Why is it that when I say I would rather see our taxes go to education and roads than to rich corporations...

Why is it that when I say I would rather see our taxes go to education and roads than to rich corporations, people assume i'm a useless lazy fuck who doesn't want to work? It's fucking infuriating.

Other urls found in this thread:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bourgeois
twitter.com/StarLord35/status/921658237333725184
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because it does not correlate with either political party's agenda.

most people think they know whats best

> implying you aren't useless lazy fuck who doesn't want to work

Any talk about any kind of socialism at all, and i might as well be saying "DUUUR Muh free stuff! Gimme welfare for DRUGS!"

you WANT to work?

actually yeah, i have an innate desire to be useful. i want to do things to make shit better. the best way i can do that is working for someone else

>this captcha is taking forever

have fun slave.
I create and invent. I work for myself. When I choose.

I don't have the means to do that currently or I would

I think it's because people like those connect tax-funded education and utilities to lazy federal workers. Albeit, it's a very indirect connection to make.

>programming or something

I was going to school for compsci while taking care of dad with brain cancer. forced to take hard shit pay manual labor factory job because couldn't get any other job in 4 months and hundreds of applications. trying to learn on my own the best i can but i am exhausted from doing work of 5 people, walking 20 miles day and 16 hours with commute. just found a better shit pay job, hopefully i can really move forward with learning....

I don't know what my point is. I just have to blow off steam. I wrote this long reply to person about how sometimes you really have no fucking choice but to be a slave, but the thread died. Got told I don't want to work, just sit on ass and call myself intellectual and watch Rick and Morty

An educated populous is dangerous to the central government.
Why do you think guns have been a hot topic issue?
The second amendment has nothing to do with personal protection, it's about keeping the government subservient to it's people.

It's because you sound like a retard. I'm a physicist (educated) and I honestly think the "taxes should go to those who need it argument" is retarded. What matters it that the country can sustain itself--that's why a lot of money needs to go back to the rich--those who will invest to protect their money. Yes it's a trick to get away from paying your fair share, but a trick that greatly benefits the country.

Because people do not fight with each others beliefs, they fight with each others caricatures.

>country can sustain itself--that's why a lot of money needs to go back to the rich
That's quite a leap "educated" fellow.

>you are dumb. the rich need more money so they can invest it in self-sustaining bribery so the country can sustain itself

I don't care that you say you're a physicist, and I don't agree with your argument.

I think you nailed it. But I hate this bullshit caricature that's painted of me

>What matters it that the country can sustain itself--that's why a lot of money needs to go back to the rich--those who will invest to protect their money
>being this cucked to an imaginary friend
This is why the bourgeoisie needs to be eradicated.

Yeah not far off the correct answer there, when you say "Taxes shouldn't go to the people running businesses" they hear "I do not do anything good for the economy but I still want the benefits"

>bourgeoisie
I'm sorry.... what social class do you come from?

>amerifags need guns to keep their government in check

That is a failure of the education system.

Today there's people with STEM Masters degrees who are working at supermarkets. Are these people just lazy and unmotivated or something?

literally next line explains it as ' they will invest to protect their money', i.e. they are smart with their money and can be trusted to play a clever game. they basically bribe the government by investing in our economy and the government makes them pay less taxes. That you retards can't understand the benefit to this is astounding.

Plus, who wants to give money to failures, anyway? Poor people are fucking disgusting tbh.

We've probably bailed your ass out once or twice.

I also think educating the populace is the best way to advance it

however let's face it. the educational system is broken. it doesn't teach workplace skills. just core, which in theory develops thinking and reasoning ability, but in practice is just memorization or mechanical steps. also lots of useless courses to fund the post-secondary educational billion-dollar complex.

also the wealthy believe wealthy corporations are the ones that advance society. this was true when the employed the local population instead of cheap laborers overseas.

Physicist here again. And STEM degrees don't mean shit anymore. Half of my class in grad school were fucking retards who didn't do any work (that's why they probably tried to stick to academia, as it's easier to skate by without results). So yeah, they probably were lazy or something.

Also, not sure about all fields, but many American grad schools in STEM are not offering just masters programs, but you get a masters en route to phd. So, a lot of the masters in, say the hard sciences, are actually people who "dropped out" of graduate school. Don't think it's true for engineering, but you autists should stop favoring masters degrees cause they're fucking worthless.

>Poor people are fucking disgusting
lol
ok

>social class
You give us another reason.
Whatever class I do come from, and frankly I got to see most of them in each their respective squalor and splendor, you're putting corporations ahead of people, which makes you delusional at best.
Also economics is not a physical science. If you're going to be a good bourg you should stick to your matters of expertise.
t.autodidact

No, but oddly, or not, elites look more kindly and bestow more favors upon those who do believe that motivation matters. Probably because they get more free work out of them.

Physifag here--in teaching, I've learned that education is a universal key for those who are motivated but a drain on those who are already lazy. Academia allows one to kind of skate by (just think of how easy it is to get B's in college) without putting in serious thought and urgency (easy to come by student loans make it even easier). Until they make education in America more about achievement and drive and less about partying and getting by, I highly doubt education is going to do anything to improve our situation (except maybe increase the number of genderless bathrooms).

gr8 b8 m8 i r8 it an 8

the problem with saying you want taxes to go to education and roads is that doesn't happen. it should, but it doesn't

what happens is the budget for public education gets cut every year. schools in nice suburbs can get a property tax levy passed to offset the cuts, so their kids can get a good education. inner city schools can' t do that (people who live in inner city neighborhoods mostly live in apartments), so the annual education budget cuts make sure kids in the suburbs get better a better education than minority kids in inner cities (50 years of Democrat education policy, the DNC knows what it's doing and how to blame the republicans for democrat education and social policy)

funding for roads partly is from the federal government. states send money to cities and counties for roads, and that money doesn't always get spent on roads. the problem with taxes is that they go into the state general fund at the state level, or the city or county general fund. so whenever democrats want to raise taxes they say it's for education and roads and fire departments, but the tax revenue doesn't go to those things

could it be overpopulation? do we need 40% of the population doing STEM jobs? who's going to pick up the garbage or mow lawns? immigrants?
also, we can't compete with the chinese or indians. even if they had a slightly lower percentage of bright people, they'll eventually beat us by sheer numbers.

I was thinking maybe in the future we'll have job rotations to keep people from having the do the same awful jobs 5 days a week.

>(educated)
but not
>(employed)

just because you studied physics in college doesn't mean you know jack shit about economics.

Not him but education doesn't necessarily imply college

>you're
In Marxist philosophy the bourgeoisie is the social class that ....
>revisit ~t.autodidact

>achievement
>drive
Why? This is literally the original sin doctrine made atheist. Excellence and achievement as the measure of a human only serves to allow you to blame others for your support of an unjust system and the spoils you receive from it.

The liberals hate the hicks. The conservatives hate the niggers. What do both have in common? They're poor. We're all disgusted by their existence; their lack of drive, their inability to bring themselves to achieve anything, their utter lack of self respect that keeps them convinced that they aren't poor, they're just temporarily in hard times...they can't even admit what they are. They'd rather hide in video games or cheap beer.

So yes, I find that disgusting. Everyone does except those are poor themselves.

This is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. Humans admire achievement and excellence--it is not unique to our current culture or social structure. If you have a qualm with that, you have a qualm with humanity, faggot. The dumb shit people say on this site when they pretend to be intellectuals...

>Humans admire achievement and excellence
Humans admire a lot of things: integrity, respect for others, amiability, common interest, among others.
>it is not unique to our current culture or social structure
The obsession is, though.
>If you have a qualm with that, you have a qualm with humanity, faggot
8/8

That's my problem, you assume people are poor because they have no drive. Sometimes shit just fucking happens. Are you fucking disgusted when someone gets a medical condition that saps all their money away, they're a waste of life now? There are things that can just randomly happen to you and fuck you up. People get also just fucking get lucky sometimes. They inherit 100m and can put it in the bank and make more on interest every year than someone working his whole life as a laborer. And I know that we need some fucking laborers. But you used to be able to afford college as a laborer. We are producing more shit than ever before and the common person is making less money while execs get rich.

>their lack of drive, their inability to bring themselves to achieve anything
I think you answered your own statement as to why this exists.
The poor are too busy recycling the money of the rich to do anything worth while. The rich do not invent, the rich do not produce, the rich do not harvest, the rich do not consume, the poor ARE the economy and the slaves of the rich. The rich depend on the poor to support their class. In reality there is no rich, there is no poor, both shit in a porcelain bowl. You are delusional to think that the rich are more than the oppression of what the poor could be preforming. I warn tread lightly.

>That's my problem, you assume people are poor because they have no drive
The bourgeoisie wants stable asset prices and cheap labor. Of course they think that.

Liberals aren't poor, they're bourgeois. The left wants all of you to shut up and overthrow the ruling elite already.

I'm so tired of false left/right dichotomy

wtf?
bourgeois is middle class.
If you own a home, a computer, a car, or decidedly participate in the consumption of goods YOU are bourgeois.

Me too. The real one is much more informative.

No, the middle class are petit-bourg: aligned with the bourgeoisie generally, but not actually owning the material means of production. Their MoP is their skill. Bourgs are the upper middle class, those who own the means of production.
Consumption is irrelevant to Marx's class system. Where are you getting your definitions?

So is that what you really think, it's 100% drive that's responsible for determining your success? Because I know that that is fucking false. But it would probably be hard to convince you! To me you are out of touch

Definition of bourgeois
1 :of, relating to, or characteristic of the social middle class
2 :marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity
3 :dominated by commercial and industrial interests :capitalistic

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bourgeois

What do you do for work when you Do?

Dictionaries aren't prescriptive, and will record incorrect definitions so long as they are prevalent. Only brainlets look for wisdom in a dictionary.
Time for you to log off.

>Only brainlets look for wisdom in a dictionary.
wow
So.... tell me.... what exactly are your sources.

>Me too. The real one is much more informative.

both political parties are cancer and want the same thing, to make as much money as possible for their backers by fucking their constituents, and they'll both tell us whatever lies we want to hear while pitting us against each other, and we're stupid enough to believe them again and again

Are you debating a LITERAL definition?
nvm I forgot where we are.

Marx is a pretty good authority on who are the bourgeoisie in his own philosophy.
>In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
>Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto
The middle class are not capital.

>a literal definition
The question is which definition is to be master. I argue that a plain dictionary, which merely reflects usage without dictating it, is an insufficient authority for defining specialized terms or expressing nuances of theory.

>LITERAL definition

LITERALLY one meaning someone wrote down in a book.

from Wikipedia:

In Marxist philosophy the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital, to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society.

fortunately, Democrats are finally showing their real colors, a little proudly even. this is their literal death gurgle
twitter.com/StarLord35/status/921658237333725184

>tfw intellectual rigor is too much for larping physicists

And why is it that whenever I bring up how bad Cronyism is getting, people start using words like Bourgeois and Marxism.

I don't have to be talking about going fucking Full Communism, and this further cements in stupid hyper-polarized fucks' minds the link between OOO SCARY COMMUNISM and someone trying to talk about how corrupt our government is getting. I like capitalism and it has a lot of merit, but it HAS to be restrained so it doesn't fucking fly away. Otherwise we get the retarded income inequality, corporate welfare, and shit wages that we have now.

You don't have to be talking about going full communism to recognize that one's relationship to the means of production is one of the most determinative of economic policy preferences, one of the main means by which a crony elite is created and reproduced.
.

Because people know that the taxes actually just go to niggers

Because generally speaking, rich people are usually the lazy scrounging fucks who have to tell everyone the complete opposite in case they get found out.

/thread

not sure if actually retarded