Trump versus Clinton?

[KUSA]

Wont in what context? You wont dishwash 40 hours a week, why? Because you don't have to. So does that give me the right to force you to  dishwash? 

If that's all you can get then you should do it or go hungry.

Again, I would hate to be your spouse, I could see you coming home to your stay at home wife "FUCK YOU I PAY ALL THE BILLS".

My wife has a six figure income like I do. We are equals. I wouldn't be married to a lazy fuck.

What is really moronic is you think "sink or swim" is economical. Nope, it costs more to society to dump people in the street where they can become desperate, then we imprison them for mostly non violent crimes and mix them in with violent people so that when they get out we have to deal with even worse off people.

So I should pay your lazy ass so you don't rob me?

Criminalizing poverty is what you are doing. It is not only bad economics, it is sick and immoral.

Not at all. I am not criminalizing poverty. You are incentivizing and promoting laziness. It looks like you have it figured out too. You are a deadbeat taker.

And again, you also stupidly think because I don't value the same things you do, I am somehow saying everyone has to be poor as some class loyalty oath which is bullshit. You also stupidly assume that because I say people don't want the same things you do, somehow I am claiming nobody should be paid more and nobody should move up, which is also bullshit.

I'm sure you don't want everyone to be poor. Who would pay your bills then?

You aren't making any argument for anything but your own selfishness.

You are the selfish one. You don't want to work and pay your own way. I don't have any desire to live off someone else so I work.

The better you educate people, and the more you pay them and the healthier they are, it makes society MORE stable. "Fuck you I got mine" does not make you compassionate nor does it make you an economist.

If you had a masters degree and was the healthiest libtard on the planet, you would still be a lazy taker.

[KUSA]

What's the criteria for 'doesn't work' vs. 'can't work'? Who gets to choose?

I think hunger is a good indicator. If someone gets really hungry and still doesn't work then they probably can't. I am willing to bet that even Brian would work if he missed a few meals.

What happens when there's no work,

Do you mean no work or just work that you don't want to do?

or when the work pays so little that it's a net loss to do it for the laborer?

You mean that you can't buy as many calories as you burn off?

As one example, science and medicine cite anxiety and depression as illnesses which can cripple one's ability to be a productive worker. These two factors don't necessarily make one unable to perform work, but they can if severe enough.

If it's severe enough then I don't mind helping out. However, people that perform daily functions such as driving, cooking, shopping, smoking cigarettes, etc. can work. Look at Brian. He smokes his cigs while driving around fucking off but he is so depressed and has so much anxiety that he just can't do anything that might earn some money.
He can work and be productive. He just wants to be a lazy taker because he is allowed to do it.

[abaris]

I still don't know why it would matter, even if a person could make the distinction.  I assume we'd help either way.

We would. I'm not so sure when it comes to bible thumping rightwingers though. Or rightwingers in general. Usually their motto is everyone for themselves. Worked for Ayn Rand as well.

[Ryantology]

I think hunger is a good indicator. If someone gets really hungry and still doesn't work then they probably can't. I am willing to bet that even Brian would work if he missed a few meals.

Do you feel like it is a net benefit to society to use starvation as an incentive to coax work out of a person? I ask because that sounds a lot more like Stalin than anything Bernie Sanders has ever said.

Do you mean no work or just work that you don't want to do?

Would it not depend on your reason for not wanting to do it? There are jobs, for instance, that are too dangerous for me to want to do it. Furthermore, a person's labor only earns them money if it's marketable.

You mean that you can't buy as many calories as you burn off?

To put it simply. To be a little less concrete, if I have to work every waking moment just to sustain my existence, I'm basically a slave even if I'm being paid and I have food to eat. There's nothing left for fun or learning or anything except being an automaton.

If it's severe enough then I don't mind helping out. However, people that perform daily functions such as driving, cooking, shopping, smoking cigarettes, etc. can work. Look at Brian. He smokes his cigs while driving around fucking off but he is so depressed and has so much anxiety that he just can't do anything that might earn some money.
He can work and be productive. He just wants to be a lazy taker because he is allowed to do it.

Again, I feel like medical science is not in agreement with you. You can have a lack of motivation which is neurochemical in origin. You can perhaps starve a person into overcoming that, but you're a lot more likely to kill them instead, or influence them to kill themselves.

I'm speaking from experience here, and the longest gap in my work history over the last 17 years is three weeks in 2008.

[Minimalist]

Poor Trump.... beset by Sanders' thugs.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-...NTczMjU1S0

Sanders Sends Vegan Thugs to Attack Peace-Loving Nazis

[KUSA]

Poor Trump.... beset by Sanders' thugs.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-...NTczMjU1S0

Sanders Sends Vegan Thugs to Attack Peace-Loving Nazis

You realize this is satire don't you?

[Minimalist]

Of course, numb nuts.

[Minimalist]

What gave it away to you?  The "peace-loving" nazi part?

[Cecelia]

The "Lazy Takers" are the fortune 500 companies that get taxpayer dollars from government. They're the CEO's who get paid 300x more than their workers. They're the ones who manipulate the laws to benefit them.

You don't have to be hard-working or smart to be rich. Just ask Joel Osteen. I'd wager he has more money than anyone on this forum. Probably double the money of anyone on this forum. You just have to be willing to exploit people. Either that or inherit a ton of money like Conrad Hilton. Or both like Donald Drumpf. By conservative logic, Joel Osteen isn't a taker. He's a giver.

[Sterben]

The "Lazy Takers" are the fortune 500 companies that get taxpayer dollars from government.  They're the CEO's who get paid 300x more than their workers.  They're the ones who manipulate the laws to benefit them.

You don't have to be hard-working or smart to be rich.  Just ask Joel Osteen.  I'd wager he has more money than anyone on this forum.  Probably double the money of anyone on this forum.  You just have to be willing to exploit people.  Either that or inherit a ton of money like Conrad Hilton.  Or both like Donald Drumpf.  By conservative logic, Joel Osteen isn't a taker.  He's a giver.

            Thank you for making that point, these greedy bastards could take a pay cut and offer there employees more pay and befits. The people should not have to suffer cause of the greedy C.E.O types who want to buy a other car instead of taking care of those who make them money. Would it not make more since to pay better to increase productive and inspire loyalty to a company?