@ Gary C
So I can judge your posts more accurately can you please clarify your use of the word "slacker" ?

No sarcasm intended, I would really like to know where you are coming from.

T.A.

T.A. Thanks for asking and not assuming.

Slacker: Noun
2) A lazy person.

But perhaps "leech" would be a better word in the context as others seem to want to place words in my mouth that I did not speak.

Leech: Noun
2) A follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage.

Now that I think about it some of the leeches may be quite energetic at being a leech; nothing lazy about that.

Gary you did not answer my question, you just changed your terminology.

Please be more specific. Of the examples I quoted which ones do you count as slackers, leeches, lazy etc. I'd also like to know your reasons for branding them as such. e.g. Do you really consider anyone earning less than the minimum taxable income as a lazy leech ?

T.A.

If the bottom line is more important than people, maybe some of you rightists can begin to advocate shooting the dependent people in our society.

Isn't that just another description of single payer health care, where some faceless bureaucrat decides if a treatment is justified?

That's a pretty good description of our current for-profit system Gary...

---

#resist

And point on topic: I have not had 20hr weeks at work since Bush's office, and into the first year of Obama's. From Obama on, I have had steady work.

Yes, the Democratic tax plan made corporations get rid of all the unnecessary human resource units that Republican tax stimulus plans made it more cost effective to hire in the first place. You know, those tax breaks for corporations that are so evil. Glad you weren't classed as unnecessary.

I thought Mr. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts... So as to not hurt any one group of people.

---

#resist

If the bottom line is more important than people, maybe some of you rightists can begin to advocate shooting the dependent people in our society.

Isn't that just another description of single payer health care, where some faceless bureaucrat decides if a treatment is justified?

---

If the bottom line is more important than people, maybe some of you rightists can begin to advocate shooting the dependent people in our society.

Or find another use for them? Soylent green?

---

Reality Internet Personality

If the bottom line is more important than people, maybe some of you rightists can begin to advocate shooting the dependent people in our society.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Gary, IMO, when my mind no longer is functional I am no longer a human.
The stay at home disabled parent that you cite is employed, probably doing the most important thing thing for our species that can be done.
When the time comes I hope someone has the wisdom to "beam me up".

---

How do you define a slacker (I would like a concrete example please)?

Leech: Noun
2) A follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage.

I loathe stereotypes. But you insist. I'm sure everyone would agree that a person serving a life term in a penal colony is a leech to society.

Gary, there are a fair number of societies that treat the disabled as leaches, do you consider the unemployable disabled such?

It is your stereotype. I say you haven't given sufficient information to reach a conclusion. But only you know what additional information is in your stereotype. You will have to draw your own conclusion.



The why is irrelevant to the question I asked; How many leeches should a high income person have to carry?



I suspect you all are baiting to see if I say benefit should strictly be measured by $ earned. I don't see that in the definition.

However lets try some additional information for your stereotype in a couple of cases of a "unemployable disabled" person.

1) Person has had a massive stroke and is bedridden to the point that nurses have to feed them, and scoop the poop out of their rear and there is no hope of recovery.

2) Person is part of a couple and a stay at home parent and doing a fine job of raising their children who will become highly productive persons in their own right.

Now with this additional information for your stereotype you go draw your own conclusion if they are a leech.

---

How do you define a slacker (I would like a concrete example please)?

Leech: Noun
2) A follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage.

I loathe stereotypes. But you insist. I'm sure everyone would agree that a person serving a life term in a penal colony is a leech to society.

Gary, there are a fair number of societies that treat the disabled as leaches, do you consider the unemployable disabled such?

?+1

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

How do you define a slacker (I would like a concrete example please)?

Leech: Noun
2) A follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage.

I loathe stereotypes. But you insist. I'm sure everyone would agree that a person serving a life term in a penal colony is a leech to society.

Gary, there are a fair number of societies that treat the disabled as leaches, do you consider the unemployable disabled such?

---

How do you define a slacker (I would like a concrete example please)?

Leech: Noun
2) A follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage.

I loathe stereotypes. But you insist. I'm sure everyone would agree that a person serving a life term in a penal colony is a leech to society.

---

Are you aware that companies like Walmart are subsidised by the state because they pay their workers such a low wage that a large proportion of them are entitled to state benefits?
Are you aware that companies like Walmart deliberately don't give their workers full time work so that they won't have to give them benefits? This is merely "good" business and helps increase their profits. However the state has to pick up the slack so that these WORKERS (Not slackers. They work very hard) can have enough money to actually LIVE on.

You are almost thinking like a Republican, but you need to go to the final step. Trust me it is the perfection of evil, called the fiduciary duty.

Walmart not only needs employees it needs customers. What a better way to generate more profits than give a tax break for every child a couple has. More customers. More workers looking for the same job to keep wages low. Yes, more babies screws up the planet with more CO2 burned, but short term profits come first. Now you know the real reason for the right to life movement.

---

So please explain who these slackers are and provide data to back up your assertion.

Thank you.

I haven't made an assertion. I asked a question, or request for data. Some persons took insult that I dared seek the truth.

Honest question. How many slackers should a high income person carry?

But we'll change that to read: How many leeches should a high income person carry?

---

@ Gary C
So I can judge your posts more accurately can you please clarify your use of the word "slacker" ?

No sarcasm intended, I would really like to know where you are coming from.

T.A.

T.A. Thanks for asking and not assuming.

Slacker: Noun
2) A lazy person.

But perhaps "leech" would be a better word in the context as others seem to want to place words in my mouth that I did not speak.

Leech: Noun
2) A follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage.

Now that I think about it some of the leeches may be quite energetic at being a leech; nothing lazy about that.

Where are you getting your data from? What percentage of the American people are "Slackers"?
How do you define a slacker (I would like a concrete example please)?
How do you know whether someone is a slacker or someone who is in need? Is it just based on the amount of money they have? i.e. Rich person = not a slacker, poor person = slacker?
Do you think that only rich people work hard?
What about the people who work 3 jobs for minimum wage and still need help from the state?
Are you aware that companies like Walmart are subsidised by the state because they pay their workers such a low wage that a large proportion of them are entitled to state benefits?
Are you aware that companies like Walmart deliberately don't give their workers full time work so that they won't have to give them benefits? This is merely "good" business and helps increase their profits. However the state has to pick up the slack so that these WORKERS (Not slackers. They work very hard) can have enough money to actually LIVE on.

So please explain who these slackers are and provide data to back up your assertion.

Thank you.

---

Reality Internet Personality

And point on topic: I have not had 20hr weeks at work since Bush's office, and into the first year of Obama's. From Obama on, I have had steady work.

Yes, the Democratic tax plan made corporations get rid of all the unnecessary human resource units that Republican tax stimulus plans made it more cost effective to hire in the first place. You know, those tax breaks for corporations that are so evil. Glad you weren't classed as unnecessary.

---

@ Gary C
So I can judge your posts more accurately can you please clarify your use of the word "slacker" ?

No sarcasm intended, I would really like to know where you are coming from.

T.A.

T.A. Thanks for asking and not assuming.

Slacker: Noun
2) A lazy person.

But perhaps "leech" would be a better word in the context as others seem to want to place words in my mouth that I did not speak.

Leech: Noun
2) A follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage.

Now that I think about it some of the leeches may be quite energetic at being a leech; nothing lazy about that.

---

@ Gary C
So I can judge your posts more accurately can you please clarify your use of the word "slacker" ?

In your terms, is a "slacker"
a) A long term welfare recipient (unwed mother, invalid pensioner etc.)?

b) One of the people thrown out of work by the GFC and unable to find work since (i.e. unemployed for <4 years) ?

c) A person working for the minimum hourly rate who does not make enough to meet the minimum tax threshold ?

d) Other ?

e) All of the above ?

No sarcasm intended, I would really like to know where you are coming from.

T.A.

From what I've seen, Gary thinks that anyone who is working poor is a slacker. Gary seems to think that anyone who is democratic in the least is a slacker. Gary seems to think that all democrats are unemployed welfare recipients. What Gary should open his mind to, is that those slackers he refers to are the types that are not politically minded and voting is the last thing on their agenda.

He sure does love referring to those slackers. I know the people he means. They are from my generation and the next generation after me. Half of my peers depending on socio-economic background, have never really held long term stable jobs. But luckily for Gary I can promise that most of that group also does not vote.

It's gotta be kind of difficult to explain the gray area in the middle, to someone who sees only in black and white.

Personally, I take offense to the slacker comments, as a young democrat that has worked for the same company for over a decade. At times I have found my income similar to a Mcdonalds worker (but still I remained dedicated to my job), however when work is available I don't hesitate to do 60-70 hours in a week. But I guess during those periods when there were only 20 hours of work per week available I'm considered a slacker too by Gary, cause after all it must have been my own laziness, and not the economy.

And point on topic: I have not had 20hr weeks at work since Bush's office, and into the first year of Obama's. From Obama on, I have had steady work.

---

#resist

@ Gary C
So I can judge your posts more accurately can you please clarify your use of the word "slacker" ?

In your terms, is a "slacker"
a) A long term welfare recipient (unwed mother, invalid pensioner etc.)?

b) One of the people thrown out of work by the GFC and unable to find work since (i.e. unemployed for <4 years) ?

c) A person working for the minimum hourly rate who does not make enough to meet the minimum tax threshold ?

d) Other ?

e) All of the above ?

No sarcasm intended, I would really like to know where you are coming from.

T.A.