is more moral for someone to come and stop me, because someone 2,000 miles away might have missed a meal?
And why should some arbitrary government official get to take my cake, when I could just turn around and give it to a local charity if not for the State in the first place?[/quote]
LOL
To be clear: The Norwegian government did not send people around stopping people from eating cake untill everyone had bread. The quote simply expresses a sentiment I agree with and that I think should be a guiding principle for any society wich strives to be good for all. Now the sentiment is that “we” as a society should be troubled if people are starving, living in missery etc while others are living in exccess. It’s a sentiment that should be a part of the concept of a social contract, or atleast Gerhardsen thought so and so do I.
In practical politics this sentiment can manifest itself through a progressive tax system, public pensions, public education, public health care, disability and unemployment benefits, workers rights etc. Gerhardsens statement is the underlying logic of the nordic welfare model so to speak.
Hope that answered your question.
Edited.[/quote]
Do you believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to administer what is or isn’t moral and/or administer morality (in this example, bread for cake)? It’s my understanding that morality rests solely on the individual to act morally and to seek morality through his actions. It is no longer moral if I am compelled to act in a way that one has deemed moral, in which I have no say, as I may not be acting naturally.
Also, to be slightly pedantic and nit-picky, I disagree that the sentiment expressed can manifest itself through public pension and you’ll have to be clear exactly what you mean by “worker’s rights” as that’s a broad term which can encompass a myriad of things. A worker’s right to what exactly? My reasoning behind my disagreement regarding public pension is this implies those receiving the benefits indeed met the predetermined (which is arbitrary) minimum requirements of employment and, thus, contributed to the system of said pension, like an individual retirement account but from a pool.[/quote]
In this case the government did not issue morality, but it( or those elected to offices acted based on their morality as all people do to some degree ). Issuing morality as far as I understand is for instance when the government says: you can’t do that or that etc. Many laws are grounded in morality wich is bound to happen in any system. I am on the left, but I dont hold the moronic belief that people should not mix religion and politics. Its perfectly natural and legit for a lawmaker to base his/her political decessions on his/her’s worldview( be it christianity, Islam or a political ideology ). So government if it exist will in some way “issue morality” as you said.
Now with workers right I mean for example a 40 hour work week, the right to collectively bargain, to strike, regulations on working conditions etc.
In my view every citizen should get a pension when they reach old age or if you are unfit to work. I am currently discussing( have for a couple of days ) with myself the negatives and positives of a basic income for everyone.
SAVE ME BENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT. YOU ARE THE OMNIPOTENT GIVER OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. WE THE PEOPLE ARE MERELY SERVANTS.
That said, i would love to live in a society where i did not have to work hard, and could do as little as possible, and still get the same as those suckers working their asses off. Income for everyone …