ot; romney’s 47% statement

[flyer]

Absolutely, true–flu.

The 5% (or less) I mentioned were across the board in age at this point in time, but, going forward, the younger people will definitely need a lot more money for everything–which makes my premise even more of a concern. As time goes on, those stats should be really interesting to watch.

[zk]

[quote=Jazzman] The term “middle-class” is a euphemism for socialism… [/quote]

I don’t know about “euphemism for,” but I (think I) get what you mean.

Take Mongolia right now. Vast natural resources. But an undeveloped economy. Who’s going to profit from those resources? The people who already have money. If you’re poor, you’re not going to build a mining company from the ground up. Not one that can compete with existing ones, anyway. And if you own an existing mining company, are you going to pay more than barely-above-slave wages to your manual laborers? No. Because there are enough poor people in Mongolia that you’ll have plenty of takers for horrible-pay jobs. So, the rich get richer and the poor get shit on.

Does the guy who inherited a herd of goats have the same opportunity as the guy who inherited a mining company? Obviously not. Is that fair? Is that the way it should be?

America is the land of opportunity, but it’s not as different from Mongolia as some would have you believe. Does the kid from the ghetto with no dad and no money and terrible schools and crackheads and gangsters for neighbors and classmates and relatives have the same opportunity as the kid whose father is the governor? Not a chance. Sure, the rare exception will excel despite those circumstances. But a huge percentage will fail miserably. Does the government of a civilized society have a responsibility to improve the kid from the barrio’s chances?

I think it does. Is that socialism? I don’t know and I don’t care. Socialism is the buzzword du jour of the right-wing noise machine. People who don’t want to or know how to think throw that word around and expect the mere use of that word to win arguments for them.

Whatever you call it, educating and improving the lot of the underclass and lower class is not only the decent thing to do, it is what is best for America.

[scaredyclassic]

im wondering if we could all agree that it would be best for society if the wealth were generally spread around. I don’t mean that it should be taken from you personally but…just setting up our ideal society, from scratch, can we all agree it would be best if it tends to have wealth distributed about, and not concentrated intensely at the very top, and not with very few people in the middle, and lots and lot of very broke people?

I think most normal people would say, yeah, that would be a good form for society to take…there should be lots of people earning a decent living in the middle, right? that would be a good type of society…

not sure how to get there…and people can argue reasonably about how to get there…but is everyone in agreement that that’s a good goal? i can see reaosnable people saying, no, let the losers lose big, the winners take all, and fuck the weaklings of society. let them eat from dumpsters if they cannot figure out how to play the new game…

Sometimes I wonder whether we are starting from different perspectives of the type off orm society should take.

cause when people argue let the “free market” (or what passes for one hereabouts nowadays) move wealth where it’s gonna go…I’m betting it gets more and more concentrated at the top…

and if that’s a bad thing…

should we let the machine just keep moving inexorably int he same direction?

[CA renter]

Absolutely right, scaredy. Once a small group of people amass enough money, they can buy power. I’m going to stereotype here, but many/most people who amass great fortunes tend to be the types who don’t mind stepping on others in order to get there. They use their power to change how the system works, forcing people to use their services or buy their goods, and creating monopolies. They take over public assets and resources and change tax laws so that they can amass even more money over a shorter period of time. They are like cancerous tumors that become more agressive as they become richer and richer.

Some good insight on how this is done:

“Ferguson maintains that the history of money is indeed at the core of our human history, with economic strength determining political dominance, wars fought to create wealth and individual financial barons determining the fates of millions.

Among the places Ferguson visits are Bolivia, where Spain established vast gold and silver mines — still in operation — and enslaved the indigenous people to create so much currency for the Spanish crown that it eventually became worthless; Italy, where the Medici family transformed the sinful practice of usury into the banking system we know today and in the process became as powerful as monarchs; Paris, where Scotsman John Law created a Ponzi scheme tied to the Louisiana territory that brought France to its knees; London, where bonds trader Nathan Rothschild and his family nearly went bankrupt by helping to finance the British army’s war against Napoleon, then achieved enormous wealth through the buying and selling of war bonds; Scotland, where two ministers established the first life insurance fund, and New Orleans, where the shortcomings of their calculations would be demonstrated to tragic effect in the wake of Hurricane Katrina; and New York, where Ferguson interviews financial wizard George Soros about the concept he introduced of short selling derivatives based on a prediction that they will lose value.

Through this history, viewers learn economic fundamentals that inform the meanings of sub-prime mortgages and credit default swaps and an understanding how the Chinese economy has risen to dominate the world.”

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ascentofmoney/

[Anonymous]

[quote=zk][quote=Brutus]

There are relatively few poor people in America that bear no responsibility for their situation.[/quote]

A bit of tricky word play, there, Brutus. Bear “no” responsibility? If you put it like that, sure, most poor people could get an additional job if they wanted. Or they could overpower their lack of decent schools, overcome the culture that frequently pervades the areas they live in, borrow money from the government to go to college, get a degree, and rise above their poverty. But most people aren’t strong enough to do that on their own. As I’ve said in a previous post, I advocate educating them about how to rise above their poverty and giving them better schools. Maybe I advocate that position because I have basic human decency. But for those without basic human decency, I say that if you spend some money now to change the culture that perpetuates poverty and dependency, you will be rewarded in the future by not having to support those people any more. What do you suggest we do about poverty and dependency, Brutus?

[quote=Brutus]The ghetto/trailer-park mentality has only gotten more pervasive, a fact that can be confirmed by watching a few of the most popular TV shows: Toddlers and Tiaras, Jersey Shore, Big Brother, 2 1/2 Idiots, Survivor, or anything on MSNBC. The movie “Idiocracy” is not just funny, it’s prophetic, although by that particular time in the future, no one will remember what the word “prophetic” means.[/quote]

Watching anything on MSNBC confirms that the ghetto/trailer-park mentality has gotten more pervasive? Please explain that.

Also, I believe I’m missing your larger point. I’m not sure what any of those shows have to do with a ghetto/trailer-park mentality or what they have to do with Romney’s comment.

[quote=Brutus]
Yes, many Americans are ignorant (especially when it comes to $$$), and the most ignorant are generally the poorest.[/quote]

How do you think they got this way? And what do you propose we do about it?

[quote=Brutus]
Unless they can get their own reality show, eh, Snooki? Are you listening Octo-mom?[/quote]

I assume that this is an attempt at humor and not what you would propose they do about it.[/quote]

Here’s what they can do about it:
Stop watching trash TV. Stop watching MOST TV.
Read a friggin’ book or two. Go to school.
Study.
Stop listening to rap “music.”
Stop believing that all Liberals want to do is help you.
Stop smoking pot.
Stop smoking crack.
Stop getting drunk.
Stop having babies you can’t afford.
Go to school.
Be a nerd.
Get a job, ANY job. Keep it until you can get the job you want.
Work harder.
Work better.
Think.
Read books of all types.
Read some more.
Stop watching TV.
Think.
Stop watching trash TV.
Stop blaming everyone else for your problems.
Stop waiting for the government to help you.
It ain’t 1955 anymore.
If you want to see how a poor person can get ahead, observe how a typical Asian immigrant handles America.
Do what they do.
It works.

We need to teach kids how to use capitalism to achieve their dreams. Schools should have classes in Stock Market Trading, Investing, how to handle Bank Accounts, how to accumulate capital for investing, why capitalism works and HOW it works, in short, schools should teach financial literacy.

Instead, they teach “diversity” and “social responsibility” and “gender issues” and socialist dogma of all kinds. No wonder Johnny can’t spell, read, or do basic math.

That’s what I propose.
Now you can tell me how wrong I am, how we should teach sex ed in school, teach sensitivity to “cultural issues” and “black history” and “environmental awareness” and the “tragedy of European Colonialism and American Imperialism.”

[dumbrenter]

[quote=Brutus]
Stop listening to rap “music.”
[/quote]

You just made a good argument for cultural sensitivity training.

[zk]

[quote=Brutus]
Here’s what they can do about it:
Stop watching trash TV. Stop watching MOST TV.
Read a friggin’ book or two. Go to school.
Study.
Stop listening to rap “music.”
Stop believing that all Liberals want to do is help you.
Stop smoking pot.
Stop smoking crack.
Stop getting drunk.
Stop having babies you can’t afford.
Go to school.
Be a nerd.
Get a job, ANY job. Keep it until you can get the job you want.
Work harder.
Work better.
Think.
Read books of all types.
Read some more.
Stop watching TV.
Think.
Stop watching trash TV.
Stop blaming everyone else for your problems.
Stop waiting for the government to help you.
It ain’t 1955 anymore.
If you want to see how a poor person can get ahead, observe how a typical Asian immigrant handles America.
Do what they do.
It works.

We need to teach kids how to use capitalism to achieve their dreams. Schools should have classes in Stock Market Trading, Investing, how to handle Bank Accounts, how to accumulate capital for investing, why capitalism works and HOW it works, in short, schools should teach financial literacy.

Instead, they teach “diversity” and “social responsibility” and “gender issues” and socialist dogma of all kinds. No wonder Johnny can’t spell, read, or do basic math.

That’s what I propose.
Now you can tell me how wrong I am, how we should teach sex ed in school, teach sensitivity to “cultural issues” and “black history” and “environmental awareness” and the “tragedy of European Colonialism and American Imperialism.”[/quote]

I’m not going to tell you how wrong you are. I agree with most of that. The difference between you and me is that you think that millions of poor people are suddenly going to embrace these ideas and goals without any impetus other than what they already have, whereas I think that’s not realistic. I think that they need to be educated to study, stop doing crack, stop being gangbangers, to think, work, work hard, read, go to college, learn about money, not have babies they can’t afford, not blame others for their problems, to do what they can to break the cycle that they’re in. And I think that if you’re really concerned with the future of this country and not with opposing any government program besides the military, you’ll agree.

———————–

I don’t think teaching diversity is socialist dogma. I don’t think it has anything to do with socialism. I think you’re just using that buzzword without really even knowing what it means. That said, I agree that teaching diversity is bullshit. I think America worked better when it was a melting pot, and I think it should still be a melting pot.

I don’t think we should be teaching black history any more than we should be teaching Asian history or Hispanic history. Unless we include the part about how so many blacks got to where they are today. Which is stuck in a cycle of poverty and violence. I think we should teach that so that they know how there, which will help them understand how to get out of there.

Not sure what you mean by “gender issues,” but I’m pretty sure that’s not socialist dogma, either.

Neither is “environmental awareness” socialist dogma. I’m curious why you think we shouldn’t teach environmental awareness.

[Anonymous]

[quote=zk][quote=Brutus]
Here’s what they can do about it:
Stop watching trash TV. Stop watching MOST TV.
Read a friggin’ book or two. Go to school.
Study.
Stop listening to rap “music.”
Stop believing that all Liberals want to do is help you.
Stop smoking pot.
Stop smoking crack.
Stop getting drunk.
Stop having babies you can’t afford.
Go to school.
Be a nerd.
Get a job, ANY job. Keep it until you can get the job you want.
Work harder.
Work better.
Think.
Read books of all types.
Read some more.
Stop watching TV.
Think.
Stop watching trash TV.
Stop blaming everyone else for your problems.
Stop waiting for the government to help you.
It ain’t 1955 anymore.
If you want to see how a poor person can get ahead, observe how a typical Asian immigrant handles America.
Do what they do.
It works.

We need to teach kids how to use capitalism to achieve their dreams. Schools should have classes in Stock Market Trading, Investing, how to handle Bank Accounts, how to accumulate capital for investing, why capitalism works and HOW it works, in short, schools should teach financial literacy.

Instead, they teach “diversity” and “social responsibility” and “gender issues” and socialist dogma of all kinds. No wonder Johnny can’t spell, read, or do basic math.

That’s what I propose.
Now you can tell me how wrong I am, how we should teach sex ed in school, teach sensitivity to “cultural issues” and “black history” and “environmental awareness” and the “tragedy of European Colonialism and American Imperialism.”[/quote]

I’m not going to tell you how wrong you are. I agree with most of that. The difference between you and me is that you think that millions of poor people are suddenly going to embrace these ideas and goals without any impetus other than what they already have, whereas I think that’s not realistic. I think that they need to be educated to study, stop doing crack, stop being gangbangers, to think, work, work hard, read, go to college, learn about money, not have babies they can’t afford, not blame others for their problems, to do what they can to break the cycle that they’re in. And I think that if you’re really concerned with the future of this country and not with opposing any government program besides the military, you’ll agree.

———————–

I don’t think teaching diversity is socialist dogma. I don’t think it has anything to do with socialism. I think you’re just using that buzzword without really even knowing what it means. That said, I agree that teaching diversity is bullshit. I think America worked better when it was a melting pot, and I think it should still be a melting pot.

I don’t think we should be teaching black history any more than we should be teaching Asian history or Hispanic history. Unless we include the part about how so many blacks got to where they are today. Which is stuck in a cycle of poverty and violence. I think we should teach that so that they know how there, which will help them understand how to get out of there.

Not sure what you mean by “gender issues,” but I’m pretty sure that’s not socialist dogma, either.

Neither is “environmental awareness” socialist dogma. I’m curious why you think we shouldn’t teach environmental awareness.[/quote]

We need to start being judgmental about “lifestyle choices,” such as gangsta life, out-of-wedlock babies, dropping out of high school, obesity, casual drug use, etc.
It’s NOT okay to dress and act like a thug. It’s not okay to have kids when you’re 17 and unmarried. It’s not okay to be fatter than hell. Tattoos usually aren’t cool if you want to get a good job.
When I see someone with a lot of tattoos or piercings, I immediately assume they are either 1. A rock star 2. An MMA fighter. 3. A loser.

Be judgmental. Be more open about it. It’s not “all good.”

And teaching “environmental awareness” to people who can barely read, write, or do basic math, is a waste of time. Teach the basics, first. Then the rest.

[zk]

[quote=Brutus]

We need to start being judgmental about “lifestyle choices,” such as gangsta life, out-of-wedlock babies, dropping out of high school, obesity, casual drug use, etc.
It’s NOT okay to dress and act like a thug. It’s not okay to have kids when you’re 17 and unmarried. It’s not okay to be fatter than hell. Tattoos usually aren’t cool if you want to get a good job.
When I see someone with a lot of tattoos or piercings, I immediately assume they are either 1. A rock star 2. An MMA fighter. 3. A loser.

Be judgmental. Be more open about it. It’s not “all good.”

And teaching “environmental awareness” to people who can barely read, write, or do basic math, is a waste of time. Teach the basics, first. Then the rest.[/quote]

What good is judging going to do if you don’t follow it up by educating and informing about better choices?

[zk]

[quote=Brutus]When I see someone with a lot of tattoos or piercings, I immediately assume they are either 1. A rock star 2. An MMA fighter. 3. A loser. [/quote]

And you would be wrong a huge percentage of the time. Are you aware of that? Does that not illustrate the pitfalls of judging too quickly? Do you really think that everybody with a lot of tattoos is one of those three?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Brutus]

We need to start being judgmental about “lifestyle choices,” such as gangsta life, out-of-wedlock babies, dropping out of high school, obesity, casual drug use, etc.
It’s NOT okay to dress and act like a thug. It’s not okay to have kids when you’re 17 and unmarried. It’s not okay to be fatter than hell. Tattoos usually aren’t cool if you want to get a good job.
When I see someone with a lot of tattoos or piercings, I immediately assume they are either 1. A rock star 2. An MMA fighter. 3. A loser.

Be judgmental. Be more open about it. It’s not “all good.”

And teaching “environmental awareness” to people who can barely read, write, or do basic math, is a waste of time. Teach the basics, first. Then the rest.[/quote]

Seems like you’ve got that judging thing down pretty good. Ready to sentence all those kids to prison? Think that will help?

[flyer]

I agree with much that has been said, and in IMHO, as long as people can (legally) support themselves, and are living the lives of their dreams–why judge?

If, however, people expect others to support them, for whatever reason, and for an indefinite period of time–that’s an entirely different issue.

I should add that since I have grown children, I’ve seen both sides of this scenario. Thankfully, our kids have managed to support themselves for the most part, but at least 50% of their friends–all well-educated as ours are–are still almost completely dependent upon their parents–with no real end date in sight.

I should probably also add that, although our kids know they will be receiving very nice inheritances, they also know that we expected them to learn how to support themselves in life.

[SD Realtor]

im wondering if we could all agree that it would be best for society if the wealth were generally spread around. I don’t mean that it should be taken from you personally but…just setting up our ideal society, from scratch, can we all agree it would be best if it tends to have wealth distributed about, and not concentrated intensely at the very top, and not with very few people in the middle, and lots and lot of very broke people?

**************************************************

Except that your idea of all being equal is incredibly hypocritical. Like CAR you define the ideal society within the context of your cushy lives in the USA. You don’t really want everyone to be equal because if you wanted to include everyone you would include all of the impoverished humans in the world. This means your standard would go down in a very drastic manner.

So really your utopia is build on a hypocritical foundation. If you took the however many billions of people on the planet and applied your principals then you would not live in a beautiful climate where you live… if you were lucky you may have an outhouse or a ditch to crap in. You may or may not have electricity. Your children would most likely be working a hell of alot harder then they do now.

I think that the equality statement that is bantered about is the biggest load of BS I see on this entire site.

Say it like it is… I love the idea of equality as long as I get my home in southern california, enjoy a pension, and get to enjoy freedoms and benefits that billions and billions will never ever see.

If the REAL EQUALITY you guys speak of were to be implemented over the entire planet, you would be quite sorry.

*********************************************

Scaredy I will say that yes, it is sad that the middle class is withering away and that our politicians have no will at all to reverse that trend. The disparity has only increased regardless of who is in power. I don’t have any answers, I wish I did… however history always has shown that having the govt make the decisions about who gets what always ends poorly because those in or aligned with govt always took advantage of the situation creating the very class based society that was supposed to be avoided.

[zk]

[quote=SD Realtor]…history always has shown that having the govt make the decisions about who gets what always ends poorly because those in or aligned with govt always took advantage of the situation creating the very class based society that was supposed to be avoided.[/quote]

(Not that you were addressing me, but) I don’t see it as a matter of the government deciding who gets what. I see it as the government addressing a problem that no other entity can or will. I see the government spending our money to try to fix that problem, but not by giving our money to poor people.

David Brooks writes an excellent article:

I hadn’t thought of it in those terms, but this is probably why I used to be a conservative and why now I’m not. (For the record, I’m not a liberal, either. Some of my views coincide with those of liberals, some with conservatives. Which, if you ask me, would describe all people who can think for themselves.)

———————

some quotes from the article:

Republicans repeat formulas — government support equals dependency — that make sense according to free-market ideology, but oversimplify the real world.

[Traditional conservatives] were intensely interested in creating the sort of social, economic and political order that would encourage people to work hard, finish school and postpone childbearing until marriage.

———————–

Huh. That second one sounds just like what I’ve been saying.

[SD Realtor]

zk what you said makes sense.

[Traditional conservatives] were intensely interested in creating the sort of social, economic and political order that would encourage people to work hard, finish school and postpone childbearing until marriage.

To me this is not redistributing anything. I would gladly pay higher taxes if those revenues went towards reducing our debt, not bailing out banks but also not going towards pork barrel spending programs either.

*********************************************

On the pragmatic side, going back to the utopia type of society that consists of universal equality, it simply is not possible. It never has been and it never will be. Anyone who even reads this site was blessed with the statistical improbability. By pure randomness they were born into one of the best, very best situations on the planet compared to billions of others.

The best we could hope for is the situation you described above. I don’t think we will ever, ever see it with the two party system we have.

[Author]

Posts