2012 Official Preallo Political Discussion Thread

[tn4596]

Bump

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PKAguy2202]

So just out of curiosity... Say you are sitting in the comfort of your house with a lawn that needs mowing and you hear the doorbell ring. Upon opening, you see someone, very disheveled, over grown beard and hair., smelling ever so lightly of eau de pee with booze undertones to it. Wild eyed, he asks you if you will let him mow your lawn for just 10 dollars.

Will you give him the job?

What are the odds that more people in the US will turn him away than give him the job?

What are the odds that they would rather hire Jimmy who lives down the street and is a senior in High school saving for college over this man, even though Jimmy's parents will likely chip in for his college tuition and Jimmy would have an easier time of it finding an actual job than this man, because jimmy does not carry the stigma of being a "homeless person"?

It is not an exact example, it is an analogy. What it is saying essentially is work should be incentivized. Our president has allowed 49% of Americans to be tax exempt up from 35 at his terms beginning. Our president has put 15 million more on foodstamps, 16 million more on medicare. The point is in a system that relies on finances you can't give things out for free. You have to incentivize work. You do that by growing the economy, giving more freedom to businesses not more regulations. We are witnessing before our eyes our government grow to a point of no return. The lesson is "socialist" and far left liberals are all in favor of giving things out for free because in actuality the more people reliant on the government the more dependent our society is and the more power our government has. This is literally in exact contrast to why our country was founded. We were founded to have a new country with limited government, a country that promotes individual freedoms, not government mandates, aka look at PPACA. Last I checked socialist countries, or countries with those policies have NEVER FARED WELL. Soviet Union, modern day Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy... They are doing great

 

[Freesia88]

It is not an exact example, it is an analogy. What it is saying essentially is work should be incentivized. Our president has allowed 49% of Americans to be tax exempt up from 35 at his terms beginning. Our president has put 15 million more on foodstamps, 16 million more on medicare. The point is in a system that relies on finances you can't give things out for free. You have to incentivize work. You do that by growing the economy, giving more freedom to businesses not more regulations. We are witnessing before our eyes our government grow to a point of no return. The lesson is "socialist" and far left liberals are all in favor of giving things out for free because in actuality the more people reliant on the government the more dependent our society is and the more power our government has. This is literally in exact contrast to why our country was founded. We were founded to have a new country with limited government, a country that promotes individual freedoms, not government mandates, aka look at PPACA. Last I checked socialist countries, or countries with those policies have NEVER FARED WELL. Soviet Union, modern day Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy... They are doing great

I didn't realize that work was unincentivized at this point.

Sweetie, you can incentivize all you want and grow business till the cows come home, but if they are not hiring people because the available pool of applicants do not meet their standards, there will always be people on welfare and unemployment.

The question as to why these people do not meet standards or why they ended up on welfare in the first place is one we can argue about for the next couple of years as it has roots in many many many issues.

Mind you I have no vested political interest because I cannot vote to begin with (and I am not sure if I ever want to..in the US at least). Also I tend to agree with the work-for-it-rather-than-expect-it-to-be-given-to-you philosophy that Republicans endorse.

For eg, I am likelier to overpay a homeless person for a newspaper they are trying to sell to me than to just give them the money because they ask. My reasoning is that the person trying to hawk a newspaper is trying to be resourceful while the other person almost expects to be given to because they are homeless even though they have enough sense to write a sign that says "homeless."

I am not blind however to the realities and difficulties that homeless people as a whole face. I am sure that some of them would gladly take even a minimum wage job if they were given the chance and didn't have to deal with obstacles such as health problems, mental problems, criminal records or just even the stigma of being a homeless person. For eg, most job applications require an address...you don't have one and it already casts a bad light on your application. Talk less of references and all that mess.

Life is not perfect and **** happens to people. If we had more community organizations to help the homeless and these organizations were well managed and funded with charitable donations to the point where minimal government involvment was needed, then things will be just peachy. But if we fail to take care of each other because it is none of our business what goes on in other peoples lives and all that matters is our perfect little bubble, don't complain about socialism when the government steps in. Are people supposed to die on the streets?

So.... the Republican notion that if you work hard enough or if you go looking for opportunity, it will always be there for you and welcome you with open hands and you can achieve the "American Dream", while romantic, is a little out of touch with reality.

 

[487806]

You guys act as if Obama or Romney will have so much power to control your future when either becomes (or re-elected) as president. It isn't the president's responsibilities, but yours. If you have a problem, consult your local congressperson.

 

[KnuxNole]

As long as they don't screw over people who aren't in the 2%, I'm good. Otherwise, doooomed.

 

[lobo.solo]

It is not an exact example, it is an analogy. What it is saying essentially is work should be incentivized. Our president has allowed 49% of Americans to be tax exempt up from 35 at his terms beginning. Our president has put 15 million more on foodstamps, 16 million more on medicare. The point is in a system that relies on finances you can't give things out for free. You have to incentivize work. You do that by growing the economy, giving more freedom to businesses not more regulations. We are witnessing before our eyes our government grow to a point of no return. The lesson is "socialist" and far left liberals are all in favor of giving things out for free because in actuality the more people reliant on the government the more dependent our society is and the more power our government has. This is literally in exact contrast to why our country was founded. We were founded to have a new country with limited government, a country that promotes individual freedoms, not government mandates, aka look at PPACA. Last I checked socialist countries, or countries with those policies have NEVER FARED WELL. Soviet Union, modern day Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy... They are doing great

In a nutshell, the left is concerned about the equal distribution of resources in society. That sounds fair to me. The problem raises when you try to implement this. There is a pull and push between individuality and the greater good of society.

 

[lobo.solo]

In a nutshell, the left is concerned about the equal distribution of resources in society. That sounds fair to me. The problem raises when you try to implement this. There is a pull and push between individuality and the greater good of society.

Because of the debate and midterms being over!!!

 

[SpecterGT260]

Because of the debate and midterms being over!!!

Do you also "like" your own facebook statuses?

 

[lobo.solo]

Do you also "like" your own facebook statuses?

Jajaja, as a matter of fact I do!!! (Sometimes). Am I pathetic??? To be fair I made a good point

 

[SpecterGT260]

Jajaja, as a matter of fact I do!!! (Sometimes). Am I pathetic??? To be fair I made a good point

Do you think equal distribution of resources should be preceded by equal amounts of resources expended in the acquisition of new resources?

 

[lobo.solo]

Do you think equal distribution of resources should be preceded by equal amounts of resources expended in the acquisition of new resources?

I see where you're trying to go. Well, in general people can't expend an equal amount of resources because they don't have them in the first place. Someone with more resources can expend more than someone with less, thus maintaining the status quo.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I see where you're trying to go. Well, in general people can't expend an equal amount of resources because they don't have them in the first place. Someone with more resources can expend more than someone with less, thus maintaining the status quo.

ok. Let me ask another way - is there a scenario in which someone does not deserve equal share to resources?

 

[zoner]

ok. Let me ask another way - is there a scenario in which someone does not deserve equal share to resources?

let me ask you this,,, do you like it when others say how smart you are?

 

[SpecterGT260]

let me ask you this,,, do you like it when others say how smart you are?

No. It is awkward. I also get the heeby geebies when the mentally handicapped wink at me. I'd recommend keeping discussions on topic and avoid following me around and referencing back to past scuffles.

 

[zoner]

No. It is awkward. I also get the heeby geebies when the mentally handicapped wink at me. I'd recommend keeping discussions on topic and avoid following me around and referencing back to past scuffles.

i got pwned

 

[lobo.solo]

ok. Let me ask another way - is there a scenario in which someone does not deserve equal share to resources?

Ideally, no. realistically maybe.
Specter, I don't know if you're trolling me, but these questions aren't easily answered because everything exist within a context. Life doesn't happen in a vacuum.

 

[SpecterGT260]

i got pawned

how much did you go for? Did they have to call in a buddy to give an expert opinion?

 

[zoner]

how much did you go for? Did they have to call in a buddy to give an expert opinion?

oops, i didn't realize there was no a in pwned. sorry, english isn't my native language

 

[SpecterGT260]

Ideally, no. realistically maybe.
Specter, I don't know if you're trolling me, but these questions aren't easily answered because everything exist within a context. Life doesn't happen in a vacuum.

I agree, I was just trying to get some ground work laid out in the event we actually ended up talking about this. Basically, my opinion is that the liberal viewpoints only work in some idealized vacuum. However people have a very reliable track record which points pretty assuredly and them being unreliable. I don't think the system should facilitate gap widening.... but we seem to be in a system of extremes at the moment where the rich take advantage of system which ensure their continued financial superiority over nearly everyone else, and begrudgingly pay into systems which reduce incentive for the poor to really alter their situation. kind of a "worst of both worlds" sort of situation.

 

[SpecterGT260]

oops, i didn't realize there was no a in pwned. sorry, english isn't my native language

that actually explains a lot
although "Pwned" or the more colloquial "pwnt" isnt exactly english.

 

[zoner]

that actually explains a lot
although "Pwned" or the more colloquial "pwnt" isnt exactly english.

well it's a slang no?

 

[SpecterGT260]

well it's a slang no?

No? Yes? Whichever one is the affirmative answer in this case

 

[lobo.solo]

I agree, I was just trying to get some ground work laid out in the event we actually ended up talking about this. Basically, my opinion is that the liberal viewpoints only work in some idealized vacuum. However people have a very reliable track record which points pretty assuredly and them being unreliable. I don't think the system should facilitate gap widening.... but we seem to be in a system of extremes at the moment where the rich take advantage of system which ensure their continued financial superiority over nearly everyone else, and begrudgingly pay into systems which reduce incentive for the poor to really alter their situation. kind of a "worst of both worlds" sort of situation.

For sure, the gap between the rich and the poor has continue to increase in the last decade and this is detrimental to society in general. The 99% movement is a manifestation of Americans being fed up by corporate abuse/greed. Upper mobility is almost non-existent, which sort of ensured a strong middle class. This trend should be taken seriously, and the division between the rich and the poor is one that should not be overlooked as there are many examples in the history of humankind that points to an inevitably result from that type of struggle.

I recognize that there is an utopian flavor when liberals describe their objectives; however I would argue that those will not only benefit the poor and disenfranchised, but they would contribute to the growth and prosperity of the country. I see no prosperity in a world where there are only [a figuratively # of] 1000 people with all the economic resources at hand and there are millions a people who don't have any hope to fulfill themselves as human beings.

 

[Freesia88]

This should be good... You boys mind if I join?

 

[lobo.solo]

This should be good... You boys mind if I join?

yeah, you're always welcome.

 

[SpecterGT260]

For sure, the gap between the rich and the poor has continue to increase in the last decade and this is detrimental to society in general. The 99% movement is a manifestation of Americans being fed up by corporate abuse/greed. Upper mobility is almost non-existent, which sort of ensured a strong middle class. This trend should be taken seriously, and the division between the rich and the poor is one that should not be overlooked as there are many examples in the history of humankind that points to an inevitably result from that type of struggle.

I recognize that there is an utopian flavor when liberals describe their objectives; however I would argue that those will not only benefit the poor and disenfranchised, but they would contribute to the growth and prosperity of the country. I see no prosperity in a world where there are only [a figuratively # of] 1000 people with all the economic resources at hand and there are millions a people who don't have any hope to fulfill themselves as human beings.

well for starters... the 99% movement, for 99% of its relevance was a series of people who had no idea what was going on and drummed while being upset about "globalization".... which is actually a really good thing. They essentially call for communism mixed with isolationism. After the very beginning of that movement it was filled with crazies.

Basically I think the government shouldn't be spending a single dollar helping someone that doesn't directly create some incentive for that person to contribute back. Not that I make any money to speak of at the moment, but whenever I do start making money, I only really have a problem paying a higher tax bracket when there are people out there simply being cut checks off of it.

 

[Freesia88]

I agree, I was just trying to get some ground work laid out in the event we actually ended up talking about this. Basically, my opinion is that the liberal viewpoints only work in some idealized vacuum. However people have a very reliable track record which points pretty assuredly and them being unreliable. I don't think the system should facilitate gap widening.... but we seem to be in a system of extremes at the moment where the rich take advantage of system which ensure their continued financial superiority over nearly everyone else, and begrudgingly pay into systems which reduce incentive for the poor to really alter their situation. kind of a "worst of both worlds" sort of situation.

Ain't this the truth. The sad thing is that the poor really are the only ones who can effectively change anything about their situations, but they are locked, it seems, in that cycle of destruction, with that "get as much out of the system as I can" mentality, and this sinks them even deeper into the red.

Whatever opportunities and resources are available to them are pretty much wasted either because they are not aware they have them, or choose not to use them, or choose to use them, but misuse them.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Ain't this the truth. The sad thing is that the poor really are the only ones who can effectively change anything about their situations, but they are locked, it seems, in that cycle of destruction, with that "get as much out of the system as I can" mentality, and this sinks them even deeper into the red.

Whatever opportunities and resources are available to them are pretty much wasted either because they are not aware they have them, or choose not to use them, or choose to use them, but misuse them.

I think it is a little extreme to lump all poor people together as "the poor" and imply that they are all dependent on the system.

Rather, my opinion is more that any subset of a demographic which does this causes more damage than is representative of their % of the population. Kinda like V/Q mismatch
So basically I am more worried about curbing abuse of the system than I am about tax loopholes for the rich. Both are obvious problems and it is BS for someone to reduce their tax burden when they have so much anyways. honestly..... after a million I feel like its just score keeping.... Would Romney really feel it if he made 250 million vs 300 million? Not at all. That said, 14% of 300 million is 42 million. So....... like nearly 1000x the total income for the majority of the people giving him such a hard time for only paying 14%.

 

[Freesia88]

I think it is a little extreme to lump all poor people together as "the poor" and imply that they are all dependent on the system.

Rather, my opinion is more that any subset of a demographic which does this causes more damage than is representative of their % of the population. Kinda like V/Q mismatch

Gah...ok. I think we all know who exactly I am referring to. The problematic demographic are not the poor college students like you and me and the people out there working 3 jobs to make a living. I am not referring to those people locked in the cycle of poverty who are trying all they can to get out, but are finding that the American dream does have limits to who it embraces.

When I talk about "the poor" I am referring to those people who are freeloading. Who are making no effort towards upwards mobility. I work with a TON of them. I could write essays on some of the people I work with and how they contribute to much of what is wrong with this country.

I'm talking about the people born into that cycle of poverty who do nothing to get out of it because they do not know better, or would rather not even try.

I think we need a code word for this group...

 

[lobo.solo]

well for starters... the 99% movement, for 99% of its relevance was a series of people who had no idea what was going on and drummed while being upset about "globalization".... which is actually a really good thing. They essentially call for communism mixed with isolationism. After the very beginning of that movement it was filled with crazies.

Basically I think the government shouldn't be spending a single dollar helping someone that doesn't directly create some incentive for that person to contribute back. Not that I make any money to speak of at the moment, but whenever I do start making money, I only really have a problem paying a higher tax bracket when there are people out there simply being cut checks off of it.

Well, there are always extremist clowns who are followers. Have you seen a Tea party rally recently? I argue that the 99% movement is/was a serious symptom of how the system is damaging the regular Joe. Take into consideration that this movement became popular after the bailout, the recession, house market crash. Basically, people became more aware and experienced the impact of corporate abuse/greed.

The fact the you will have a problem with paying more taxes because of your income is a matter of principle--I think. Would it significantly impact your lifestyle as a practicing physician? probably not. Could it benefit someone who is struggling just make ends meet? definitely. The argument from the right is that they think that their tax dollars go directly to some pot head hippie, who doesn't want to get a job. Although, this certainly happen, is not as common as we think it is. Here is an interesting story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/o...nsibility-on-welfare.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I think it is a legitimate point the right makes, but it points to the fact that we as society don't solve problems at the deepest level, we do it just superficially. But then, again, proposing another solution might be seen as too radical.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I think we need a code word for this group...

oh man...... lets just go with "the poor"

 

[SpecterGT260]

Well, there are always extremist clowns who are followers. Have you seen a Tea party rally recently? I argue that the 99% movement is/was a serious symptom of how the system is damaging the regular Joe. Take into consideration that this movement became popular after the bailout, the recession, house market crash. Basically, people became more aware and experienced the impact of corporate abuse/greed.

The fact the you will have a problem with paying more taxes because of your income is a matter of principle--I think. Would it significantly impact your lifestyle as a practicing physician? probably not. Could it benefit someone who is struggling just make ends meet? definitely. The argument from the right is that they think that their tax dollars go directly to some pot head hippie, who doesn't want to get a job. Although, this certainly happen, is not as common as we think it is. Here is an interesting story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/o...nsibility-on-welfare.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I think it is a legitimate point the right makes, but it points to the fact that we as society don't solve problems at the deepest level, we do it just superficially. But then, again, proposing another solution might be seen as too radical.

yeah the tea party is also insane.... honestly I have trouble keeping the two movements separate in my head. Like they are so polar opposites that they tipped beyond 180* and are basically just the same people

And you're right.... the impact would be more greatly felt by the latter. but.... so? In a perpetuating system I dont see where society stands to gain by "sharing the wealth".
The ironic thing about this, this really is about the needs of the individual over the needs of the community. Sure, there are a majority of "individuals" who fall into this category right now, but this isnt about societal improvement. This is about a number of individuals who are having better days. Marks of an improving society have less to do with how easy the life of the individual is and more to do with how productive the society is.

 

[lobo.solo]

I think it is a little extreme to lump all poor people together as "the poor" and imply that they are all dependent on the system.

Rather, my opinion is more that any subset of a demographic which does this causes more damage than is representative of their % of the population. Kinda like V/Q mismatch
So basically I am more worried about curbing abuse of the system than I am about tax loopholes for the rich. Both are obvious problems and it is BS for someone to reduce their tax burden when they have so much anyways. honestly..... after a million I feel like its just score keeping.... Would Romney really feel it if he made 250 million vs 300 million? Not at all. That said, 14% of 300 million is 42 million. So....... like nearly 1000x the total income for the majority of the people giving him such a hard time for only paying 14%.

Sure it is a lot of money. I know it is a technicality but the percentage it's is still low. Low taxes isn't going to help the country, we need the money to invest it back into society. The income tax has been higher than this before under Republican leadership, it is until now with an extreme right that there has been complaints. Look back at the economy after Clinton; there was a surplus of money--> came Bush and cut taxes---> eight years later, the country is in the hole.

 

[Freesia88]

Well, there are always extremist clowns who are followers. Have you seen a Tea party rally recently? I argue that the 99% movement is/was a serious symptom of how the system is damaging the regular Joe. Take into consideration that this movement became popular after the bailout, the recession, house market crash. Basically, people became more aware and experienced the impact of corporate abuse/greed.

The fact the you will have a problem with paying more taxes because of your income is a matter of principle--I think. Would it significantly impact your lifestyle as a practicing physician? probably not. Could it benefit someone who is struggling just make ends meet? definitely. The argument from the right is that they think that their tax dollars go directly to some pot head hippie, who doesn't want to get a job. Although, this certainly happen, is not as common as we think it is. Here is an interesting story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/o...nsibility-on-welfare.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I think it is a legitimate point the right makes, but it points to the fact that we as society don't solve problems at the deepest level, we do it just superficially. But then, again, proposing another solution might be seen as too radical.

I'm curious as to what you think the 99% movement really accomplished Lobo. It did start out as people responding to corporate greed and its detriments. But what has it really changed?

 

[Freesia88]

yeah the tea party is also insane.... honestly I have trouble keeping the two movements separate in my head. Like they are so polar opposites that they tipped beyond 180* and are basically just the same people

And you're right.... the impact would be more greatly felt by the latter. but.... so? In a perpetuating system I dont see where society stands to gain by "sharing the wealth".
The ironic thing about this, this really is about the needs of the individual over the needs of the community. Sure, there are a majority of "individuals" who fall into this category right now, but this isnt about societal improvement. This is about a number of individuals who are having better days. Marks of an improving society have less to do with how easy the life of the individual is and more to do with how productive the society is.

And to you Specter, I'm interested in what your perspective on "sharing the wealth" entail.
And what do you should think takes precedence? The needs of the individual or the needs of the community? Is there a relationship between the two? Can one enhance the other?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Sure it is a lot of money. I know it is a technicality but the percentage it's is still low. Low taxes isn't going to help the country, we need the money to invest it back into society. The income tax has been higher than this before under Republican leadership, it is until now with an extreme right that there has been complaints. Look back at the economy after Clinton; there was a surplus of money--> came Bush and cut taxes---> eight years later, the country is in the hole.

Well to put it in perspective: at 25% for someone in the 40k range, mit made a contribution towards this country equal to 4000 other people in this lower middle class range. I don't necessarily trust him not to pander to the rich and make things worse, but I think %age disputes in the political debates are a little silly. From a fundamental standpoint, why is a flat % of income more fair than a flat dollar amount?

 

[SpecterGT260]

And to you Specter, I'm interested in what your perspective on "sharing the wealth" entail.
And what do you should think takes precedence? The needs of the individual or the needs of the community? Is there a relationship between the two? Can one enhance the other?

Needs of the community takes precedence. But if you read my post carefully there you'd see that I don't necessarily think this means sharing of wealth.

 

[Freesia88]

well for starters... the 99% movement, for 99% of its relevance was a series of people who had no idea what was going on and drummed while being upset about "globalization".... which is actually a really good thing. They essentially call for communism mixed with isolationism. After the very beginning of that movement it was filled with crazies.

Basically I think the government shouldn't be spending a single dollar helping someone that doesn't directly create some incentive for that person to contribute back. Not that I make any money to speak of at the moment, but whenever I do start making money, I only really have a problem paying a higher tax bracket when there are people out there simply being cut checks off of it.

I'm sorry, I guess I mistook that line to mean that you do endorse a system where help is extended to those who have less, but not in a dependence creating manner.

Needs of the community takes precedence. But if you read my post carefully there you'd see that I don't necessarily think this means sharing of wealth.

What do you think it means then. basically how do you envision the needs of society being met in such a way that it is fair to those who do contribute positively to it, and addresses the issues of those who do not contribute or detract from it. Sorry if it seems like I am trolling you I just really would like to hear your perspective.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I'm sorry, I guess I mistook that line to mean that you do endorse a system where help is extended to those who have less, but not in a dependence creating manner.


What do you think it means then. Sorry if it seems like I am trolling you I just really would like to hear your perspective.

Your interpretation of that first quote is correct.

When I hear "sharing the wealth" I think of reallocation of funds. IMO that is wrong. Nothing should be given for free. Doing so promotes dependence and the society doesn't benefit from dependence. IMO the health of the society isn't necessarily equal to the snapshot average level of comfort.

 

[Freesia88]

Your interpretation of that first quote is correct.

When I hear "sharing the wealth" I think of reallocation of funds. IMO that is wrong. Nothing should be given for free. Doing so promotes dependence and the society doesn't benefit from dependence. IMO the health of the society isn't necessarily equal to the snapshot average level of comfort.

Good deal.

I would agree that the idea of rellocating funds is not a good one. So what should be given? What could be given? In such a way that the people who do want to move up can move up, but not in a way that it is a hand out that the less interested ones can sit back and relax on.

Interesting that you mention the average level of comfort. Isn't that the American Dream though? The house and the car? The relative ability to afford what you want when you want?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Good deal.

Interesting that you mention the average level of comfort. Isn't that the American Dream though? The house and the car? The relative ability to afford what you want when you want?

That doesn't make it the best indicator of societal health. Theoretically we could all be comfortable up until the point where the system breaks. This is kinda the problem that lead to the housing crisis

 

[Freesia88]

That doesn't make it the best indicator of societal health. Theoretically we could all be comfortable up until the point where the system breaks. This is kinda the problem that lead to the housing crisis

So what I seem to be hearing is that there likely needs to be a fundamental re-evaluation of the American value system. I hear you say that using the relative wealth and comfort of the people to asses societal health will not produce the best results. Yet financial analysts still use consumer spending reports etc to assess the state of the economy, which has a large influence on the state of society. There seems to be a disconnect between what should be and what is.

This is why I asked Lobo about what he thought the Occupy movement really achieved. Essentially, people became aware of the less romantic side of a society within economy as the US's, and seemed to be on a path to an actual over haul. But it pretty much died down as life got in the way and pretty much everybody returned to eking out a living in whatever corner of the wood they actually occupy.

The way I see it, as long as the goal remains the amorphous and nebulous "American Dream" there will always be this effort to make this dream possible for everyone, Nevermind the fact that nature itself makes it impossible for this to be achievable. The food chain is a real thing.

So I ask myself what we should be aiming for?

 

[lobo.solo]

I'm curious as to what you think the 99% movement really accomplished Lobo. It did start out as people responding to corporate greed and its detriments. But what has it really changed?

Not much, the only thing I can think of is that I made it clear that people can organize and challenge corporate power as a grassroots mov. It looked good at the beginning, with all the demonstrations and stuffs, but as specter pointed out the movement started to deteriorate when extremist started to damage the reputation of the movement. This, the media was able to exploit very well.

 

[lobo.solo]

Good deal.

I would agree that the idea of rellocating funds is not a good one. So what should be given? What could be given? In such a way that the people who do want to move up can move up, but not in a way that it is a hand out that the less interested ones can sit back and relax on.

Interesting that you mention the average level of comfort. Isn't that the American Dream though? The house and the car? The relative ability to afford what you want when you want?

I don't think people claim that we should give everything for free. When I think of sharing the wealth is through the funding of schools, programs, etc., that would empower people to become independent of help and in their way to a place where they can thrive in life, a place where they can reach self-actualization. Raising taxes could accomplish this.

Well to put it in perspective: at 25% for someone in the 40k range, mit made a contribution towards this country equal to 4000 other people in this lower middle class range. I don't necessarily trust him not to pander to the rich and make things worse, but I think %age disputes in the political debates are a little silly. From a fundamental standpoint, why is a flat % of income more fair than a flat dollar amount?

In my opinion, a % reflects a ratio from your total income, so it takes into consideration that someone is making a lot and some aren't. Like you said in your post. $350 vs 400 millions isn't going to impact the life a wealthy millionaire, but would probably wont be the case for someone making $35,000 vs $40,000. That $5,000 thousand difference could be ~ 400 a month in food, which is certainly an imperative matter for people within this income bracket.

 

[theWhat]

In my experience I haven't seen the entitlement attitudes in poor populations that other people are describing. In fact, the most entitled patients I have worked with were wealthy retirees. Blaming a person's attitude does not change the reason they are in poverty nor does it help the, to get out of it. That said, I think we are going about things the wrong way. Everybody tends to think that poor people are at fault for being for when in reality it's the system that is stacked against them and it starts early in life. Poverty is generational, that's well documented. Austerity measures will not fix the problem IMO. We need well funded working programs mixed with policies that help decrease the wage gap. Countries that have fewer gaps between the rich and the poor are known to have far fewer incidences of violence, crime, etc.

 

[Freesia88]

In my experience I haven't seen the entitlement attitudes in poor populations that other people are describing. In fact, the most entitled patients I have worked with were wealthy retirees. Blaming a person's attitude does not change the reason they are in poverty nor does it help the, to get out of it. That said, I think we are going about things the wrong way. Everybody tends to think that poor people are at fault for being for when in reality it's the system that is stacked against them and it starts early in life. Poverty is generational, that's well documented. Austerity measures will not fix the problem IMO. We need well funded working programs mixed with policies that help decrease the wage gap. Countries that have fewer gaps between the rich and the poor are known to have far fewer incidences of violence, crime, etc.

I don't think the entitlement is of the "I deserve to get this" variety...it is more of the 'I can get is so I will just keep getting it for as long as I can." Don't agree? Then help me understand the many people I know who have married and started families while hardly prepared for the financial responsibility that raising a healthy family in America entails. I'm afraid to get a pet with my current salary because I know if there ever was to be an emergency I would be screwed. But I work with people who have growing families, making less than I do....these people have had that job for the last 5-6 years. No interest that I can discern in upward mobility. These same people are the ones who I hear complain that their welfare checks take too long and that the way the government handles that program is inefficient. I'll never forget the day a classmate of mine told me he didn't feel he needed to get a job because between his FAFSA and the >5000USD he had saved, he didn't need one. This was the same person I was giving a ride to because we get out of class too late for him to catch the bus.

I really don't get it.

Attitude plays a big role. The system maybe stacked against poorer people but it does not help them or anybody when their plan becomes trying to game the system.

Poverty generally is a cycle which reinforces itself and you are right to say that austerity measures will not necessarily fix the problem. it will have to go from bottom up as well as from up to the bottom. The doors of opportunity should be kept open, but no one should need to be dragged kicking and screaming through those doors.

 

[theWhat]

I don't think the entitlement is of the "I deserve to get this" variety...it is more of the 'I can get is so I will just keep getting it for as long as I can." Don't agree? Then help me understand the many people I know who have married and started families while hardly prepared for the financial responsibility that raising a healthy family in America entails. I'm afraid to get a pet with my current salary because I know if there ever was to be an emergency I would be screwed. But I work with people who have growing families, making less than I do....these people have had that job for the last 5-6 years. No interest that I can discern in upward mobility. These same people are the ones who I hear complain that their welfare checks take too long and that the way the government handles that program is inefficient. I'll never forget the day a classmate of mine told me he didn't feel he needed to get a job because between his FAFSA and the >5000USD he had saved, he didn't need one. This was the same person I was giving a ride to because we get out of class too late for him to catch the bus.

I really don't get it.

Attitude plays a big role. The system maybe stacked against poorer people but it does not help them or anybody when their plan becomes trying to game the system.

Poverty generally is a cycle which reinforces itself and you are right to say that austerity measures will not necessarily fix the problem. it will have to go from bottom up as well as from up to the bottom. The doors of opportunity should be kept open, but no one should need to be dragged kicking and screaming through those doors.

I think much of this also has to do with education. People are not properly educated in this country, as seen by the predatory lending problems, mismanagement of loans, etc. etc. etc. For many families both parents are working two jobs, and they never had a college education. Personally I think these problems are largely systemic, and like you said the doors of opportunity need to be kept open. I think part of the problem is that we are impatient, we can't just lift millions of people out of a bad situation in one day.

 

[ShenanigansMD]

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

Once you understand that, you understand everything you guys have recently discussed.

 

[lobo.solo]

I think much of this also has to do with education. People are not properly educated in this country, as seen by the predatory lending problems, mismanagement of loans, etc. etc. etc. For many families both parents are working two jobs, and they never had a college education. Personally I think these problems are largely systemic, and like you said the doors of opportunity need to be kept open. I think part of the problem is that we are impatient, we can't just lift millions of people out of a bad situation in one day.

Exactly, the problem is systemic. Is not much as to why someone is gaming the system to survive, but as to why don't we have conditions in which people don't have to do this.

 

[Freesia88]

I think much of this also has to do with education. People are not properly educated in this country, as seen by the predatory lending problems, mismanagement of loans, etc. etc. etc. For many families both parents are working two jobs, and they never had a college education. Personally I think these problems are largely systemic, and like you said the doors of opportunity need to be kept open. I think part of the problem is that we are impatient, we can't just lift millions of people out of a bad situation in one day.

True, Education is key. It is going to take a concerted effort but the track record is not looking good. It is the tendency to throw money at problem areas to fix them without addressing what causes the problems in the first place. I'm not sure where the welfare program in the US has its origins, but from what I have seen in my own country, teaching a man to catch a fish and giving him access to waters where he can catch fish is waaaaaay better than giving him a couple of fish a month to live off of.

There have been many programs designed to help bridge that gap and create opportunity for disadvantaged demographics whether these disadvantage was drawn along racial, gender, religious or whatever lines. I can't help but wonder how different things would be if besides creating these opportunities, measures had been taken as well to prepare the target populations with the knowledge they needed to actually take advantage of these opportunities.

Take higher education admissions. Let's even say they took away all of what is currently taken into consideration and used just socioeconomic status. Sure, the hardworking /naturally academically inclined amongst all of us will push to the front of the line, but will it change the fact that there is still a greater portion out there cutting across all facets of the demography who would be eligible for consideration but still would be largely be unprepared for the rigors of higher education? Who would not even know that these opportunities are available? Who would not even care that these opportunities are available?

We can take on the cause of "the poor" or the 99% or whatever, but it is also important to remember that ultmately, it will be down to individuals and their immediate communities to adopt the mindset and make the decisions that will make a real permanent difference. Someone from each family, each community is going to have to say "The buck stops here" and make the effort to move their family/community in a different direction.