I just love the economic triumphalists who think that, before Reagan, the US was a miserable, socialist country where everyone was the same. The truth is, when you create a vibrant middle class -- okay, "redistribute" -- what we had from the '40s to the '70s was the most amazing economic growth the world has ever seen. And since conservatism made us all selfish little beasts? Not so much. We've had a slow decline and one stock market bubble after another. Part of the intellectual bankruptcy of conservatism.
What is more advantageous and justifiable? That one man be paid $1 million, or that two men be paid $500 thousand, or that four men be paid $250 thousand, or that 10 men be paid $100 thousand? What situation provides for the greater common good and greatest overall benefit to society?
Capitalism in this country has been taken to an absurd extreme, which makes it no better than socialism or communism. The national debt now equals the entire economy - $15 trillion+, and what is more, total consumer debt as of 2011 is over $14 trillion, and they both quickly growing. How long before the collapse of the American empire?
"What is more advantageous and justifiable? That one man be paid $1 million, or that two men be paid $500 thousand, or that four men be paid $250 thousand, or that 10 men be paid $100 thousand? What situation provides for the greater common good and greatest overall benefit to society? "
Your whole statement is BS in that assumes that all men and women will work as hard, do as good a job, contribute the same etc. What if one man works and the rest sit on their ass and don't contribute because they don't give a crap? To you it seems that the solution is to go ahead and divide s**t up equal anyway. Well what happens when the people who put more effort into the systems see this and say f**k you and don't work either? What country exactly is this working in? Who would you like to role model?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You assume that people wouldn't work to survive. You assume that everyones just ripping you off by choosing to be poor, homeless, disabled, elderly, or sick. How much more realistic is that? How is it that every CEO deserves compensation 300 times their average worker but can't possibly work 300 times harder? How is it that your delusion even makes sense to you?
What he fails to see is that CEO's compensated 300-400 times that of their workers is not a historical average nor does it align with other wealthy nations. A combination of rules/laws and culture have lead to this massive difference in compensation. That compensation was not 'earned', the game has just been fixed.
For those that disagree, explain how getting to this compensation difference isn't related to policies over the past 30 years. In the 70's and before, we were roughly similar to Europe and other wealthy nations. Today, those other countries generally have about 30-40x CEO compensation vs their workers. That's about 10% of the difference in the US. It's absurd.
I don't fail to see any of that, I already asked where I said that and instead you just repeated it.... And went on with complaining about CEOs. I don't think crazy compensation for corporate leaders makes any common sense in many cases, especially if they are the captain of a sinking ship.
I am really talking about something entirely different than what you are replying to and commenting on the fact that it isn't so easy and it doesn't just work to divide s**t up equal and pay people the same just because.
Something is wrong with you. Nobody is saying you said CEO's make 300-400 times that of their workers, we are stating a fact. A quick google search would help you.
Also, nobody is arguing that work should be divided up equally and pay the same --- thats communism. We are just trying to make a point that the growing income disparity between the CEO's and their workers and the top 1% and the rest is a major problem. If their is $1M to be made in income among 5 people, would it not be better to have a more evenly distributed rather than $900k, $25k, $25k, $25k, $25k? The latter would have about 80% of the population near the poverty line.
Yes, talent has much to do with who is wealthy and who is not but a bigger factor these days is where you are born (the wealth of the family an individual is born into). The US is among the worst in nations where you can move in the income ladder because we have made the distance between each rung further apart.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Your whole rebuttal is BS. You assume that there aren't people who are capable and willing to work as hard or harder and be happy making a less money, especially given this economy.
"To you it seems that the solution is to go ahead and divide s**t up equal anyway."
Is that what I said? I simply asked some questions that I find interesting. It is you who inferred the rest, but just for fun I will play your game.
"What if one man works and the rest sit on their ass and don't contribute because they don't give a crap?"
Then that person or people get fired. No one gets to sit and do nothing while receiving benefits and compensation and no one, other than you, is suggesting otherwise.
"Well what happens when the people who put more effort into the systems see this and say f**k you and don't work either?"
I don't know about you, but my work ethic simply wouldn't allow for me to do this. I have to work to survive and I enjoy working and getting things done.
You are so scared of socialism that you have injected your fears into something that in no way was written to advocate that philosophy. What did Marx say about socialism, anyway? Didn't he say that socialism was the direct consequence of a capitalistic economy, a response to a majority of wealth becoming concentrated in the hands of a minority? What have all studies of wealth distribution in this country shown to be happening?
I suggest that if we really want to avoid socialism that we will work to bring balance to capitalism. Less people are making more; more people are making less. Do you really think that is sustainable?
"You assume that there aren't people who are capable and willing to work as hard or harder and be happy making a less money, especially given this economy"
I don't disagree with this at all, there is always someone willing to work harder for cheaper. That is a reason why we have a thriving illegal labor force and whey we outsource to India and China.
Congratulations on your work ethic, Do you really think we can rely on everyone sharing your high standards and ideas when it comes to liking work???
I can't believe that is supposed to be a legit response!!! LOL.
"I don't know about you, but I like work blah blah blah."
f**k you, I don't know about you but I like to get high all day LOL. Ok, now give me half your money bitch. Thank you for you assistance. It's not my fault really.
Are you blind? Look around you, does everyone you work with and interact with daily love working as much as you do?
"No one gets to sit and do nothing while receiving benefits and compensation"
OK, and rule number two...... no chewing gum!!! You are kidding me right? HAHAHA. Ok. How can you not see a problem that exists in all kinds of places? What planet are you from?
"Then that person or people get fired"
Ok, thennnnn..... what after they get fired? What do you do with them? rehab program? education? what is your solution? Why can't you or most others that just complain at least provide a role model? or a road map or something? What country do you want to be like???? WHO is doing it in such a way that you would be happy?
At least answer that please!
" Less people are making more; more people are making less. Do you really think that is sustainable?"
Think what is sustainable?? You are asking if I think an effect is sustainable?? That is not even the right question! I don't think the actions or causes that led to the situation (effect) our economy is in are sustainable no, of course I don't! duhhh.
And you jumping to the conclusion that I am "afraid of socialism" based on anything I said is absurd. Maybe you are just being touchy lol.
The US is only doing middling compared to the socialism used in Europe. No one mentions the failures over there, even though they are bringing the whole Union to it's knees. Blaming all the problems on capitalism doesn't make sense because other socialist countries are facing many of those same problems. The reason the pay structure has changed isn't because we aren't stealing from the rich as much anymore, it's because globalization has made the US less competitive and we've lost a huge number of factory jobs. I'm not against giving the poor a better chance, but it's not going to bring factories to the US. We have to find ways to compete with the low wages paid in other countries and that means using robotic manufacturing, lowering corporate taxes from the highest in the world, and speeding up business permits that take years to get approved. Redistribution isn't a solution. It won't magically make our unemployment problems go away. Spain uses it and they have 20 percent unemployment. We need to solve the problems at hand.
First, there is very little 'socialism' in Europe --- the vast majority are a mixed economy.
Germany has a lower unemployment rate than the US and yet they 'redistribute' much more than the US. Same can be said about various northern European countries. The southern European culture and working environment is not the same as the northern countries. We can learn a lot from those northern nations.
And furthermore, you compare the US to Europe and the effect of globalization. The major difference is that the effects in the US have been felt almost entirely by the lower & middle class.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Not when you look at Greece. It's being felt by everyone. Germany has a lot of people that understand business, make a good product, and are exporting more than they import. It doesn't have anything to do with their redistribution system. That's the reality of it. We have to bring back factories to the US.
Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweeden, Denmark, Belgium, etc. NORTHERN countries ---- have VERY LOW income disparity and very high income. Perhaps their 'redistribution system' is creating very high quality workforce.
Look at these income disparity maps/graphs. It's sickening to see that most of the wealthy nations have very low income disparity (purple or blue on the map) and the US is around or higher than most of Latin America, Africa and China.
In the past 30 years, most of the countries have lowered their GINI coefficient or remained relatively stable while the US has increased drastically.
The US is at the top and certainly has nothing to do with the other countries marked on that ridiculous map. You should have marked red for the most socialistic countries. Many northern European countries, like Norway, are pumping oil hand over fist to get their wages up, yet Democrats here are completely against pumping oil. You hate corporations or any thing that brings money to the country. If you had your way we would be all evenly poor, pushing us right to the top your silly map.
All systems, in order to thrive and reach full potential, require balance. How can you have a functioning economy when more and more money is being concentrated in the hands of a minority? The less money in the pool, the less there is to go around, the less there is to spend on goods and services. Right now, our economy is running on credit. As of August 2011, total consumer debt was over $11 trillion. I am not talking about nation debt, I am talking the total of all individual debt. Do you really think that is sustainable?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
A certain level is sustainable. It depends on the amount. It's not the most efficient and I don't carry any. The supposed transfer of power is that higher paying factory jobs closed and people moved to retail. The most immediate solution is to increase the number of factories. Then we can export more, instead of being an importing nation as we are now. Other solutions will arise naturally. For instance, there are more people taking care of servers right now and involved in information because of the internet. More are involved in higher paying health care jobs. I'm not against higher personal taxes on the rich, but for corporations, we have to stay competitive with the global tax rate in order to survive as a nation. There's been an enormous shift because of globalization and the economy still hasn't adjusted to it. It will. People were worried about the same thing when everyone wasn't a farmer anymore. Eventually, robotics will make fewer and fewer people needed for factories. The economy shifts and we end up with higher paying jobs eventually. It has to be jobs, though, not welfare. Welfare states collapse.
Not to mention that government was actually smaller during that time than when Reagan came along. Reagan may have spent the money on mostly "defense", but spend money he did.
In fact, this time period after WWII and before Reagan is marked by something of a return to individual and economic freedoms, from after the new deal era (many of the new deal provisions were ended) and WWII.
The keynesians at the end of the war were proclaiming that our economy would fall apart when all the soldiers returned home and we stopped producing the materials of war. . . .but just the opposite happened. They can't get over that failure, so they use other metrics and historical data from the time to fit their theory of an economy requiring government intervention to function.
Point being that an economy is far too complex a beast to be able to use empirical evidence alone to determine facts and truths.
Sound principle and axiom-based theory must be applied to understand the workings. We can't determine conclusively what caused the relative prosperity of this time period using historical data(was it because it was the heyday of the unions, was it because we came out of the war as the only developed economy still standing, was it because of the repeal of new deal era policies, combinations of innumerable factors?) . . . but we can know that, all else being equal, a central bank inflating the currency and manipulating interest rates will produce malinvestments, and create a business cycle (booms and busts). We can know that, all else being equal, central planning fails, because of the problem of economic calculation. etc.
"The keynesians at the end of the war were proclaiming that our economy would fall apart when all the soldiers returned home and we stopped producing the materials of war"
Could I please have a citation on that? I looked over my old texts and I cannot see anything like that. The predictions that I can find are all for expanding economy. Since large amounts of prior spending were for improved infrastructure, the local businesses were having trouble getting the people that they needed and the return of the men would result in a large number of marraiges and young marrieds needing homes, all point to an improved economy. This would be the kind of economy the Keynesians would then want to increase taxes so as to start paying off the large debts that were incurred during WWII.
It doesn't look like the Keynesian theories were stressed until the occurence of stagnation in the 60's.
The outcries you seem to point to would likely be coming from the military-industrial complex. They would not like having to pay the money to re-tool factories to change from making bombs to making refrigerators.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The keynesian claim that counter-cyclical policy is necessary to raise (or keep) an economy out of recession and into full employment, is also frustrated by many other historical episodes that they like to ignore, or spin a different way, such as the depression of 1920-21.
Or, why is it that the two most drawn out depressionary periods in this country's history both happen to coincide with the two greatest periods of federal government intervention into a recession time economy, and also coincide with previously more active federal reserve policy?
It's also easy to examine historical data and 'find' things that don't look so good for free markets and laissez-faire; I will not argue against that.
My point, which you ignored, is that economics is, if anything, a social science and hypothesis are not appropriately tested by means of the same methodologies as used in the physical sciences. Human action of millions of individuals that make up the market is too complex to be accurately analyzed by psychologists, let alone economic aggregates. Variables cannot be controlled nor isolated; they are are too varied and numerous to even begin to imagine all of them, let alone acount for them in aggregates or econometric models.
What we can do is logically deduct axioms from human action (not psychological phenomena, but rather self-evidently true axioms derived from the existence of human action), and build upon these a priori deductions to build economic theories.
Thank you for trying. I was a bit disappointed. The first two articles have no comment as far as predictions during WWII for what would happen after the war was over.
Yes, Paul Samuelson became a neo-Keynesian. He was instrumental in defining and describing the 60's stagflation. Before that, he was a true Keynesian and drew parallels between the economic boom, the WWII investment in infrastructure and the need to reduce spending and increase taxes to pay off the debts from WWII.
The third article had a rebuttal of Keynesian explanations as to why there was a boom. The rebuttal was framed around the ideas of military-industialists Charles Edward Wilson, Leon Keyserling, Dean Acheson and Clark Clifford. All of them advised a state of permanent warfare to bolster the economy. The first was the CEO of GE. The others were lawyers with strong ties to the military and the military support industries. I guess you would call them lobbyists now. All of them advised that we keep spending huge amounts of money to defense industries to keep up our economy. Fortunately, we did not do this. We reduced defense spending, increased taxes and the economy did very well.
The fourth article was more of a political rant than a historical article.
I did not mean to ignore any particular point that you were making. I was honestly curious where you were getting your ideas from. The comment you made did not match up with what I was taught about Keynesian economics. They sounded more like the rants of business leaders who were worried about their golden egg disappearing after WWII was over. Costs of retooling a factory do tend to be very large and painful for management.
In response to your last comment (since I can't respond directly to it):
Dugg, just for at least reading a little from each link. . . . it's just nice those rare times that someone actually takes time to respond to what you are posting instead of just ranting on a red herring or a straw man. . . I can see that I kind of did that to you and I apologize.
I also agree that the 4th article was more of an editorial, and not a very historical/scholarly source. . .however, I included it as a reminder of an even more pointed example, and more historically well documented case, than the American story, of government ignoring the keynesian advice to engage in (or continue) deficit spending, but not doing it. Because of not following this advice, what West Germany got was nothing short of an economic miracle.
Once again, though, I could be dead wrong, if I'm basing my viewpoint on this empirical, historical evidence. Perhaps there were other factors in the U.S.'s and Germany's return to prosperity which played a greater role.
I want to know when the candidates are going to address the entitlement problem in this country; the entitlement problem that exists at the top levels of corporate and financial America, and is pervasive throughout our government. CEO's and other top executives making 300 to 500 times more than the average workers who actually drive the business. They say, "Well those kinds of salaries and bonuses are necessary to attract top talent. They are entitled to it."
Then we have banks that gamble and make immensely bad investments, taking huge risks that no sane and rational person would make. Then, when the whole thing comes crashing down and the s**t house is on fire, they simply come strolling up, asking for bailouts, as if they are entitled to America's tax money and to be free of the consequences of their unscrupulous risk taking.
A similar attitude seems to come out of our Congress and upper level government positions. They act as if they are entitled to automatic pay raises, access to insider information, special treatment by corporations, and freedom from consequences for actions that would land average Americans in jail - entitled to all these perks and special treatments because of their titles and status.
Yep, there is an entitlement problem, it just isn't the one that everyone is talking about. Corporate, financial, and bureaucratic entitlements that separate a minority from the reality of the majority. A reality in which those who can afford it least have lost the most. Massive unemployment, underemployment, underwater mortgages, stagnant wages, rising health care costs, rising energy costs, etc., that affect the majority while the minority is insulated from the pain that ultimately, they have caused and perpetuated. Entitlement indeed.
I live in D.C. and there's another entitlement program that I'm sure you're aware of--the Department of Defense. We waste millions on missiles while we have serious problems in our own country. Even if you don't agree that burning taxpayer money on new weapons of death is a waste, the lack of accountability in the defense industry is astounding. I've witnessed it myself; six figure and up salaries for unqualified people who do very little work.
I live in D.C. and there's another entitlement program that I'm sure you're aware of--the Department of Defense. We waste millions on missiles while we have serious problems in our own country. Even if you don't agree that burning taxpayer money on new weapons of death is a waste, the lack of accountability in the defense industry is astounding. I've witnessed it myself; six figure and up salaries for unqualified people who do very little work.
I agree 100%, but neither side has stepped up to fix the issue. The problem I have with politics today is each side is too busy positioning instead of solving the issues.
CEOs make that all over the world. Look at what CEOs make in China or Japan or Germany... it's not something you're going to change.
And really, the CEOs are not the problem. If you took ALL their money away. All of it. It wouldn't make much of a difference in the budget gaps.
So your little bit of sniveling class warfare is pointless. It doesn't matter. If you want to fix things then you have to impact things at the middle class level and below. There just aren't enough people at the top to make persecuting them profitable.
And of course that is always the bait and switch in class warfare. They start out saying "we'll go after those evil rich people" and then when push comes to shove they'll just rob the middle class instead. It's easier. Every past progressive push has always worked out that way. They start out talking about going after the rich and before you know it they're attacking small businesses and private medical practices like somehow it's your dentist's fault that the government is out of control.
Anyway, whatever... I know no one is listening anymore. People just come on to this site to vent. They close their eyes, post something stupid, and leave. it would be nice if people bothered to actually discuss the issues but that's not what digg is about.
The overall point is that the wages of CEO's and other executives have increased rather disproportionately compared to worker pay. More and more money is going to an entitled few while jobs are cut and and wages have become stagnant or seen minimal increases. Look at the shrinking middle class and ever increasing consumer debt as evidence of this. That is a fact and yet pointing out the truth becomes class warfare? Sounds more like emotionally charged rhetoric to me.
"So your little bit of sniveling class warfare is pointless. It doesn't matter."
So pointless that you felt compelled to respond? Doesn't matter? That is a matter of opinion, not fact, and one that is rather pessimistic.
"If you want to fix things then you have to impact things at the middle class level and below."
You think? I seem to recall a guy named Karl Marx who wrote that in a capitalistic economic system, eventually a majority of wealth will become concentrated in the hands of a very small minority. Every study of wealth distribution in this country shows that is exactly what is happening. Further, he stated that eventually people are going to get fed up to the point that they are going to band together and take that wealth back. Do you think that this is not true? Do you think that this lopsided wealth gap is sustainable?
"There just aren't enough people at the top to make persecuting them profitable."
That may or may not be true, but the fact is there is more than enough money at the top. I'm not advocating that anyone take that money; I am advocating that, for the betterment of society, those at the top voluntarily give some back.
According to the IRS, in 2008, over 893,000, $500,000+ adjusted gross income tax returns were filed. Just for the sake of argument and to keep the math simple, let's just say that 1 million people made $500,000+. Let's say that all 1 million people gave back $50,000 to pay for wages and benefits for new workers. That would be $50 billion toward that purpose. Is that insignificant?
Did you know that as of August 2011, total consumer debt was over $11 trillion? Now, why do most empires fail? Could it have something to do with their economies and the value of their money?
This is a serious conversation that needs to be had and it needs to involve all members of society who are willing to participate and stand together; both the affluent and the less affluent.. If we truly fear socialism, then we will work together on saving and bolstering the middle class. It has nothing to do with class warfare as you and others have asserted. It has everything to do with saving this country and our way of life.
"I know no one is listening anymore. People just come on to this site to vent. They close their eyes, post something stupid, and leave. it would be nice if people bothered to actually discuss the issues..."
That is a blanket statement that does not reflect reality. I am here to listen and learn. I am here to share ideas and knowledge. I am willing to discuss issues with anyone who is willing to do so in a respectful manner. I fear for the future of this country. I fear for the future of my children. I am willing to work to do something about it. Are you?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Any policy build upon envy is going to be self destructive.
You can't argue that they have too much. You must instead argue why YOU deserve what they have.
Why should you be paid more?
See... I don't disagree they're paid too much but that's just from my perspective. From the company's perspective... that actually pays them... the fee is acceptable. Why should that same company pay it's executives less and you more?
At best, I could see paying the executives less and not changing your wage at all. What does that accomplish for you? Does that make your life better? I don't see how the executive's pay matters to you or anyone besides the executive and the company.
Are you pissed that the world isn't fair? The world isn't fair. Go watch animal planet or step outside and just pay attention to nature. The world is VERY unfair and it has always been unfair. Fair is something children and idiots believe in but everyone over about age 12 has grown out of it.
The world is this way. I don't like that it's unfair. It would be great if it were fair. But the world isn't fair. It isn't. And you can't make it fair without GOD or some all powerful super being which I assure you will NEVER be something you can substitute with the federal government. If you try to use the federal government to create "fair" all you'll do is create a new nobility. You'll get a king. And the king or his ministers will decide what is and is not fair. In a democracy, 'fair' is just going to be whatever the existing committee thinks is fair. And that could mean anything.
The point I'm trying to make here is that you're focusing on the wrong thing. Don't worry about what's fair because that's f'ing impossible. Instead, focus on what is better for your family, yourself, and your country. Focus on MATERIAL goods. Things that exist in reality. Truth and justice are concepts but if I asked you to actually point to it in reality you'd be hard pressed to find it.
While you may hate the CEO or the unfairness of their wealth, consider how good the company is for society, for you, for your family, and for the country. These companies make much of our modern world possible. You can't do most of the things we take for granted without them. Look at China... they were unable to enter the modern world without creating corporations.
And even if you don't have corporations do you really think there won't be privilaged people? Look at the Chinese Communist Party leadership... they're all driving around in half million dollar cars with hordes of servants. Did they earn all of that? How much more do they earn in relation to the average person in China? What about the Russian Communist party during the reign of the USSR? Same thing... they were living in mansions, driving fancy cars, going to all expenses paid trips to fancy resorts in Europe and gambling away on the public dime. That's the world and it isn't fair.
No system you create will be fair. It will instead be a human. We are humans. We make human societies and human societies are not fair. Or if the are fair then the standards by which fairness are judged are very different from what either of us would call fair.
Nepotism is going to happen. Cronyism is going to happen. The strong will exploit the weak. Your parking place will be stolen at the mall parking lot by someone just a little faster and more ruthless then you... and that's just life. Get over it. This has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. You are not the first one to notice any of this and you won't be the last. But it doesn't matter. The world will keep turning.
That is a rather dismal way to view the world but you are entitled to it.
"Any policy build upon envy is going to be self destructive."
Any system that reaches extremes is going to be self-destructive.
"You can't argue that they have too much. You must instead argue why YOU deserve what they have."
History and empiricism argues that they have too much. The system is unsustainable; it has nothing to do with envy.
"Why should you be paid more?"
I didn't say I should be paid more. I make plenty of money. I am saying the empirically and demonstrably, a few are making more while many are making less. That is a fact.
"At best, I could see paying the executives less and not changing your wage at all."
I'm self-employed; I pay my own wages. Could you see the benefit of paying the top less in order to employ more people? What provides the greater benefit to society?
"Are you pissed that the world isn't fair? The world isn't fair. Go watch animal planet or step outside and just pay attention to nature. The world is VERY unfair and it has always been unfair. Fair is something children and idiots believe in but everyone over about age 12 has grown out of it."
The last time I checked, we have the ability to reason and communicate and learn from history that has been written down and otherwise recorded. We also have the ability to change the world.
"The point I'm trying to make here is that you're focusing on the wrong thing. Don't worry about what's fair because that's f'ing impossible "
I realize what I can and cannot change. I simply don't subscribe to your absolutism. "This is how it is; deal with it."
"While you may hate the CEO or the unfairness of their wealth, consider how good the company is for society, for you, for your family, and for the country."
I don't hate CEO's. If you haven't noticed, the economy is still in the toilet. Do you really believe that we would be in the same situation if more people had more money, rather than a few people having more money?
"No system you create will be fair."
I guess you forgot what our founding fathers wrote:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Did you get that? A more perfect union. I think it is pretty safe to say they believed in and were striving for a fair system.
"Nepotism is going to happen. Cronyism is going to happen. The strong will exploit the weak."
You don't understand the fundamental law of mutual existence. They cannot be who they are without us, and we cannot be who we are without them. Those things only happen when the majority refuses to stand together for what is right and just. These things are not inevitabilities, only potentialities that manifest if we allow it.
"Get over it. This has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. You are not the first one to notice any of this and you won't be the last. But it doesn't matter."
I don't have to accept anything that is rightly within my power to effect. Alone, I can only do so much. United, we can move mountains. It matters because we decide it matters just as we give meaning and power to everything in this world.
I notice you did not address any of my points or questions. You complain that "it would be nice if people bothered to actually discuss the issues...," and yet you have deflected and retreated to a helpless and deterministic worldview. Things won't change for those who choose a stagnant reality devoid of possibility over a reality in which there are infinite dynamic possibilities of which we can collectively bring to fruition.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Our system is not extreme. It is full of moderating elements. If you think this is extreme then the world has some surprises in store for you.
As to history proving your point. That may be... but that's like saying "evidence exists to prove my point so I don't need to prove my point." You need to at least cite this history. And as to it being unsustainable... perhaps. But that doesn't mean YOU deserve money. It simply means that someone else might not deserve it. And where does it go if not to them? The shareholders? Does that solve your problem? You're going to need to justify people paying YOU or if you prefer the underpaid worker more money. Because currently, the system that determines what people are paid is governed by supply and demand. The supply of labor against the demand for that labor. The price paid is the amount required to get the supply to meet the demand. Why should the company pay you using different logic then you use to determine what products to buy? You have a demand for various goods. You look at the supply. And you pay what you think to be reasonable price for that product. Do you ever buy something from a store and say "this is too cheap!" and then give the clerk extra money? No one does that. And no company is going to pay you more then you're worth.
As to some making more while some are making less... why is that? And why is that wrong? Perhaps those making less are less valuable and those making more are more valuable? You can't think that the value of any labor remains constant throughout time. At one time a good mason was worth a lot of money. Today, such a man isn't worth nearly as much because he has to know how to use modern machines and technologies. If he doesn't then he's not that valuable. Likewise, a lot of your lower paid workers haven't adapted to the modern economy while many of your higher paid workers have adapted. Being at the top of any organization will also generally ensure high pay. But it's a distraction to focus on them because there really aren't that many people like that. It's not economically relevant.
As to my absolutism, call it a healthy respect for inertia of reality. if you want to change this you're going to need more force then you have. What you're talking about doing is moving a mountain with a toothpick. And the mountain doesn't just sit there. It actively restores itself. You don't have the equipment to do it. You'll just waste your time. If you want to change this you'll need a complete social revolution, a totally new economic system THAT ACTUALLY WORKS, and you'll probably need to genetically engineer everyone that participates in it to filter out human instincts that sustain the system. Do you have any of that? No. So you're wasting your time.
I'm not an absolutist. I simply have a clue. You're not getting to the moon by flapping your arms really fast. That isn't absolutist... it's physics. And you're not fixing these elements of human nature and our society by electing someone to office or bitching about it or starting some sort of social movement. You have no idea how strong these elements are... and they self reinforce each other because whether you like them or hate them... they work. Every other system has lead to people starving to death. Which indifferent to their justice kills the system because dead babies are generally seen a flaw in any economic system.
As to the founders, no they weren't going for fair. They were going for a system where the government didn't actively dick over everyone. They wanted rule of law. Fair? They'd laugh at you.
As to your law of existence, the problem is that it's been tried before. What happens is some little social movement gets together to overthrow the nobles and in the process they turn themselves into the new nobles. This has happened nearly every single time. The US is exceptional in this regard and they only resisted that by keeping the government WEAK. Are you in favor of a strong government or a weak government? Because if you want a strong one... then you're going to make nobles. And if you make a weak one it will mean the nobles will be out there in the private sector. I'd just assume keep them private. No need to give the bastards the force of law behind their whims. But then everyone seems to want a strong government.
I remember Woody Allen saying a couple years ago that Obama should be made Emperor for a few years. Total dictatorial control over everything... and why not... then everyone gets what they've always wanted... to be ruled like peasants. The king takes care of people. The king determines what is fair.
What could possibly go wrong.
As to what is rightly in your power to change... flap your arms to the moon then. I'll be over here sipping ice tea and giggling. The most you'll ever do is create an institution powerful enough to enslave men. For nothing short of that will control the CEOs. And the first thing any such organization will do is enslave you. In fact, the CEOs might just become part of the government. Then not only will they have all the wealth and power they had before... now they'll have the power of the government behind them. That's what happened in the USSR. It's what happened in Cuba.
It's how that game works. The way to win... is not to play.
I accept the excesses of the CEOs because it's more acceptable then the alternative. You believe in a perfect solution where there are no problems. I've seen where that goes if you're not careful. I'll take what I have now and be grateful for it. Because the alternative is slavery and damnation.
"Our system is not extreme. It is full of moderating elements."
$15 trillion+ and rising national debt; $11 trillion+ and rising consumer debt. Not extreme? More wealth accumulated at the top than at any point in history. Not extreme? More people imprisoned in this country than any other. Not extreme? Good luck making a tenable argument otherwise.
"As to history proving your point."
I suggest starting with the Great Depression. Then read about the history of all empires that have collapsed. Does the collapse have anything to do with their economies and the value of their currencies?
"But that doesn't mean YOU deserve money."
I already addressed that baseless assertion in a previous response.
"And no company is going to pay you more then you're worth."
Yeah, you are right. No CEO or other top executive gets paid more than they are worth. Oh wait, you said "I accept the excesses of the CEOs..." You concede the point.
"As to some making more while some are making less... why is that? And why is that wrong?"
Do you remember Marx and what he said was an inevitable consequence of capitalism?
"if you want to change this you're going to need more force then you have. What you're talking about doing is moving a mountain with a toothpick."
Already been addressed in my previous post.
"You're not getting to the moon by flapping your arms really fast."
Straw man. Try again.
"If you want to change this you'll need a complete social revolution, a totally new economic system THAT ACTUALLY WORKS..."
I suggest that OWS is indicative of what is going to happen on a mass scale if things continue along the path they are on.
"As to the founders, no they weren't going for fair. They were going for a system where the government didn't actively dick over everyone. They wanted rule of law. Fair?"
Several of the founding fathers railed against excessive debt. A "more perfect union" is not one in which we have a corporate cleptocracy where power equals money. Try again.
"In fact, the CEOs might just become part of the government. Then not only will they have all the wealth and power they had before... now they'll have the power of the government behind them."
Are you blind to the fact that CEO's have become a part of the government? What of Citizens United?
The lines between government and corporations have blurred and the two are hardly distinguishable. Look how much money corporations spend lobbying government - do you think that lobbying has no effect? Our government has been increasingly taken over by corporations and if you can't admit that or see that then you are truly blind.
"The way to win... is not to play."
The way to win is to stand united and work as neighbors, friends, and families to protect our collective interests. We take what has been happening with GoDaddy and apply that mechanism systemically and methodically. It's that simple.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CEO pay is in no way responsible for the government deficits. That's just over spending. The government is collecting LOTS of money. If 2.5 trillion in revenues isn't doing it for you then the only thing extreme is your failure to grasp the absurdity of that situation.
As to empire's collapsing, I suggest you look up the Roman Empire. It fell in on itself in large part due to bread and circuses. The wheat fields of Egypt were shipped as tribute to Rome where the grain was given out AT NO COST to everyone. And FREE games were offered to everyone in the city. Strange wild animals battled each other in Arena. Slaves from the four corners of the empire were brought to fight or otherwise amuse the crowd.
Where did it all go wrong? Well for one thing, the reason they had bread and circuses was to distract the people from their loss of rights. The imperial senate was an oligarchy and they had an emperor. The free food and entertainment was meant to placate the people. However, last year's wonderful gift becomes next year's entitlement, and then the following year's civic right. The point being that people weren't happy just getting free food and entertainment. They always wanted more. And beyond that the fields of Egypt could feed Rome for free but there were limits on how far that would go beyond the eternal city. So lots of force had to be used internally within the system to keep the plebs in line. Riots were common. And while food might have been free it was also very hard to make a living in Imperial Rome because all the wealthy employers owned slaves. It was very common for people to sell themselves into slavery just to feed their families. The system was quiet dark.
It weakened the empire. Who wants to fight and die for an empire that exploits you at every turn and in which you have no hope of ever rising any higher? The free food and entertainment were worthless because there was no hope of ever getting anything better. That was the cost of the bread, circuses, slavery, and imperial rule... social stagnation.
A primary problem with socialism which I assume you're telling me is the solution to all our problems is that the first cost is lower economic productivity. That means fewer jobs. Higher unemployment. Less social mobility. More power concentrated in the hands of fewer people.
You're ultimately advocating modern bread and circuses. And you think you'll be happy with a check from the government, free healthcare, and whatever else. But the price of all that will be never amounting to anything ever. You might make the society more equal but you'll do it mostly by making the society less wealthy in general.
What little patriotism we have in this country will drain away. And like the romans when attacked after rotting from the inside out for a few centuries of it we'll collapse like moldy old fruit.
Thank you for your suggestion, but I'm not foolish enough to see that as a good idea.
Anyway, you're just spluttering now. If you're interested in an actual discussion where actual thoughts are exchanged backed by actual information then you know where to find me. But if all you've got is mindless adolescent and often baseless ideology then please find an stupider crowd to pitch your wares.
"As to the debt, I thought we were talking about the corporations being out of control?"
Go back and reread my entire initial post. I covered several different topics, not just government and corporate America. I am not going to rehash what I already took the time to write.
As far as the rest of your post, it is irrelevant. I have made claims and backed them up. While I haven't provided links to each and every one of them, you should be able to do some research on your own and verify them yourself.
As to your assertion that I am advocating socialism, again, you misconstrue my entire argument. Either you aren't reading what I post or you are twisting what I have written on purpose. Reread what I have written; it is quite clear what I am advocating as a cure for our ills.
"Anyway, you're just spluttering now. If you're interested in an actual discussion where actual thoughts are exchanged backed by actual information then you know where to find me. But if all you've got is mindless adolescent and often baseless ideology then please find an stupider crowd to pitch your wares."
Spluttering? That's a good one. I am and have been interested in actual discussion; it is YOU who have not read, have not understood, and appear to have made little effort to actually address the questions I have raised.
I tell you what: I will put my education credentials and my experience up against yours any day. I am not some mindless shill quacking away like an idiot. I have four degrees and have been self-employed almost all of my working life. I have made more money in a month than average Americans make in a year and I have the tax returns to back it up.
How dare you attack me or my credibility. Have I not been respectful of you? Have I denigrated or otherwise insulted you? NO, I have not. I have taken the time to address your points, whether valid or not.
Your true colors have been revealed through the course of these missives. Your straw man responses, your absolutism, and your disrespect have done nothing to further your understanding or your credibility. I REALLY do have better things to do than try to communicate with someone who is unwilling to attempt to understand.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I grew up poor and guess what? I'm not poor now. Neither are any of my siblings. why? We educated ourselves and took advantage of opportunities that came our way.
GOOD for you! And I bet you are a female Hispanic or black from a small town in West Texas or Mississippi. No?
What happened for you is NOT the reality for 300 million people.
You got lucky and you built on that luck.
Were you abused from birth? How about born with a disability?
You are only you - uniquely so.
You had support of your siblings and I bet support from some significant adults.
And I bet you had meals on a daily basis. I bet you saw a doctor on occasion and were cared for when you became ill.
Trying to apply your life experience to everyone that came before or after you is hubris.
You're confusing an anecdote (your personal experience) with population-wide statistics. Your retort ("I was poor and I made it") is equivalent to (and as misplaced as) the retort of the guy who got to be 100-year old while smoking 2 packs a day, boasting, "see? smoking doesn't cause cancer".
Reading comprehension not your forte.
I didn't imply that I did know anything about you.. In fact YOU are the one that implies that you exhibit the epitome of humanity that unfolds from a constant baseline.
Nothing is further from the truth.
Good for you for being who you have decided to be.
You are not 7 billion of us.
Good for you for having the luck to have the opportunity and the experience and the choice to go to the next choice to go to the next choice with each new thing arising uniquely for you and you only.
You had the luck and the ability and the choices arising uniquely to you and no one else..
My point went right over your head as it will again.
You are NOT the norm except for someone of your age, born where you were born, when you were born to whom you were born at the moment you were born, in the conditions and the family structure at the moment in time and the specific conditions that were all together in unique ordered chaos with the same contacts and the same choices and the same educational opportunities experiencing the same experiences.
You cannot apply YOUR experience to anyone unless it is someone who has experienced the exact same life conditions, no matter how insignificant you believe them to be, as you have experienced from the moment of conception....
From how your mother responded to that conception physically, socially and emotionally
From the development of that clump of cells and the bombardment of every molecule in that development - the DNA and genetics chosen within the cell structure to the activities of the host
All the way through birth and how your existence was treated, the luck of your experience of time, place, person, activity and the air you breath to the location of allergens and your response to them
The people with whom you came in contact and the way you responded
The activities offered and the books read.
YOU are a unique culmination of them all and nothing is consistent with anyone else on the planet before or after.
GOOD FOR YOU for being the great and mighty Norman. You are not anyone but you. To expect that anyone else on the planet can be like you is pure hubris.
Just because you came from what you believe to be poor conditions and are no longer poor does NOT mean everyone else can do exactly as you have done.
Each person is unique and their life experience is unique.YOUR presumption of being the epitome of all people is as far off as claiming a Sperm Whale in the Pacific can be exactly like a Penguin in the Bronx Zoo
"GOOD FOR YOU for being the great and mighty Norman. You are not anyone but you. To expect that anyone else on the planet can be like you is pure hubris. "
I don't think that's hubris at all. Maybe naive depending on the circumstances, but not hubris. Sometimes people simply don't know how good they are at something and they mistakenly think that anyone could achieve the same thing. I think if Norman were walking around with that attitude...saying that he's so good as whatever it is that he does and that's why he made it out of the poor house...THAT, my friend would be hubris.
Holy douchebag!
I bet you despise yourself even more than you despise those who have been LUCKY enough to acheive (or steal from the poor) their success in life...
I'd wish you peace and success in life, but you'd just be depriving others of theirs if you actually succeed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
No such thing as luck, not in business. It's always about who you know, what institutions you are affiliated with or connected to, and things along these lines.
Strategy, planning, determination, structure, and seed money.
"No such thing as luck, not in business. It's always about who you know, what institutions you are affiliated with or connected to, and things along these lines."
Key phrase, "who you know", not too many inner city black kids with Mitt Romney's connections.
When I met Donald Trump back in the late 80's I asked him his advice on succeeding in business. He was a really interesting guy back then - very friendly and not the egomaniacal nutcase he has become (he was a hard-ass businessman and a brutal boss, but if you didn't work for him he was okay). He told me at the time that in his opinion it was all up to - Personal skills and abilities, Persistance and Determination coinciding with Timing, Opportunity and a whole lot of Good Luck.
Not everyone has the skills and abilities, so not everyone can succeed.
Many people lack the strength and determination to persist in the face of adversity.
You can have all the skills and determination to succeed, but the market has to be right for you to succeed.
Equal opportunity is a myth - you have to be in the right time and the right place for everything to come together.
More people fail than succeed, you need a whole lotta luck for it all to work out right. Things go wrong more than things go right and that's why you need to be persistent and keep trying because if you have the tools and the determination you have to keep trying and eventually with some luck, the right opportunity comes along at the right time...
"Key phrase, "who you know", not too many inner city black kids with Mitt Romney's connections."
It's what you know and who you know.
I know from personal experience.
I dropped out of HS and spent many years engaging in minor crimes, drugs and alcohol. One day, I wanted better for myself. So, I cleaned up my act, got a menial job that required hoisting a shovel and getting dirty. Soon, I grew tired of that type of work. I got my GED, tested and get accepted to a college, then got my degree. Then I worked entry level for two years. After that, I switched jobs, but I took along my networked contacts from my previous job. I began to move up in that job, and I used my contacts for advancing business. I made more contacts over time.
One day, I decided I didn't like the idea of enriching someone else on my hard work. So, I took money out of savings and cashed in my 401k. I rolled that money into a new business venture. I used my acquired contacts to grow my business. That business was started in 1998.
Today, I am comfortable middle class. Mu income continues to grow yearly. I still get dirty conducting my business. My wife is a stay at home mom, and we own out own home. We have no debt, and the cars are paid.
My mother was twice divorced. I had no dad in the home. I also am dyslexic.
The point I am trying to make is that only hard work, and sacrifice, along with perseverance is the key to success in this country.
Also, ask yourself why so many immigrants want to come here. Because they the opportunities that many Americans refuse to see, or to grasp.
Being a failure is not due to color, class, or circumstance. Being a failure is most often attributed to laziness and lack of motivation. We have a whole generation of 20 and 30-somethings who are sitting around waiting for someone to give them that big break. They think it's owed them. The folks who make it are the ones who jumped in and made that break for themselves, by working for it.
Cosmic surfer, you sound like a defeatist. You seem bitter, that your life is a disappointment. It is not luck that has blessed certain people.
Luck is playing the lottery, or pulling on a slot machine lever, hitting the jackpot. Statistically, the odds are stacked against anyone who plays these games, expecting to get lucky.
Successful people aren't lucky. They reap the rewards of hard work. They thinking, and calculated moves in their lives earned them the rewards of their labor. If they failed, the picked up and kept trying until they earned the payoff. There is no luck to being successful Luck is for suckers.
By what I have read from you, your attitude seems to have gotten in your way. Maybe you are your own worst enemy.
Excepting trust fund babies and people from old money, look at those who earned a fortune in the span of their own lives. They did it by hard work, using business connections, and not depending on luck. These are the people the OWS 99 percenters are jealous of, and who's money they would just assume to take for themselves, because those OWS protesters are too f**king busy worrying about what others have over what they have, rather then going out, minding their own business, and earning it themselves.
In closing, all I can say is to cross your fingers, wish for luck, and one day you will have it all. And, if you believe that strategy is going to pay off, they you're going to get 'lucky', I have a tent I will sell you as your next address at the local OWS encampment you plan to attend... That is, if you can afford it.
For those Vietnamese who succeeded in attaining the American dream, good for them. But, your bold claim is not a universal truth among Vietnamese boat people.
Furthermore, the criticisms and concerns of most Americans these days are founded on the steady deterioration of economic opportunity in the U.S. over the past 30 years, NOT whether a few Vietnamese boat people succeeded in becoming doctors. If that path continues, those doctors will see their financial opportunities collapse along with everyone else. If patient's lack income, it stands to reason the healthcare industry will too since doctor's aren't paid with "wishful thinking".
"For those Vietnamese who succeeded in attaining the American dream, good for them."
"NOT whether a few Vietnamese boat people succeeded in becoming doctors"
It is much more than a few Asians, if you have ever visited California you would know that it is more like a majority of the health care industry and large chunks of other industries as well. They come here because we provide opportunities that our own citizens are to lazy to take advantage of so they do it for us. Why do you think there are so many successful people who have migrated here? Wait let me guess, they must just be lucky too.... The wind blew their boat to the right place. Even at your poorest you will live like a king compared to the millions they left behind in many cases.
----------------------------------
When will the victims notice the obvious correlation that those who "get lucky" are mostly the same ones who are more determined, work harder, educate themselves more, etc.
Nope, instead we pick and choose a smallish amount from 1% of the population and blame everything on them while idolizing other 1%ers and falsely claiming the sentiments of 99% of the population. And that in itself is not as shameful as the inability to accept any blame or see anything beyond corporate corruption and people who have more than them as a problem for the state of our nation.
Does luck, time and place and all that come in to play? You bet but not for most of us, otherwise it would not be luck. You work around that if you are responsible for yourself.
"For those Vietnamese who succeeded in attaining the American dream, good for them."
"NOT whether a few Vietnamese boat people succeeded in becoming doctors"
It is much more than a few Asians, if you have ever visited California you would know that it is more like a majority of the health care industry and large chunks of other industries as well. They come here because we provide opportunities that our own citizens are to lazy to take advantage of so they do it for us. Why do you think there are so many successful people who have migrated here? Wait let me guess, they must just be lucky too.... The wind blew their boat to the right place. Even at your poorest you will live like a king compared to the millions they left behind in many cases.
----------------------------------
When will the victims notice the obvious correlation that those who "get lucky" are mostly the same ones who are more determined, work harder, educate themselves more, etc.
Nope, instead we pick and choose a smallish amount from 1% of the population and blame everything on them while idolizing other 1%ers and falsely claiming the sentiments of 99% of the population. And that in itself is not as shameful as the inability to accept any blame or see anything beyond corporate corruption and people who have more than them as a problem for the state of our nation.
Does luck, time and place and all that come in to play? You bet but not for most of us, otherwise it would not be luck. You work around that if you are responsible for yourself.
Some people have crappy upbringings or don't take advantage of available opportunities or both. Including hispanic females or people from small towns. If you don't even try is the system to blame or yourself?
So address the abuse. If you are born with a disability, that may be s**tty luck, but life isn't always fair. If the disability makes it so that you aren't capable of moving up in the world, then that's life. It is no different than if someone is born without much intelligence. If the problem is discrimination because of the disability, then address that.
If anything, the problem with our system is that it allows people to stay at a level above what they deserve because their parents had status rather than not giving opportunities to those who don't. No matter how many opportunities you give someone, it won't do them any good if they don't take them.
I'm not saying our system is perfect, it certainly can be improved, but it has to be pursued carefully and be sure to fix the problems. That means carefully identifying the issues, cutting programs that don't address them and boosting programs that do and trying to make sure that help is only provided to those who are trying to put in the effort themselves as well.
I guess another way to say it is that I have no problem throwing any amount of money at merit based assistance programs, but I have a fundamental problem with any assistance program where the requirements are simply to be below level 123.
YUP cause it is all about luck! Hard work has nothing to do with it, just sit around and wait to be lucky and complain when you are not. Typical victim.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
YUP cause cosmicsurfer didn't say anything like that at all! Just sit around and wait to inject a bogus talking point and complain when you are called on it. Typical conservative yutz.
"Good for you for having the luck to have the opportunity and the experience..."
"You had the luck and the ability and the choices arising uniquely to you and no one else.."
" the luck of your experience of time, place, person, activity and the air you breath"
YUP dumbass, nothing like that at all!!!!! sure didn't!!! Did you bother reading the comments??
And that somehow makes me conservative. Why is that? They don't believe in luck or something?
And it is not a bogus talking point, If you did not notice, the title is "America's Unlevel Field" and talks about differences in opportunity and such. That is what is being discussed here. Victims equate success to luck many times. Where is my talking point not relevant? Where am I complaining? Did you comment on the right post??
You criticized cosmicsurfer that "...it is all about luck! HaHard work has nothing to do with it..."
No one is discounting hard work, nor is pointing out the ridiculousness of discounting luck and the connections associate with wealth, discounting hard work. You exaggerated it as doing so and I called you out on it.
In cosmicsurfer's comments that YOU QUOTED he/she mentions luck and opportunity, experience, ability, choices, experience (again) and activity. Funny thing: he doesn't mention sitting around, waiting and complaining.
Who will deny that luck is almost always part of success? Who doubts that luck is usually a part of failure [where laziness isn't present]?
Are you not a conservative? Your comment "Typical victim." is the standard conservatives boilerplate repeated ad nauseum when this subject is the topic of discussion.
FenderStratocastor: "Being a failure is most often attributed to laziness and lack of motivation...sitting around waiting for someone to give them that big break...you sound like a defeatist. You seem bitter, that your life is a disappointment. It is not luck that has blessed certain people."
rthakidn: "...many born into poverty lift themselves out. It is done with hard work and perseverance, not whining and complaining..."
"GOOD for you! And I bet you are a female Hispanic or black from a small town in West Texas or Mississippi. No?"
So what is the secret behind the people with the background you describe who become successful? Wait, let me guess! they got lucky somehow!!! It all comes down to luck huh? Hard work, education, etc. non factors right? Those people just happen to get lucky more right? Well if that is the case, what is stopping others from doing the same thing? Maybe they will get lucky too!!! Or maybe it has to do with actually taking personal initiative and doing something with yourself? No, that can't be the case. It is much easier to sit with the rest and go "seeeeeee there are a whole s**t load of us poor unlucky mother f**kers :(, there are so many of us in the same boat that it has to be someone else's fault" Have fun living the victim life style!!
So since you brought it up, what if you are not a one legged, deaf, blind, black female Hispanic from a small town in West Texas or Mississippi? If not can you shut the f**k up and get off your ass? What if you are a educated white college kid with working class parents and you don't have a job? Can you shut the f**k up and get one? Or are they equal to and oppressed like the one legged, deaf, blind, black female Hispanic from a small town in West Texas or Mississippi?
How do you go about proving one's success is luck anyway? If it all luck to you really think laws can correct and govern such a force? Wouldn't that be like passing a law against tornadoes in trailer parks?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I think most honest people will tell you that luck/serendipity/forces outside one's control play a major part in the course of one's life, for better and worse.
I was lucky to be born in a lower working class home (dad is a truck driver, mom didn't graduate high school) that placed a very high value on education and talent, so I worked hard on those areas. I also had to get a job when I was sixteen, because my family couldn't afford to fully support me and my sister, so I had to continue to perform admirably in school while working after school and 16 hours on the weekends. I hardly remember what it's like to not have a job, and being twenty-two, that's a pretty lucky thing these days.
I was also unlucky enough to have an emotionally abusive, controlling despot of a mother, but that's a whole different topic. It did, however, affect my life to an equal degree. Luck is all the forces outside of our control. We are lucky if these forces push us forward in life, and work to our benefit, and we are unlucky if they keep us where we were, or push us backward. Nobody exists in a vacuum, we are all affected by the choices of those around us, and our family's circumstances. All we can do in life is deal with the consequences, and hope our choices don't f**k anyone else's life up too badly.
"I think most honest people will tell you that luck/serendipity/forces outside one's control play a major part in the course of one's life, for better and worse. "
If you are talking about thing like where you are born, your genes, etc you can call it luck or whatever but is really all statistical chance and based on math, not cosmic forces that do not exist such as luck.
"Luck is all the forces outside of our control"
No it is not. Forces beyond are control have to do with things like physics, acts of nature, random chance, statistics and such. You can call that luck if you would like I guess...
"I also had to get a job when I was sixteen, because my family couldn't afford to fully support me and my sister, so I had to continue to perform admirably in school while working after school and 16 hours on the weekends. I hardly remember what it's like to not have a job, and being twenty-two, that's a pretty lucky thing these days."
Give your self some credit for Christ's sake!!! It does not sound like you were lucky to me at all. It sounds like you worked hard, took pride in what you were doing, did what you had to do to support your family, attained a steady job etc. Your circumstances might or might not work out to your favor but it sounds like you are making the right choices! That is not luck my friend! That is called making good choices, and if you keep making them they tend to pay off at some point. And if you want you can call that getting lucky when it happens I suppose..... To me that is just shortchanging your efforts though.
You might call it unlucky to have the relationship with your mother that you do but it's not unlucky, it is the way it is. It just means you have choices to make or not to make. There again, things you can not control and luck are not the same. You also have to make things happen and choose not to be a victim of circumstance.
Great for you, norman619. Your success means that you are extraordinary. Do you understand the word "extraordinary"? Do you understand the societal ramifications that your success being "extraordinary" entails?
Upwards social mobility in *France* is greater than that in the US (!), so for the overwhelmingly vast majority of people like you, being born poor - or rich - is a LIFE SENTENCE and as such, is antithetical to a meritocracy.
My own family fled Europe in the late 40's because of the lack of mobility and opportunities. France is still an economic basketcase, and the only one with a decent economy (Germany) has it because they've been bankrolling the weaker economies to maintain their import/export ratio.
"At least five large studies in recent years have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower in American than in comparable nations, belief in America as a land of opportunity not withstanding."
"According a report on social mobility published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], the United States ranks pretty poorly among industrialized nations on intergenerational advancement..."
"The report finds the U.S. ranking well below Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain in terms of how freely citizens move up or down the social ladder."
I think the notion that everybody is just like you shows lack of IQ/intelligence or a lack of looking at things through anything but your own point of view. Seriously norman, why can't everyone be like you? Ah right they are just LAZY
That's what I'm saying norman, EVERYONE can be just like you, and be millionaires. 320 million millionaires in America, because wealth is not a zero sum game! Just think of it, the entire nation could retire, and nobody would have to work ever again. Everything would just magically get built, cleaned, and fixed because we're all RICH!!
As opposed to taxing the top 10% into oblivion, everyone not being millionaires, but still not having to work.
Except of course that would do nothing to address either our debt, or increase the number of jobs. But it would satisfy the envious slackers of the country.
If it were indeed the Clinton level, you'd be right. However the bulk of the 'tax the rich' arguments here tend towards the 40's-70's level, where the rate went straight up to 94%.
And again blaming everyone who doesn't see things your way as a moron... really, you must be so much fun at parties.
admirable. But what does this talking point mean? Don't worry about rapidly escalating tuition costs? Don't worry about awful schools in poor areas? Don't worry about all the disadvantages? Everyone just needs to pull themselves up by their own boot straps?
What a dumb ass comment. Who said that if you got off your ass it will make you a millionaire? Of course we all can't be millionaires, is that your only definition of success in life? Can people have success if they want it instead of complaining how unfair it is and make the personal choice to not be a victim? Yup, and you are completely ignorant if you think thousands are not in the victim boat looking for an excuse to explain their lack of satisfaction in life.
I love it when Krugman writes something. All you lefties wet your pants and start blathering about how conservatives are blind.
As usual, Krugman's pen has nothing but redistribution coming out of it.
Pages and pages could be written to illustrate Krugman's stupidity, however it would all be lost on the lefties at DIGG. So I'll try to shoot holes in the socialists interpretation of American in just a few short sentences to make it easy for you guys.
Barack Hussein Obama. He's one of those lamented by Krugman, yet he has climbed to the pinnacle of America and possibly the world. Please explain to me Mr Krugman, how a poor black kid born into the lowest level of American society can climb to such a position. Unless of course you lefties are insinuating he is just a token??Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I love it when you conservatives try to change the discussion with emotional buzzwords like "redistribution" that imply that liberals want everyone to work so that someone LAZY doesn't have to. That's far from the truth. Ensuring equal opportunity guarantees that we remain a meritocracy and not become ruled by a self-perpetuating aristocracy like the 18th century England our forefathers fought against.
Ready-or-not, here are the grown-up facts about redistribution:
NO person is an island and NO success is had without the societal institutions that we all share. [Don't believe me? Then name a single successful American that succeeded entirely on their own.]
As such, it is only fair that most of the wealth earned via the commons be returned to the commons -- and it's not only fair, but it is also vital to the economic health of a meritocracy as it ensures the perpetuation of an environment fertile for the next generation of innovators to succeed and earn wealth -- rather than having accumulated wealth that stagnates society into a merit-less aristocracy more concerned with protecting yesterday's wealth than with society's future.
Do you not see how the attitude "f**k you, I got mine", coupled with the money to buy political favors, is poisonous to democracy? This brings us to the ultimate expression of "redistribution": the estate tax that conservatives have renamed "the death tax" to once again take advantage of an emotional buzzword.
If one does not own one's molecules after death, it is absurd -- and ultimately destructive to society -- to control one's wealth beyond death. I support a tax-free inheritance as do most people and $5 million tax-free is enough of a head start for anyone.
Obviously if liberals like myself were as extreme in their support of equal opportunity and redistribution as you shrill conservatives cry wolf about, this would not be the case. It is; please incorporate this reality into your worldview and stop crying wolf -- and if your parents are going to leave you more than $5 million, then STFU; and if you think you're going to leave an estate worth more than $5 million to your kids, you are almost certainly delusional...or French, since there's more upwards social mobility there than here.
Did I hit a nerve? You've been quite winded explaining your point, but you didn't address mine. I stated Krugman is WRONG to say the playing field is not level. I gave a very extreme example why he is FOS. Now some would say, BHO is anectodal, I expect that. The fact is, many, many born into poverty lift themselves out. It is done with hard work and perseverance, not whining and complaining that one of my programs has been cut. Those with the ability to succeed will find a way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Oh, you crack me up. Address my point. I don't believe for a second, I have the opportunities afforded Donald Trump Jr. I do hope and aspire to achieve more than my parents. If I do great, if not, than that's my fault. NOT Donald Trump Jr's. I'm not sure who ever promised you life was "fair".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
not sure who ever promised me life was fair either, but you just said we all get an equal playing field, now all of a sudden of course you don't. The problem is, like you just said, you aspire to achieve more than your parents. That used to be the case in America that people had the opportunity to do better then the generation before them, but that obviously is not the case anymore. Maybe one day it will be, but to pretend like nothing is wrong and the playing field is equal is f**king stupid.
Saying things like, "All you lefties wet your pants and start blathering about how conservatives are blind" and using Obama as proof of how the playing field is level -- completely ignoring the haystack to focus on the needle -- only makes me feel sad for you.
Try reading my long-winded comments. You will learn something. I'd love it if you thoughtfully challenged my arguments, but we both know that's not going to happen.
"The fact is, many, many born into poverty lift themselves out. It is done with hard work and perseverance, not whining and complaining that one of my programs has been cut. Those with the ability to succeed will find a way."
Those who ONCE lifted themselves out of poverty were ONLY able to do so because the U.S. maintained a "social ladder" which gave them the tools to do so (i.e., a strong and effective public education system, robust public health system, the advent of the social safety net (which is NOT a useless entitlement), and wage levels/benefits (healthcare & pensions) that EXCEEDED the REAL cost of living).
I know this because some elements of my family used it to achieve the very success you mistakenly assume to be possible today. That social ladder has SINCE been dismantled by misguided conservative public policies over the past 30 years so it no longer operates as it ONCE did. Evidence of this truth is found in the perverse/gaping wealth disparity which has grown over the past 30 years. That redistribution of wealth TO the top 1% would NOT have been possible without tearing up the social contract/social ladder which once existed.
The Conservative agenda has been determined to destroy that social ladder ever since it was created. Tragically, they succeeded in moving that agenda forward after electing Ronald Reagan. His affability/popularity masked the destructive nature of the conservative agenda and that's why so many Conservatives worship the man and his "achievements" to this day. Absent Reagan, Republicans would have gained no significant traction in the country with their anti-American beliefs.
No. People have been able to "lift themselves up" even when the entire system was trying to keep them down. The most relevant thing here is the individual. Before any sort of handout means anything, the individual must value their own future and be committed to achieving it.
So your family is still much more important. This will shape your basic outlook and how you approach what opportunities you have.
So just blindly throwing money around doesn't have that much impact.
This is why immigrants manage a level of achievement that far surpasses native born Americans in similar economic circumstances.
"Tribal knowledge" is also very valuable. If your parents have gone to college themselves, they can help you succeed rather than getting in your way. Even well meaning working class parents can sabotage their children with really clueless advice.
Barrack Obama is sure not a rags to riches story. His mother worked for one of the foundations, and Barrack Obama has been hugely connected his whole life. He went to an elite grade school, and elite college. And his path to the presidency was way to easy.
Yeah, well. I don't know about that, but I'd tell Krugman to live as a pauper by donating his money to charity, then he has the right to lecture us.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ya, because ideas are only valid if you act and behave like Jesus...which I guess completely invalidates any of the messages coming from the mainstream churches.
I love it when willfully ignorant ideologues attack anything they perceive to be "leftie" when, in fact, it is just not molding into their limited comprehension thereby scaring the holy bejesus out of them because of that tiny little crack in the cement of the ideologue's self imposed cave is starting to grow
"YOU lefties", "You socialists". When it is your continued ignorance that forces your blather preventing actual hearing
Do you understand left and right? Did you read the article? This discussion is decidedly left vs right. If you can't handle it, don't participate. You seem to believe you somehow have the moral high ground because you CARE. Well, people on the right (at least some) believe the nanny government we have now has done more to limit the poor than help them. 50 years of the "great society" has lead to nothing, in fact has made matters worse. You keep telling the poor, that the only way they will succeed is if government or someone else helps them. They'll sit around waiting and will achieve NOTHING! Congratulations, you've just guaranteed another generation of underachieving deadbeats.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
And there it is, helping the poor and underprivileged with social programs paid by taxes is actually hurting them and everyone else.
So the best strategy is cut all social program funding right now, because all the people who are not working right now are only doing so because of the social support provided to them by our taxes. All education, health care, back to work support and unemployment, while those out of work find new jobs, take it away, cause it's making them all lazy and there are plenty of jobs for everyone, they just don;t want to work.
And this strategy is working perfectly well in other places where?
And the non-partisan, unbiased and peer reviewed research and statistics to back this claim up, for all the world to see, review and understand is where exactly?
And of course those that implemented the social programs in government paid by our tax dollars in the first place never researched and were/are completely ignorant of how much it hurts our society.
And of course it is the sole reason we just had an economic disaster (due exclusively to our debt) and why everyone is talking about it now.
And If the all those stupid lib-tards would just get out of the way and let us (those that have studied the problem extensively and know better) dismantle the stupid social safety nets, the lib-tards and the rest of western civilization will look upon us (those that know better) and thank us one day for showing them the light of their wisdom as free markets magically (and of course with hard work) grant us all life, liberty and happiness.
did you even read the article? he said that of the top tier schools, only 3% of the students originate from families from within the bottom 25%. this explains why obama was able to make it, while the vast majority of others don't. he also stated the 74% come from the top 25% of income earners. this obiviously shows that the richer you are, the greater the opportunities exist for you.
whos saying that? and what does this have to do with what the article is about. people born into low income families are less likely to succed than simular people in other countries. but just because some do, is not grounds to assume the playing field is fair or even for those who are trying to achieve.
no where is anyone asking for a handout or to take from the rich.
Ok, so I made the logical leap that if the playing field isn't fair for whatever reason, then Krugman's call to action will be....
Pick one:
a) blame the republicans, as they are the root of all evil
b) blame the rich, as they benefit from an unequal system and are likely perpetuating for their nefarious goals
c) subtly or not-so-subtly call for increasing taxes to flatten the inequality and punish the rich republicans.
d) all of the above.
I chose D as that's the underlying message to the full article.
or it could call for reform instead of fighting to maintain a system that benifits only the top. fixing the problem, instead of doing nothing is usually a better coarse of action. again, no one is demonizing the rich. no one is calling to take from the rich. a majority of tax shortfalls could be fixed simply by closing tax loopholes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
and your only confirming what the article states, that members of the republican party will only resist trying to improve the lives of poor. and will claim that there isn't a problem in america.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I'm not a republican, but I will resist half-baked commentaries from Krugman that make little economic sense. And bulls**t no one is demonizing the rich - what else do you call focusing on the top 25% being more likely to attend the better universities.
I don't see increasing financial aid to the poor as helping them. Personal experience there - I've seen members of my ex-wife's family sit on their asses playing xbox or having more kids vs trying to hold down a job, because they recognize they'll lose some of those financial aid benefits if they make more than a certain amount (indeed, one went so far as to demand payment for his work in cash to avoid reporting it), and realizing they'd have to give up a relatively easy life.
So yeah, I don't think much of lazy folks getting more aid.
I have more sympathy for those actually trying to improve themselves, but there's not much I personally can do but offer the occasional job to such a person. what about more student financial aid for kids in need? well, where'd that get us? Tuition increases 3-4x the rate of inflation and a whole lot of spoiled fools with $50k loans for unmarketable skills.
I don't think the article is about Krugman expressing grief about Obama. I think it is about Romney falsely accusing Obama of trying to reward those who may not deserve it, while at the same time trying to pretend that his (Romney's) policies help those in need with better opportunities in life (which clearly they don't).
After reading the article it appears that Krugman has very valid points.
I think Krugman in general would like to see many more poor black kids (and others that are less fortunate) have the opportunity to follow in Obama's footsteps. And by expressing his (Krugman's) views, he is hopefully influencing people to vote for people that support the types of policies that will help make that a reality, as opposed to the policies being promoted by Romney.
While I still thing Krugman is an idiot most of the time (mostly because he seems to only look at the flaws on one side of the isle, while both the issues are equally on both sides and need to be addressed to have anything less than a disastrous outcome), I have to agree that, other than possibly universal health care, he made a good argument that I agree with in this particular case.
It seems like he just through health care in there for fun without any real support though. Fair education and helping the truly disadvantaged to have opportunities is necessary and basic health care should be universal, but it needs much tighter controls on costs first and measures to reduce excess waste before a wholesale check is underwritten by the government to allow the excess costs to continue until the country's finances come tumbling down.
I'm not part of the solution. I'm part of the distillate. [rimshot]
But seriously...since you asked, here's my solution:
First off, it is important going forward that we learn from our past mistakes which means acknowledging that the GOP economic philosophy of Friedman/trickle down economics doesn't work and tax cuts for the rich don't create jobs.
OK, so what does work? Well, what ended the last depression? It was government spending. Whether it was gov't spending on the New Deal or gov't spending on WW2 or both, the bottom line is massive government spending. Keynesian economics puts money back into the pockets of the middle class who are the foundation of any healthy democratic society.
[Note that today all of the wealth (and more) gained from the middle class from 1945 to 1970 is in the pockets of the wealthy. ]
Absolutely, positively, no serious discussion about the budget can be had without cutting the defense budget. So let’s start with military budget cuts as well ending the bogus war on nouns (drugs and terror).
We MUST regain control of our government from corporations. Therefore, we need a separation of corporations and state similar to the separation of church and state so that corporate and state powers are permanently, absolutely and irrevocably separate as well as instituting term limits for corporate charters (say, 25 years).
We need to reinstate Glass-Stegall and the rest of the New Deal banking regulations and perform a full auditing of the federal reserve. Politicians need free airtime on broadcast networks in the 90 days leading up to Election Day so that they are less beholden to monied interests.
Every foreclosed property that the banks can't prove they own should be given to the homeless poor and working class. This stabilizes communities, families and property values – it’s like a tax break for everyone.
The national minimum wage should be at least $12 an hour and annual increases should be automatically tied to either the inflationary rate or whatever raise Congress gives itself - whichever is larger.
[For decades wages have grown slower than the rate of inflation the end result of which is that now we are all underpaid. The minimum wage needs to be enough to actually live on. The economy needs people to earn enough money so they can pay off old debts and take on new ones.]
What about international competition? Easy: restore the equivalent pay taxes that once protected worker’s pay from exploitation and outsourcing, and include adjustments for environmental protection (or lack thereof). To those who say that US manufacturing will never return, I point out that Germany's super economy is based almost entirely on manufacturing. How do they do it? With strong unions AND universal health care. If German manufacturing can compete with modern-slave wages, why can't we?
How about some tax cuts? The first $25,000 of income should be free from federal taxes. Social security insurance payments for the elderly should NOT be considered taxable income nor should unemployment insurance payments. We’re also going to make things fair have by making the rich pay the same percentage of social security tax that everyone else pays. Doing so ensures adequate funding of the program...forever, basically...in fact, if everyone paid equally, we could **expand** Social Security – even lower the retirement age! Eliminating taxes on social security payments, expanding social security benefits and lowering the retirement age will encourage more baby boomers to retire, thus opening badly-needed employment opportunities for the rest of us.
To save more money and stimulate the economy at the same time, we need universal health care, universal higher education, and student loan forgiveness.
We MUST achieve renewable energy independence. It’s is a national security issue and should be treated with the same urgency as the space race of the 1960s. Also, our infrastructure needs repairing. Bottom line: put people to work preparing the United States for the next 100 years JUST LIKE our great-grandparents did for us.
**********
All in all, we're actually very lucky: there's lots of work to be done and lots of unemployed people needing work, and just when we need money interest rates are nearly zero. The solutions practically write themselves!
Just as long as we never, ever go back to proven failures of Friedman/Reaganomics/trickle-down economics, and we neuter/de-fang the corporations who've hijacked our government, we will be A-OK.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
For the defense budget, I can agree partly, but you are kind of self defeating. You said that massive government spending was necessary to end the great depression and listed a war (with high defense spending) as one of the causes for ending it, yet in the same posting you suggest that cutting defense is necessary.
Don't get me wrong, I'd agree there is a lot of waste and bloat in our defense spending that could be cut out, but simply saying cut defense spending tends to leave the bloat and cut good programs that develop technology that eventually gets pushed to the consumer market and keeps America an innovator.
What do you mean by putting a 25 year term limit on corporate charters? Do you intend to break up companies every 25 years? What happens to the assets of the company at the end of 25 years? Why wouldn't companies simply leave the United States entirely rather than deal with the headaches of having themselves ended every 25 years? Maybe I'm not understanding you, but this doesn't seem workable without more explanation.
You'll get no argument from me on the banking stuff, I whole heartedly agree. As for the free air time for politicians, it is an interesting idea, but how do you decide which politicians get air time. Do we just set some number of signatories required to get air time, do we allocate it proportional to signatories, if so, then where does the funding come to get the signatories. Not that I don't think it is workable, but it isn't necessarily simple either.
Another thing on this topic would be to adjust the voting system such that it is actually viable for a third party candidate to win without shooting yourself in the foot. Currently if you have right of centerist third party candidate C, leftists A and rightist B, I might agree more with C, but because the divide between A and B is so close to 50/50, if I vote for C instead of B, I end up with A which I disagree with the most. I would much rather have a system where I could demonstrate that I would prefer the moderate instead of some neocon nut job, but the current system doesn't support that unless the parties wanted it to and the parties have no interest in that. The system can only grow more polarized until that is fixed.
I'm not sure what you mean about every foreclosure that the bank can't prove they own, but if they can't prove they own it, then why are they able to foreclose in the first place? If you are simply saying the burden of proof for foreclosure should lie on the bank, then I am in agreement with you, but if you are talking about taking the house and giving it to someone else, then I am confused. (Not only the poor and working class get foreclosed on.)
I absolutely disagree on minimum wage unless you make either an age restriction or a job exception. There is no reason that a 16 year old should need to be making $12 an hour, similarly, for a single parent trying to support multiple kids, $12 really isn't enough. It would be difficult to make this work though since it would make companies want to illegally hire younger workers to avoid paying more. Since an age or dependency based gradient would be difficult, then perhaps a minimum wage by job category would be better.
The problem is not that our wages are too low, but that our cost of living is too high. The higher wages are driven, the more difficult it is for companies to invest in job creation and the more compelling it is to go elsewhere. While trickle down economics don't work, making it economically infeasible to hire a work force is going to drive business away and/or cause more inflation as prices rise and the middle class is further eliminated. Just look at history, while the minimum wage has gone up substantially over the last 20 years, the middle class income has not significantly changed. This is equally if not more responsible for the decline of the middle class than the wealth accumulation by the upper class.
Your suggestion of taxes to adjust for foreign wages might work, but it also could blow up in our face. We're heavily trade dependent and if other nations decide to similarly tax, we'd very easily be starved of resources very quickly. It might work or it might make the problem far worse, it is hard to say. Also, many international corporations could simply move to avoid the taxes and then import product. Taxing the imported product would almost certainly bring trade backlash.
Your tax cuts bit is a mixed bag for me. I'm not opposed to the $25,000 untaxed necessarily, but am not sure it is viable in our current financial state. It is already something like $7500 per dependent which could easily be 25,000 or more for many families. I would agree that it is silly to tax social security income and unemployment income since that's effectively just a hidden reduction in benefits. I'm mostly torn because I don't like social security in general. In my view, it should be an optional service and has been far too mismanaged.
If it could be fixed to be competitive with any realistic retirement system, then I would agree, but the fact is social security literally costs me millions as someone who makes well under 100k a year in combined family income. If I worked from the time I was 20 to the time I was 65 and invested my social security and medicare taxes in to a moderate yield 401k, I would end up with $1,073,362.96 by the time I was 65. That's over a million dollars I would have had. Even if it stopped collecting interest the day I retired and I lived until 90, I'd never see all that money back.
That said, if the system is to continue, then yes, I agree with your assessment, but the system needs to at a minimum be fixed to actually invest rather than simply roll the costs forward since any reduction in work force increases the burden and is devastating to the economy as it forces dead weight to be carried that is no longer contributing (where as investment would still contribute).
"To save more money and stimulate the economy at the same time, we need universal health care, universal higher education, and student loan forgiveness." No, No, No, No and No. This is ineffectual and does nothing. At a basic level I would agree that universal health care would be good, but the current approach is entirely incorrect. The health care system is a money wasting disaster. It needs to be streamlined and costs and bloat need to be reduced. Providing government funding to feed the monster is not the answer. Fix the problems first, then provide universal basic care with the ability to contribute extra for better care. Health care must be pay for what you get or someone will get ripped off. If you want the best doctors and best equipment, then it should be expected that a premium will be paid for the service. That premium is what should be part of what is helping to keep costs down for basic care.
As for higher education, we already have too many people wasting their educations on degrees that do them and the economy no good. I'm not opposed to providing funding for education, but it is something that must be earned. Simply throwing money at everyone that wants to get an art degree is not going to do s**t for the economy other than make a giant money hole that drives it further in to the ground. Our problem is already too many educated workers with not enough jobs requiring education. How does spending more money to increase the number of people looking for educated jobs help? It doesn't. It just feeds another overgrown monster that needs to be starved and trimmed down.
As for student loan forgiveness, wth? If someone decided to go to school for something that didn't have jobs available, that isn't anyone's fault but their own. I don't mind deferring payments even, but eventually they must pay it back. There is no reason going after a degree that couldn't get you a job should be any different from wasting your money on an expensive car or a new TV you didn't need. The only reason I'm in favor of deferring is because it makes more sense to give some grace and eventually get repaid than it does to simply lose the money forever.
On your last point about renewable energy and infrastructure improvements, I agree 110%. A TVA style infrastructure improvement program targeting our 21st century infrastructure could do wonders for both the economy and our future viability and getting further away from oil dependance is only prudent. I would say that building new nuclear plants in the short term is probably the most efficient use of funds and then once our financial house is more in order, we can look more strongly at the more costly non-nuclear alternatives.
As an EE who minored in computer science and is now forced to compete with someone in India with an MS who can live a middle class lifestyle on less than $6 an hour, I have to disagree with you.
Medical doctors typically have student loans in the six figures, but did you know that not even they are immune to outsourcing?
Will you at least agree that the TOC of student loans are such that they'd make Tony Soprano blush? That the ability to discharge these loans via bankruptcy is a vital ability? That there is no reason for private lenders to charge the rates and fees they do for loans that are gov't-backed and therefore, risk-free? That social security insurance should be protected from student loan vultures?
With $1T in outstanding student loan debt - sounds like a lot but it's only 1/30th of what we pumped into Wall Street - and u6 unemployment hovering at 18%...and most of the jobs created pay s**t...and we've had two "jobless recoveries" in a lost decade...IMO the situation is untenable and the direct boost to the economy by freeing those who are supposed to be raising families is not debatable.
Right, but erasing student loans doesn't address the underlying issue. Why is it even possible for someone making $6 an hour to compete with you? Something is fundamentally broken there and simply wiping out student loan debt isn't going to fix that. If, and I stress if, the problem was to be solved, then maybe I could see student loan forgiveness being considered, but at the end of the day, the fact is still that if it wasn't worth going to college because other people could do it cheaper, then it wasn't worth going to college.
And don't think I'm detached from reality here. I graduated with my undergrad in computer science in 2006 from a school that cost over $33,000 a year, so I hardly am not part of the demographic that would be affected.
I would agree that the rates on loans are poor if not federally subsidized and would be in favor of increasing government buy up of student loans and converting non-subsidized loans in to subsidized ones, but I think it is something that needs to be paid back. I'm perfectly fine with helping people that can't currently get jobs that acted on good faith by deferring them, but that's very different from simply wiping the slate clean.
Par 1: We don't have to spend money on defense like we did in WW2! :) So no self-defeating contradiction: cut the military budget and spending on health care to pay for spending and tax cuts elsewhere. Prioritize the budget domestically.
Par 2: We spend more than the next SEVENTEEN countries combined (see link and note the number they give [$700B] is about 1/2 short of the $1.1+T that we actually spend).
Par 3: My bad for not explaining. Two problems I've noticed. 1) CEO pay is based on short term gains, ergo they do reckless things in order to pump up their bonuses - the long-term consequences be damned. This causes people to lose their jobs and investors to lose their money. I'd like to change that most compensation for the top executives is delayed by years. 2) Innovation is great, but it is often wasteful of human capital and invested public resources. After 25 years, the charter dies, the company is cashed out and we the people get dibs on the physical and intellectual assets. This can cushion the transition from one tech revolution to another and the economics thereof...what I mean is: consider what happens to a city when a factory shuts down and to all of the support industries elsewhere. Wouldn't it be better for everyone to slow it down gradually - not only retaining technological expertise but being able to provide workers with potentially lifelong jobs? Corporations used to have strictly-defined limits to how long they could operate; it's time to revisit that idea - especially if corporations are people: should they be immortal or live for a generation. There's more to it, but that's the gist.
Par 4: Which politicians get free airtime? All of them. The airwaves belong to the public - anything that reduces a politician's reliance on outside money is a good thing. TV ads are expensive as hell. Those are OUR airwaves. They shouldn't cost a damn thing.
I agree with you 100% on having a "weighted vote". The era of choosing between Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee simply has to end.
Par 5: "...[if the banks] can't prove they own [a home], then why are they able to foreclose in the first place?" Great question! They have 1) set up kangaroo courts and 2) the Obama administration has refused to call them on it. They should be charged under RICO: we have an organized, systematic attempt to steal real estate that crosses state lines and involves proven acts of perjury and forgery. See, researching and establishing a title is a fairly involved process that involves research and paperwork dealing with local town records. It takes time and it's pricey - the two things you don't want if you intend to flip flip flip flip flip the ownership of a home loan as quickly and as many times as possible into as many credit default swaps as you can. So the banks and mortgage companies successfully lobbied the gov't to allow them to avoid having to establish title by set up a their own self-policing to hold all the titles in a weird quantum state, and we looked into Schrodinger's title company the states collapsed into an unverifiable mess where no one could legally claim ownership to the mortgage loan because the loan had been chopped up and sold repeatedly in CDS. [I am dead serious. Without exaggeration, this is what happened.] If no one is holding the title to the mortgage loan, they should be SOL; hence the illegal kangaroo courts and my disappointment with Obama on this issue. People are being thrown into the streets at gunpoint by banks that **CANNOT PROVE** they own the property. Criminal SOBs.
To be clear, because it is a bit complicated: the banks were PAYING THEMSELVES (charging potential homeowners) to have the title legally verified...which they weren't doing because they had set up a single title holding company to reduce costs. The only protection that a lender has should a foreclosure become necessary is the fact that they are holding the title, but because **they didn't do what they were legally required to do** **what they were charging customers for** they shot themselves in the foot and instead of being held responsible for their literally fraudulent actions by forfeiting the properties that they **can't prove they own** **because of their own misdeeds** we bailed them out [$29T+, not a typo], allowed them to keep the properties and they gave themselves bonuses. And they've refused to lend money to small businesses to get the economy going again. And they've cut people's credit card spending limits - which would also stimulate the economy. So they are sitting on trillions of our dollars while the politicians are talking about budget cuts.
The pièce de résistance? The banks are making money now by taking our cash that the gov't gave them for FREE by. lending. it. BACK. to. the. gov't....at. INTEREST.
My hand to God, this is NOT an exaggeration. Unemployment gave me plenty of time to follow this story in excruciating detail. If you're curious, start your research with Rolling Stone magazine's Matt Taibbi for some excellent articles on the subject then google until you want to scream.
And it's been three years - no one has gone to jail.
Par 7: Wages have been stagnant for 30+ years. As such, what is now the average hourly salary is not very far from what the minimum wage should be had increases in pay continued as they had been for decades (i.e., tied to inflation*, increases in efficiency, productivity and corporate profits). That's a bitter f**king pill to swallow, but it's the damn truth.
Consider the last generation was able to pay for college -- without loans -- by working minimum wage PART TIME. Consider that medical costs have risen at the same pace. Consider that CEOs are making 300 TIMES what the entry-level worker makes - but look at the data for everyone else since 1970: it's flat f**king line. Will inflation increase? Probably, but this will reduce the value of everyone's debts.
After decades of decline, we absolutely need wages to increase AHEAD of the inflationary rate. It may be the economic equivalent of an adrenaline shot to the heart, but that's what we need.
*How inflation is calculated has been completely distorted - but that's a whole other topic.
Par 8: Outsourcing - I mentioned "equivalent wage tariffs" without explaining what they were.
To protect workers here and abroad from a race to the bottom, imported goods were taxed to equalize wages. [A company's greatest cost is usually wages.] If a pair of shoes made in Chicago had $1 in labor costs but those same shoes imported from Taiwan had 5 cents worth of labor, a 95 cent tax was added to each imported pair of shoes. So there was NO BENEFIT to outsourcing jobs to countries with (comparatively) slave wages.
I'm from NY. Jobs were essentially outsourced to the south for lower wages, no unions, lower taxes, local gov't incentives and lax environmental controls. Sound familiar? It should.
Companies made huge amounts of money [read: executives made huge bonuses] by simply moving south. That trick made executives wealthy as f**k but it was a one-shot deal. Once all the juice was squeezed from that berry, there was nowhere else to go but outside the United States. If only they could get rid of that pesky wage-equivalent tariff...oh wait, that's exactly what they did! [Ain't lobbyists great? We have the best democracy money can buy!]
So the jobs and the race to the bottom first went to Mexico, then China; from China to Vietnam, India and South America. The last stop seems to be Africa. Or robots. (No, seriously: Japan is investing in robots because they've calculated that robot labor will be the only way they'll be able to compete with China's wages in 20 years or so.)
It's amazing what you can learn when you have the time to REALLY pay attention. :)
Par 9: This protects workers in both countries from exploitation and outsourcing - and pollution! (see above) Multinational corporations won't like it but f**k 'em. TBH, I think politicians are waking up to the fact that government power and influence is being overshadowed by that of corporations, but whatever. Shakespeare said, "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers." Today it's, "The first thing we do is hobble the multinational corporations." Followed by castration and de-fanging.
Par 10: One of the factoids that conservatives like to throw around is that only half of us pay taxes. At best, that's a partial truth. They are referring strictly to federal taxes but that neglects all the other taxes that everyone pays - and that the poorest amongst us pay proportionately the most for. Others before me have suggested the first $25K or so being tax free. I see it as a starting point that more importantly is tied to the minimum wage (if you'll remember, I advocate >$12/hour which is about $25K/year).
Actually social security is one of the most successful and cost-effective programs instituted by an gov't ever. The administrative costs are a fraction of a percent - almost every penny goes back to the taxpayer. Even with the economy in the s**tter, it's still fully funded for almost 30 years. Why should the tax STOP for those making more than $106,500? Where's the fairness in that? Raising the insurance tax so that everyone pays the same amount fully funds it into infinity and eliminates another political football. People who put their money into 401Ks lost almost everything in 2001...and again in 2007. Have you looked carefully at the fees you're paying with your 401K? Trust those bastards on Wall Street? Never again.
Bottom line: it's insurance and it's not just for retirees. Do you get mad when you don't get all your money back when you buy car insurance? (Do you get ANY money back when you buy car insurance...?) Supplement it as you can. Pray if you want to, but I caution youthful ego ("That'll never happen to me!"): for the majority of retirees, it is their ONLY source of income.
PS - Considering privatizing social security insurance? Check out what happened in England when Thatcher went the for-profit route in the 1980s.
Par 11:
Par 12: To see how universal health care will lower cost, you just need two things:
1) You have to be able to tell which of two numbers is bigger and 2) you need to know that every other country on Earth has it [except I think for Somalia and Liberia]. And then you can easily for yourself that they all pay far less than we do per person - most pay way less than half of what we do! That's what happens when you take the profit out of for-profit medical care. How else do you think these insurance companies can afford to pay their CEOs such ridiculously high salaries?
It doesn't get any simpler than that. And speaking of simple: imagine never having to fill out all that ridiculous paperwork ever again, or trying to find a doctor "in your plan" or having to make several appointments or having to call the insurance company before going to the emergency room or getting a prescription filled. It's also nice knowing that you don't have to work a s**tty job you hate just because the benefits are good (maybe you've got a sick kid or whatever); it's great knowing that you have coverage if you're unemployed (and you're not getting ass-f**ked by COBRA - the last thing you need when you lose a job is a huge bill just to keep your coverage going) and it's really, really awesome knowing that you won't have to lose your house and life savings if a family member gets sick or injured. Oh yeah, and you never get rejected, never have to choose between buying medicine or buying food or paying your rent...
The only complaint ever heard about universal health care is having to schedule a non-emergency procedure a few weeks in a advance. Is that a big deal compared to putting it off for years because you don't have the money?
How do for-profit insurance companies make their money? By denying medical treatment:
Percentage of rejected claims
PacifiCare 43.9%
Cigna 39.6%
Anthem Blue Cross 27.3%
HealthNet 24.1%
Blue Shield 21.9%
Kaiser Permanente 20.2%
Aetna 5.9%
Note that about 45,000 Americans die annually due to a lack of access to healthcare (it's as many as 82,000 according to a new Commonwealth Fund study). So Americans die every year because of insurance companies denying claims. To put it another way: that’s a 9/11 every few weeks, meaning that these companies are 14 times better at killing Americans on our soil than al-Qaeda and the REAL death panels are the boardrooms of those companies. And it’s all legal. And where does that money go? Other than the politicians and the ad agencies on Madison Avenue to scare people with talk of “death panels” and “socialized medicine”…
45,000/52 = 865
3000/865 = 4 = a 9/11 every three and a half weeks
45000/3000 = 15 = private medical insurance kills 15x as many Americans as al Qaeda
...it goes to executive pay!
2007 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271
L. Glassc**k (2006): $23,886,169
2008 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212
2009 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $18,058,162
Coventry, Allen Wise: $17,427,789
WellPoint, Angela Braly: $13,108,198
United Health, Stephen Helmsley: $8,901,916
Cigna, David Cordoni: $6,593,921 (took over from CEO H. Edward Hanway)
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $18,800,000
Humana, Michael McCallister: 6,509,452
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $3,643,342
2011
McKesson, John Hammergren's: $131,200,000
Express Scripts, George Paz: $51,500,000
UnitedHealth Group, Stephen Hemsley: $48,800,000
Allergan, David Pyott: $33,800,000
Did you notice how many of Forbes magazine's top paid CEOs in the world work providing Americans health care?
Not done yet! What about for-profit pharmaceutical companies? You know, the ones who abuse the patent system and successfully lobbied to deny the gov't the ability to negotiate prices? The guys who don't work on "non-profitable" diseases and basically haven't cured a f**king thing since polio? [Dr. Salk, Dr. Salk - where for art thou, Dr. Salk?]
Pharmaceutical Companies (from 2008):
1. Miles White - Abbott - $33.4M
2. Fred Hassan - Schering-Plough - $30.1M
3. Bill Weldon - Johnson & Johnson - $25.1M
4. Bob Essner - Wyeth - $24.1M
5. Robert Parkinson - Baxter - $17.6M
6. Daniel Vasella - Novartis - $15.5M
7. Richard Clark - Merck - $14.5M
8. Frank Baldino - Cephalon - $13.5M
9. Sidney Taurel - Eli Lilly - $13M
10. Jeff Kindler - Pfizer - $12.6M
11. Jim Cornelius - Bristol-Myers Squibb - $11.3
12. Franz Humer - Roche - $11.1M
13. Robert Coury - Mylan - $8.5M
14. Jean-Pierre Garnier - GlaxoSmithKline - $6M
15. Werner Wenning - Bayer - $4.77M
16. David Brennan - AstraZeneca - $4.3M
17. Gerard Le Fur - Sanofi-Aventis - $3.27M
Big Pharma donates a few bucks to a college in exchange for exclusive control of over anything patented.
Think internet patent trolls are an issue? Compare that to genetic patent trolls. And patenting life? How the f**k is that legal? What kind of Frankenstein s**t is that? (Again, thank lobbyists.)
Experimenting new drugs on orphans and third world citizens? Yep, they do it.
Knowingly dumping poisoned drugs in other countries? Of course they do it.
Lying in test data provided to the FDA? You'd better believe it!
And thanks to the revolving door between the regulators and the regulated, any fines they pay are inconsequential to the profits made while breaking the law or doing something unethical -- oops! I meant, "while acknowledging no wrongdoing whatsoever." Excuse me.
How about suing third world countries for providing AIDS medicine to their sickened people?
Let's not forget all the folks jailed and killed and all the families broken up...and all the wasted tax dollars and private property seized thanks to the war on drugs.
"Civil liberties? What are those?"
"Prohibition of alcohol was a failure? I can't hear you!"
It's hard to sell an anti-nausea pill [that must be swallowed] to cancer patients when instant relief can be had by a hit or two from a f**king weed that George Washington grew, every president since Reagan has smoked, is IMPOSSIBLE to overdose on or become physically addicted to.
But the drug companies are happy to work hand-in-hand with insurance companies to push addictive narcotics on as many children as possible. Then, like any thug drug dealer, they cut the supply to jack up prices! Or haven't you heard about ADD and the bulls**t adderall (et. al) "shortage"?
Fun fact: in 75% of all bankruptcies due to medical bills, the families HAD medical insurance. Now, if you can lose your house and life savings just because a family member gets sick or injured DESPITE YOU HAVING MEDICAL INSURANCE, clearly the answer ISN'T more health insurance!
Let me be the first to tell you: universal health care IS coming. Just like the housing bubble, their greed - that is, decades of annual cost increases of 7 - 8% - has pushed the numbers to the breaking point.
The rats are already leaving the ship - count the number of for-profit companies who are leaving the business because 15% profits [because by law they now must spend 85% of premiums on health care] is just not enough.
"Not enough to pay our ridiculous salaries," they mean.
(For comparison, the profit margins for supermarkets are between 1 - 2 %. Do you see Kroger heading for the door? Is Wal-Mart quitting the supermarket biz? No.)
f**k the insurance companies and f**k the drug companies too. Universal health care will show them who is boss.
I'll agree on pharmaceutical companies. I list them as one of my things that is wrong with the medical field. Personally if I could structure things the way I wanted, I would use government funding to help cooperative medical research with the breakthroughs being given to all participatory pharmaceutical companies to compete based on quality. It would advance the state of the art faster through better cooperation and would drive prices down since everything would effectively be a competitive generic market.
The biggest problem with pharmaceuticals is that the amount of waste in the system that make it virtually impossible not to make a bloody fortune. You have numerous companies all working on curing the same things. Whoever gets their first gets the rights and everyone else looses their money. You have a division of brain power and multiple parallel processes that will vastly be a waste. In order to survive, when a product is successful, it has to be sold at an insane margin just to have enough money to fund all the projects that don't win. The number of bio-tech companies that go out of business is insane.
Another big thing is all the weight of poor malpractice law. While I realize the cost of malpractice insurance and actual suits is a minimal portion, the amount of extra measures that must be taken to protect against it cost a fortune.
There is also the issue of the rate of advance of technology forcing hospitals to constantly update hardware to stay competitive. An idea I've toyed with is that the government might also be able to provide funding for larger equipment purchases at a regional level provided that participating hospitals share equipment. This would allow for a higher overall quality at lower overall cost as well.
If we can remove a lot of the risk from health care, the costs can drop a lot. You had also mentioned education for doctors in another post. I also thing that providing funding for people who want to pursue becoming doctors in exchange for discounted service as a doctor after graduation would be a good program. It would effectively be like the ROTC for the medical profession. Say for example that after graduation, they would work for 8 to 10 years at something like $60 to $80k a year in exchange for their medical schooling being covered.
The fact is that I currently have better health care and more responsive service as a middle class American than most other countries can get from anything I have heard. Maybe I've just been lucky to get good coverage at a decent price, but I don't have to go through any of the hoops you have. I've never had a claim denied, I can just go straight to the hospital in an emergency, almost nothing that is covered requires prior approval by my carrier.
As for the CEO salaries, $10 or $15 million a year I don't really consider that absurd for what they have to manage and the problems they have to deal with. The ones that started getting in to the 40 million range I'd agree with you though.
If you can fix all the issues I pointed out and THEN provide socialized medicine that still allows people to buy better quality if they can afford it, I'm not opposed to it, but only after those other problems are fixed. My main concern is that the trend in US government is to throw tax dollars that we don't have at problems without actually fixing it.
Universal health care is a great goal, and I hope we can get there, but it isn't possible without first fixing the existing problems. It isn't a solution, it's a goal.
This looks like a job for...UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.
Faster than a speeding lobbyist !
More powerful than big pharma !
Able to leap red tape in a single bound !
Look! At every other country on Earth!
It's works !
It's f**king obvious !
It's UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE !
Yes, it's UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, strange visitor from other countries where insurance lobbyists don't have powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, who can save the lives of thousands of Americans, end obscene profits of drug companies, and, disguised as Medicare/Medicaid, a mild form of universal health care from a great American president, fights a never-ending battle to save the lives of seniors, sick children and all Americans desperately in need of a new medical system.
Once again, a Krugman article brings out the worst in both sides of Digg Nation. Instead of an intelligent discourse on the topics of the article, the Left cries "Oligarchy!!" and the right cries "Socialism". Anyone who thinks that any of the problems we have are new or somehow worse than ever are kidding themselves.
We've always had these issues, and will continue to have them as long as our representatives are bought and sold.
GUESS WHAT? Poor people have WAY fewer opportunities to better themselves, and because MOST of them were raised by parents who failed to teach them the life skills necessary to take advantage of the ones they do have, they will likely stay poor.
GUESS WHAT? On the other hand, many poor people, recognizing their own s**tty circumstances, throw in the towel on trying to better themselves. They scapegoat employers, fabricate medical conditions for disability, produce children that they fail to raise, and generally f**k up society.
Both sides are right about the problems. But both sides are wrong about the solution. You want to fix the issues of income inequality? It's going to take a lot of one on one attention from well trained social workers and educators (good luck with that BTW). Creating government handout programs, or cutting welfare and "letting the market pick winners and losers" are both stupid ideas that will only perpetuate the problem.
Yeah, I guess this is where my philosophy comes in that help programs should only be merit based, at least beyond survival level. I see no point in funding someone who is going to waste what they are given and make no effort to better their life. On the other hand, I see a whole hell of a lot of reason to throw money at someone that is trying to better themselves, but lacks the means to do so. Better filtering is the key and more selectively applying aid where it is needed. I don't know whether that will work out to more or less aid being needed, but the results will certainly be far better.
The problem is that better filtering breaks down at the federal level. State and more likely local are probably better positioned to best determine how to properly apply funds to help those who are trying to better themselves.
If you go with Federal, you end up with immense amounts of graft and corruption because the bureaucracy is simply too large. See Medicare ($48B losses due to fraud in 2010 -- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50543.html)
Yeah, but you could federally fund and then distribute to states based on need. I would agree that funds should be located based on demographics to localities and then the localities should be responsible. Ideally, only funding should come from the federal level and leave the responsibility for distribution up to the local level. The filtering process definitely requires hands on, accountable work.
Maybe, but I would guess that local elections would be better at that, and cheaper. Paying someone who is disinterested in Washington looking in is far less effective than local individuals who see the impacts first hand, for free.
Actually, it's YOU who doesn't get it. If you look at a list of millionaires from ten years ago, most of the names are different than they are today. Meaning there's more social mobility here than anywhere.
RTFA
"Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement “up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.” National Review, a conservative thought leader, wrote that “most Western European and English-speaking nations have higher rates of mobility.” Even Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who argues that overall mobility remains high, recently wrote that “mobility from the very bottom up” is “where the United States lags behind.”"
Keep swallowing your own s**t Kasha. No doubt you find it nourishing.
Lol. Even when I disproved your talking point using your own parties words you don't get it.
Let's try it again, slowly. I want to see you debate your own candidates...
Kasha says "Meaning there's more social mobility here than anywhere."
Santorum says "up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.”
Paul Ryan says “mobility from the very bottom up” is “where the United States lags behind.”
So kasha, what do you have to say to Santorum and Ryan? Let's hear it.
We have both the highest poverty rate AND the widest income gap in the industrialized world. But hey, who cares about reality right? If a list of 10 Americans can do it, that must mean EVERYONE can! All 300 million of them!
Are you denying it's true? Or do you favor confiscating money from people like me to give to "poor" people with houses, cars, color tvs, cable, cell phones and air conditioning?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I know a guy who hasn't worked in well over a decade. He was a welder until his eyes gave out. He is on food stamps and not much else. He has a back room full of working televisions that people have given to him. Do you know what the resale value of your tv is? Pretty much zero.
who is programing your thinking kasha? As a person from Westchester County, I doubt you even know what poor looks like.
Go help feed some hungry kids, talk to them, learn that they all have a lot of love and want to learn - then report back to us. It is very easy to judge from an ivory tower.
@@ own homes -- Gotta be bull s**t
@@ have color tv, dvd, air conditioning -- TV and DVD are by far the cheapest form of entertainment and I doubt they have 5.1 sound system with the 60" TV. More likely cast offs
@@ have a car. -- with the state of public transportation how in the hell are they supposed to get around. The $500 dollar beaters they tend to drive really rides your shorts up for some reason.
"The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
Seventysix percent of poor households have air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher."
"The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
Seventysix percent of poor households have air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher."
@kasha34, that may very well be true, but given the sheer numbers of those products that have been produced and circulated in society, basic statistics and common sense will tell you that they are readily accessible to everyone. One thing your source leaves out, and this is a salient point, is what is the condition of those products? Do they own $200,000 houses, new cars, new televisions, new dvd players, etc.? There is a big difference in price between something new and something that was purchased second-hand. And, given the fact that you can buy houses in low-income areas for a few thousand dollars, it really isn't a fair point to make without pertinent details.
@kasha34..
Yea, lets use 2004 reports from the Heritage Foundation to identify what's truly going on today...
The right-wing Heritage Foundation had to warn its staffers not to watch so much Fox News on their computers, because it was causing the think tank's system to crash. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
Might as well supply links directly to Fox News! Either way the information would still be twisted and misinformed.
Human life is not some sort of race or game in which each person should start from an identical mark. It is an attempt by each man to be as happy as possible. And each person could not begin from the same point, for the world has not just come into being; it is diverse and infinitely varied in its parts. The mere fact that one individual is necessarily born in a different place from someone else immediately insures that his inherited opportunity cannot be the same as his neighbor’s. The drive for equality of opportunity would also require the abolition of the family since different parents have unequal abilities; it would require the communal rearing of children. The State would have to nationalize all babies and raise them in State nurseries under ‘equal’ conditions. But even here conditions cannot be the same, because different State officials will themselves have different abilities and personalities. And equality can never be achieved because of necessary differences of location. -Rothbard
We all are born with different advantages and disadvantages. This is a fact of life as you pointed out. It's like this in the wild and it's the same in human society. It's the age old game called survival of the fittest. I was lucky enough to be born to parents who understood this fact and made sure my siblings and I learned what we needed to survive and thrive in the real world. People like Krugman live in a fantasy world where everyone is equal or believe they can make everyone equal. You make due with what you have. The victim mentality so many here seem to embrace does more harm than good.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ah you're full of s**t norman. You're such a patriot. We're all born differently, so lets not change that some have an advantage. Hey that giant asteroid thats going to vaporize earth, it was always there, thats the way of the world, don't do anything to stop that asteroid from vaporizing earth, because hey, thats how the universe works, and be damned to change anything.
You should bow and pray every night to whatever diety you favor that the majority of smart people DO NOT use their overwhelming intelligence to gut little pigs like you.
I didn't say I was one of them...Thanks for that compliment. I'm just saying..be happy that "libs" are compassionate towards mental midgets like him. That is all. (Bragging about intelligence is internet tough guy now?...please shoot yourself.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"with Pat Buchanan as our leader, we shall break the clock of social democracy."
-Rothbard, on who he thought would make a better president than Clinton during the 1992 primaries
Wow. That's an extremist view. Are the people digging your comment reading through to the end?
It's a loooong leap from "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (to which I include universal health care and the right to an education) and to the communal raising of children by a totalitarian state!
The people digging him down feel the government should wipe their asses for them and breastfeed their children for them. The founding fathers would have some choice words for us if they were here to see how far the nation they created has fallen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Equating advocating universal health care and higher education with "the government should wipe their asses for them and breastfeed their children for them" is ridiculously disingenuous.
You've stated elsewhere in this thread that you believe in giving people a "hand up." What is more of a "hand up" than ensuring people the medical care [without fear of bankruptcy and beyond the reach of unemployment] necessary to live and the education necessary to better one's situation?
For heaven's sake, norman619: by definition, teaching a man to fish requires education. :)
Rothbard was a rabid anti-statist which makes his position understandable given that context. His notion of a totalitarian state, in this case, was derived from the logical conclusion that in order to have a situation in which all people are equal and possess no advantage over another requires that they all start from the same point which to achieve would require a state with virtually unlimited power to eliminate as many random variable as possible.
I find it interesting that you consider the pursuit of happiness to include a right to universal health care and an education as opposed to the right to pursue health care or education. To me rights are only those things that place no obligation on others to act. I don’t see how one could have a right to healthcare without forcing someone to provide it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
OK, let's think this through. I submit to you that you WILL PAY for me WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. Here we go:
Let's say the libertarians get their wish and I am free to die in the street. YOU WILL PAY someone to pick up my body and YOU WILL PAY someone to bury it or YOU WILL PAY to burn it. If you don't, YOU WILL PAY to eradicate the vermin attracted to my dead body, YOU WILL PAY for health issues you suffer and YOU WILL PAY to purify the water system my corpse contaminates.
Let's say we stick to the present system and I am too poor to buy health insurance but not poor enough or old enough to qualify for the public option. YOU WILL PAY for my medical care via higher insurance premiums when I use the emergency room just as surely as YOU WILL PAY for uninsured drivers.
BUT let's say the United States does what every other country in the world does and provides its citizens with universal health care. YOU WILL PAY...less than you are paying now because there's no middle man [apparently, a 15% profit margin is not high enough - some insurance companies are quitting the business!] and YOU WILL PAY...less because prevention is cheaper than an emergency room visit. And YOU WILL PAY...less for prescription drugs because we will be able to negotiate cheaper drug prices.
Of course, if we have the public option YOU WILL be still free to PAY...more for private health insurance, but why would you?
One is based on free choice the other is not and that is the key difference. Despite that the likely outcome is that I will pursue the same course of action the ability to make that choice is the essence of liberty.
In addition you assume that this libertarian world won’t actually see a lowering of cost even though if libertarians get their way massive barriers to entry for medical field such as the AMA limiting the number of new doctors, the FDA advertising restrictions which delay information, drug lag, etc… all serve to increase competition and lower prices in the end.
There are two ways to fix healthcare in the USA, full socialist healthcare with all the bargaining power of the entire population, or to outlaw all forms of health insurance so we actually have a free market.
As it is now insurance guarantees the hospitals will continue to raise the cost to the point of stupidity, and we have a useless parasite class (our insurance industry) sucking money out of the sick.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The very act of outlawing the selling or buying of health insurance would be antithetical to a free market; the act itself would preclude the existence of such.
Hooray the Somalia "argument"! Which should really be called the I can no longer defend my position so instead I shall a mighty straw man. Of course the equivalent response would be if government is so great then why don't you move to North Korea?
See the hilarious thing about the Somali argument is that since the collapse of the Biarre regime the standard of living has literally gone up along with growth in their tech sector etc... But you will conveniently ignore that fact.
The truth is that you don't want to admit that your entire defense of the state and its actions ultimately rest upon the exact same basis that even the most despotic dictator's defense rest upon which is might makes right.
You have a right to a public defender. They don't work for free. Personally, I find conservatives engaged in "angel on the head of a pin" Pharasitic arguments about what a right is, to be tiresome.
I'd define the oddly-worded expression "equality of free will" as equivalent to "equality of opportunity."
I said, "oddly-worded" because what's the literal meaning of "equality of free will" and how would one ensure it?
Because I don't think you are referring to the force of will of an athlete or a parent with kids to feed versus a slacker, rather you're referring to the OPPORTUNITY presented to anyone to exercise free will in order to become an athlete or parent or slacker.
Note that protecting opportunity automatically protects the full expression of one's free will.
It is so much more than that. Free will and a buck can get you a cup of coffee. It is the culmination of luck, time, place, ability, genetics, family, history and the ability to use it.
FTA: "America actually stands out as the advanced country in which it matters most who your parents were, the country in which those born on one of society’s lower rungs have the least chance of climbing to the top or even to the middle."
It's hard to deny that America has a very 'Unlevel field'. Yet, conversations always devolve into the same 'typical talking points'. I do believe some of this is a willful lack of understanding regarding issues presented by various sides.
No, almost nobody wants equal outcomes. We want people to succeed based on their efforts. Though at the same time, many recognize that 'life happens' and a limited social safety net is appropriate in a civilized society. This can of course go to far.
For those that say 'poor people actually do pull themselves out of poverty', I believe that is willful ignorance. Does it happen? Of course. Is it a statistically significant amount? I don't think so. Where you are born and to whom has more impact in our country than others in the Western World. How does that make us the 'land of opportunity? Our slipping middle class, increasing costs of tuition, poor schools in poor areas, poor access to health care and on and on does lead to an unequal level of opportunity. That's not the America I want for the future.
Yes, we have to push for a strong work ethic and earning what you get. But, we also need to make an effort to ensure it doesn't happen for many with two hands tied behind their backs. We'll succeed the most when opening up more opportunities to more Americans. More opportunities for 300 millions Americans is a pretty powerful force.
Past processes continue in future. A principle of geology.
Right now wealth is continuing to be more and more concentrated among the wealthy in US.
Right now greenhouse gas concentrations in atmosphere are increasing faster and faster.
This is having predictable results. Things like dehumanization of the poor by corporate rise.
The playing field is cratered. Each new generation taking the field uses money as tickets..
No one can take you out of poverty. You have to do it yourself. You have to be willing to do what is required. As long as we keep giving people hand out instead of a hand up they will stay where they are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I agree that everyone must help himself. However, I believe some people are in such a terrible state they must get help from the society.
The problem is that these people are given fishes when they should be given rods.
I agree 100%. Some people's idea of help is making someone dependent on them. This is what the government tends to do. They don't show people how to help themselves. they tell them to sit back and let Uncle Sam take care of them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
It's NOT ego to help a starving child with a bloated belly and sticks for limbs. It's EMPATHY.
You're right on one thing: it isn't the way to take care of poverty because even when we help, we don't go far enough - which just forestalls the problem.
For example: starvation in Ethiopia. The comedian Sam Kinison did a whole bit about this - it's not PC, but he was essentially right: we need to go in and get those people the f**k out of the desert, thus solving the problem once and for all.
But that's a much bigger and far more expensive project than the world's politically leaders are willing to advocate, so...we offer some aid but since it's never enough to *permanently* end the suffering, it's therefore not a solution to world hunger.
Doing some but not enough just kicks the can down the road, and the next time drought comes the human tragedy is worse. But it's NOT ego to want to feed a starving child. It's empathy!
What you don't understand is that the government purposely designed welfare to be a system where people are dependent on it, while having little opportunity to get off of it.
The elite want a dependent class, so they can eliminate their real enemy the middle class. It's called pressure from above and below.
I agree with that, and yet welfare does not have to be expressely designed that way, in order to create more dependents. . . .it is also an inherent economic principle which creates this effect.
I agree that welfare doesn't have to be designed that way, but it has been.
Ideally welfare would provide job training, daycare for single parents, and a transition off welfare. Instead it's been designed to keep people on welfare.
Bulls**t. I worked hard and continue to work hard for everything I get, but so do millions of other people.
I grew up with the number 1 advantage you can have in America: I'm a white guy. I have received countless opportunities that would have otherwise been denied me because I can put on a good (white) face.
There plenty of people who doing "what is required" and working their ass off only to be stuck in their same situation year after year.
And there are plenty of others of all races and backgrounds that managed to make it and be successful because they were willing to work hard and maybe got a few breaks or were lucky at some point along the way. If you just throw up your hands and say I can't do well because of some X factor then yes, you won't be successful
As a white guy GenXer, I paid the price for the sins of my father via reverse discrimination. I support affirmative action 100%, as long as it's economically-based -- as such it would still disproportionately help minorities but I will not/cannot/do not support discriminating against poor people who happen to be white.
This was the same outlook that MLK Jr. eventually realized before I was born, and it's even more true today than the day he was murdered.
I have seen "affirmative action" given repeatedly to those that never really needed it to begin with. They had that "good family" thing sorted out. The lack of some handout would not have hindered their progress.
The problem of poverty is a little bit more involved than just the usual liberal approach of writing a check, patting yourself on the back, and going home.
In my experience, it's usually conservatives who prefer simplistic approaches: "Just say no" and "You're either with us, or you're against us." Certainly the GOP has won many elections with simplistic sloganeering and talking points. Usually conservatives criticize liberals as being wonky intellectual elitists; we generally "lose" arguments when we explain complex, nuanced issues in necessary detail.
Be that as it may, you are right. Poverty is too complicated a problem to be solved by writing a check. A holistic approach requires fundamental changes starting with universal health care, higher education and a living wage.
You're half-right. The other half that your comment is missing: no person is an island and no success is had without the societal institutions that we all share.
Don't believe me? Then name a single successful American that succeeded entirely on their own.
BTW, the better those institutions, the better the opportunity and quality of life for each individual.
In Krugman's mind, equality of opportunity is to give more $ to certain groups based on what a few people who have bought their way into power decide is a more "fair" distribution of opportunity. Life isn't fair and taking from successful and giving to those who don't have as much does not level the playing field. Donald Trump went bankrupt and he made his way back up in no time as have others. Mike Tyson was megarich and he blew it all.
It isn't about how much stuff you have. It's what you do with what you have. That is something that no government or person can give you. They can attempt to teach you how to make your life better and that is far superior to giving you money, but if you just want someone else to take care of you, you will never be on the same playing field as those who are successful.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
America spends more on education than any other country. The quality of that education has progressively regressed over the years. As a taxpayer (not part of the 51% that doesn't pay income taxes), it sickens me to continually hear liberals cry for more and more money to be sunk in a system that simple DOES NOT WORK.
OK then. Which country's students test best? Finland. Yes, socialist Finland with their highly-paid union-represented school teachers, universal health care, child care, generous unemployment insurance benefits, standard paid vacations, paid maternity/paternity leaves, teh gay marriage, low income inequality and livable minimum wage.
I bet you're right. The list of facts on Finland seems to be a comment-stopper. I saved it in my toolchest last week -- 'cuz you just KNOW they will be repeating the same bulls**t talking points again in the near future.
You have a good point. So let's fix it, not defund it. I can't believe I have to point out such an obvious thing to someone alive in this day, age, and economy - you do realize that it benefits all of us to have as well educated a population as possible right? The US hasn't led the world in multiple disciplines and economically because the fairies will it, it led because it has a well educated population. Now, more than ever with the rise of China and India, we need to fix and invest in education to remain competitive.
No, Shovelbaby. You have been misinformed. I assure you that NO liberal wants to work so that someone LAZY doesn't have to.
Ensuring equal opportunity guarantees that we remain a meritocracy and not become ruled by a self-perpetuating aristocracy like 18th century England.
No person is an island and no success is had without the societal institutions that we all share. [Don't believe me? Then name a single successful American that succeeded entirely on their own.] As such, it is only fair that wealth earned via the commons be returned to the commons upon one's death. Not ONE PENNY of estate tax is paid on the first $5,000,000 inherited. According to your rules, that should be plenty.
BTW: Donald Trump STARTED OUT with millions! And if you don't think that a former billionaire doesn't have the resources necessary to regain lost wealth...certainly moreso than a person whose never had money...then you are well beyond my ability to teach.
(Not for anything, but I've noticed that Trump goes bankrupt when convenient, i.e., a year or two before his divorces.)
You sure have put a lot of words into my mouth that I didn't say. Where did I say anything about liberals at all, let alone that they want to work so that someone lazy doesn't have to? I also didn't say anything about getting rid of societal institutions. I simply said that just giving money to people who have none will not make the playing field even.
I believe that programs to help people should be temporary and actually about helping them to become independent. As far as educational institutions, I believe that they should be focused on improving their results and that is not the same as throwing more money at them. Washington, DC has one of the highest amount of money spent per child on their students and is one of the worst performing in the country. There are tons of private schools that charge far less per student and outperform all public schools.
"As such, it is only fair that wealth earned via the commons be returned to the commons upon one's death." Wow! So farmers and others who have worked for years and built family businesses should have them taken away from the family when the head has an untimely death? How does a person who has put their whole life into accumulating something have no say on where the fruits of their labor goes? Just give it all to the government because they know better how to spend it than the heirs? Have you seen how politicians piss away money? People do not spend other people's money as wisely as they do their own. That is why the government wastes and abuses so much that they are given.
If you do not want an aristocracy, then you should not want government to be the only ones with power. That is what would happen if you take money away from private citizens when they die. Politicians always make exceptions for themselves.
You said that Trump started out with millions. I could have easily given examples of people who started out with no money - Oprah comes to mind. You also said that Trump had resources to start over. Of course he did, but the most important resources were not monetary, it was connections, drive and knowledge.
What you do not seem to take into account is that people are capable of helping each other. Government is not the only way to help people who need help.
Starting with your third paragraph, the last time the "family farm" argument was used, the right could not find a single family in the United States who lost their farm to pay inheritance taxes. Not. One. Single. Family.
Oprah? Great, let's talk Oprah. From wikipedia:
"Winfrey had believed that her biological father was Vernon Winfrey (born 1933), a coal miner turned barber turned city councilman who had been in the Armed Forces when she was born.."
Wow. Her dad was a socialist living on the public dole. I wonder how she had medical care?
"...but after early success in the Upward Bound program, was transferred to the affluent suburban Nicolet High School..."
What's the Upward Bound program?
"Upward Bound is a federally funded educational program within the United States. The program is one of a cluster of programs referred to as TRIO, all of which owe their existence to the federal Higher Education Act of 1965. Upward Bound programs are implemented and monitored by the United States Department of Education. The goal of Upward Bound is to provide certain categories of high school students better opportunities for attending college. The categories of greatest concern are those with low income, those with parents who did not attend college, and those living in rural areas."
"She won an oratory contest, which secured her a full scholarship to Tennessee State University..."
What? A fully-paid college scholarship?
Mad props to Oprah but she clearly had help on the way up as do ALL successful people. It'd be nice if you did a little research before posting.
"What you do not seem to take into account is that people are capable of helping each other."
First of all, we're not discussing private charities - we're discussing your dismissal of progressive government efforts to ensure fair opportunities for all. So there's that.
Secondly, one cannot count on private charities. Is there a private charity that gives consistent money like a welfare program or social security insurance or unemployment insurance or food stamps or government pensions or Medicaid or Medicare or any of the gov't grants for college in a manner similar to gov't that the public has some say over? No? Then STFU.
Given that I personally know two families who have been forced to sell their farms due to inheritance taxes, I find that part of your post incredibly inaccurate.
Oprah had help and worked hard to make the most of the help she received. Good for her! Again you seized on one little thing I mentioned and went off on a tangent that did not do anything to disprove my point.
While I realize that a genxer from NY has sooooo much to "teach" me, you clearly are not going to entertain anything outside of your belief system, so it is not worth my time to further the discussion. I'm reminded of a video I saw of Peter Schiff talking to Occupy Wall Streeters. As a 1%er, he talked about what it was like being an employer and the kinds of decisions he faces and why he made those decisions. They told him that he was wrong and told him why he really did what he did. It was quite amusing.
YOU mentioned Oprah. She's a great example of someone who had help which proved my point.
I addressed 4 out of 6 paragraphs. How is that seizing on one little thing? Fine.
Paragraph #1: "...giving money to people who have none will not make the playing field even."
Have you never played the game, "Monopoly"? Logically speaking, how is giving money to people who do not have any NOT helping to make the playing field even? Secondly, who the hell is advocating such a thing?
You accuse ME of putting words in your mouth yet you turn, "I assure you that NO liberal wants to work so that someone LAZY doesn't have to. Ensuring equal opportunity guarantees that we remain a meritocracy and not become ruled by a self-perpetuating aristocracy like 18th century England" into "giving money to people who have none". WTF is wrong with your brain?
Paragraph #2: "I believe that programs to help people should be temporary and actually about helping them to become independent."
Great. Me too (see the quote of mine that I just mentioned - you know, the one you f**ked up.)
"As far as educational institutions, I believe that they should be focused on improving their results and that is not the same as throwing more money at them."
SUPER. Let's follow the example of the country whose students test best: Finland.
Yes, socialist Finland with their highly-paid union-represented school teachers, universal health care, child care, generous unemployment insurance benefits, standard paid vacations, paid maternity/paternity leaves, teh gay marriage, low income inequality and livable minimum wage.
You want to follow their example? Great! Let's do it!
Sorry to break it to you - actually, your point was disproved using your own example. Your refusal to accept it indicates your unwillingness to take in information that contradicts your beliefs.
If I had said that people shouldn’t receive help and if when they do that it shouldn’t come from the government, than you would have disproved my point, but that is not what I said. My point for the third time continues to be “just giving money to people who have none will not make the playing field even.” I didn’t turn any of your comments into redistribution of wealth because you responded to my original comment, not the other way around. What I originally said was about Krugman, not you: “ In Krugman's mind, equality of opportunity is to give more $ to certain groups based on what a few people who have bought their way into power decide is a more "fair" distribution of opportunity. Life isn't fair and taking from successful and giving to those who don't have as much does not level the playing field.”
I only mentioned Oprah as an alternative to my Trump example as she was the first rags to riches story I thought of. If you put millions of people in her same exact circumstances with the same assistance, how many would have gotten to where she did?
There are tons of other examples - Andrew Carnegie, Sheldon Adelson, Ray Kroc, Walt Disney, JK Rowling, Sam Walton, Olivia Hsu Decker, John D Rockefeller, Ursula Burns….. Each one of these people has a unique story and they have all had some kind of help. We aren’t born alone and left to learn and grow up by ourselves. Some of these people may even have had financial assistance, government or otherwise, but whether or not they did is irrelevant to what I am saying. It is what they do with their circumstances that makes or breaks them.
As I said in my original post, “It isn't about how much stuff you have. It's what you do with what you have. That is something that no government or person can give you. They can attempt to teach you how to make your life better and that is far superior to giving you money, but if you just want someone else to take care of you, you will never be on the same playing field as those who are successful.”
You keep responding to me as if I am someone who doesn’t want anyone to get any from government and that is not the case. I just think it should be limited and done with the goal of getting people off of that assistance.
As for your point about Finland, I agree that the US should look to them as an example on education. I have even commented on Digg about that in the past. They start school later and have less time in school than the US. Parents are more involved and teachers are given more free reign. Teaching is not necessarily high paid, but it is highly regarded and the teachers are some of the most educated in the country – they have very high standards. Finland also has low levels of immigration. So when pupils start school, they speak the same language, eliminating an obstacle that we face. As for their system of government, it would not work in the US. We are too diverse culturally and too large.
The problem is a supply & demand society. While it sometimes seems like we think otherwise, we need teacher, janitors, and police officers. If we really wanted to we could pay those people $80,000 for the necessary work they do, but it has to come from somewhere. Either the private sector would have to apportion salaries more evenly or the government would have to tax and subsidize more strongly.
However, while there is more demand for those workers there are also more people able to do those jobs, so it's less competitive than your consultants, lobbyists, and vice president's of communication. Don't get me wrong, society would fall apart just as quickly without garbage men, but we value their work as less important so we give them less.
Interesting how all of the praise for this "spread this wealth" socialist speak is mid-day on a Monday. I'm betting that we're looking at a bunch of liberal college students skipping class to wax poetic about the inequalities in the economic structures in the US. Perhaps, it's the sociology or philosophy major who are shocked that their well thought out studies are failing to reap the economic benefits their "superior" intellect entitles them. Either way, my concern is that my vote is worth the same as the vote of posters such as nygenxer or concusion who can find time in their day of work (or job hunting) to post no fewer than 10 times on this topic alone that they are more entitled to the money I'm working for then I am. If they want to better their situations, it may be best that they keep their nose to the grindstone during their work day and keep their gushings over this tripe to off-hours.
The inequalities in income have been prevalent since the days of the Rockefellers, DuPonts, and Mellons. People simply didn't have the means to see it on TMZ and get themselves riled up. They worked hard to better their station instead of complaining that the game's fixed.
It used to be that a man would see another driving a nice car or living in a fine home and want to work hard so that one day they could buy one. Now a man will see the BMW driver and prefer to rip him out of it.
Idiotic liberals have changed the meaning of "equal opportunity" into something that can more aptly be described as "we should get s**t that we didn't earn".
It's the American Dream, not the American Entitlement. Just because some people fail to properly take advantage the opportunities in the US doesn't mean that the system is failing them. They are failing themselves. And instead of looking inward at ways that you can make positive changes in your life to improve your success, a lot of you people are blaming everyone BUT yourselves.
You've been getting drunk on the idea that you deserve a piece of somebody else's pie. You expect the government to step in and take money from other people to provide to you. That makes you f**king pathetic. How can you not see that? What right does the government have to play Robin Hood? What right do YOU have to claim unto yourself that the wealth that people have accumulated for themselves doesn't belong to them, but belongs to you because you as an individual are lazy?
Yes, I said lazy. This response has been endlessly mocked on this website but it's true. A lot of Americans are just plain lazy (not criticizing the US alone here, it's WAY worse in Europe and Canada, Australia, NZ etc...) and you want to have a good life without doing the things necessary to provide it for yourselves. Part of the problem is liberal brainwashing, Democrats really like this movement of lazy hippies because in order to create this mythical utopian society where lazy people get to live off of the wealth of the productive, the government would have to take upon itself greater and wider powers over the economy (the main goal of Democrats' economic platform). Part of the problem is that you idiots were raised by baby boomers who spoiled you and never instilled in you a work ethic. Your entire sense of reality is bedeviled by your undeserved entitlement complex. So much so that you think it's moral or just to demand that you be given the money that someone else worked for, even though you have no legitimate excuse as to why you couldn't provide it for yourself, other than your laziness and incompetence.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The US already spends more per student on education than any country on the planet, and that's public education, not private education.
Throwing more money at something isn't going to fix it. And it certainly won't help make people successful by doing so either. All it will do is create even more people who are comfortable living off of money from the government.
YES, the US spends more than most countries per student but US students also score better than the students of most countries! Is there room for improvement? Absolutely.
Which country's students test best? Finland. Yes, socialist Finland with their highly-paid union-represented school teachers, universal health care, child care, generous unemployment insurance benefits, standard paid vacations, paid maternity/paternity leaves, teh gay marriage, low income inequality and livable minimum wage.
You want to follow their example? Great! Let's do it!
BTW, please note that we are spending HALF of what the #1 country spends (Luxembourg) yet our schools are rated average. For comparison, the US spends the most on health care -- more than DOUBLE what #2 spends -- yet we are ranked 37th...behind France, Italy, San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Singapore, Spain, Oman, Austria, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Monaco, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Colombia, Sweden, Cyprus, Germany, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Morocco, Canada, Finland, Australia, Chile, Denmark, Dominica and Costa Rica.
So the conservative alternative is to defund something because they can't fix it.Let's see how long the US remains a world leader in the sciences with a defunded education system.
"Idiotic liberals have changed the meaning of 'equal opportunity' into something that can more aptly be described as 'we should get s**t that we didn't earn.'"
No, magnetism86. You have been misinformed. I assure you that NO liberal wants to work so that someone LAZY doesn't have to.
Ensuring equal opportunity guarantees that we remain a meritocracy and not become ruled by a self-perpetuating aristocracy like 18th century England.
No, you just lack self-awareness. How can you call me misinformed when the very description I gave of the idiotic liberal ideology can be validated by simply looking at the comments on this submission?
Citation needed. Please show where "liberals have changed the meaning of 'equal opportunity' into something that can more aptly be described as 'we should get s**t that we didn't earn'" in this comment thread.
Robin Hood is a fictional character who is as universally known for "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" as the character Dracula is known for drinking blood.
I agree with you that the poor are overtaxed. The minimum taxable wage should be $25K/year; social security and unemployment insurance payments should also be tax-free.
Robin Hood would have no problem liposuctioning
a plump mayor of his excess financial fat*.
He would do so on the grounds that such people
oppress the poor; not because he is dissatisfied
with feudalism.
_______________________________________
*I see Robyn stopping Bloomberg's motorcade in the Bronx;
then hurrying him off to Central Park
where they have a feast with lots of celebrities
and OWS crazies and the Mayor enjoys himself like
friar tuck stuck headfirst in a wine cask.
Next day he wakes up on City Hall steps,
holding an arrow that sticks through a copy
of the deed transfer for Zuccotti Park.
"a universal health care system, so that nobody need worry about untreated illness or crushing medical bills. "
Fallacy. Having "coverage" doesn't mean you get treatment. There are thousands of Brits and Canadians living on pain pills for months waiting for appointments or treatments or operations. Do they "worry about untreated illness"? You betcha. Does their tumor stop growing while they wait?
Perpetually untreated does not equal waiting a few weeks for treatment.
Fact: 2/3 of American households declaring bankruptcy do so because of medical bills - and 3/4 of them HAD health insurance. And people wealthy enough to come to the US for medical treatments, such as the King of Saudi Arabia, are not worried about "crushing medical bills."
Plain-old Canadians come down here to have their lives saved when Canada spits in their face.
""My family doctor at that time tried to get me in to see an endocrinologist and a neurologist," Holmes recalled. "It was going to be four months for one specialist and six months for the other.
Holmes said she still couldn't get in to see Canadian specialists. Because the government system is the only health care option for Canadians, she says she had no choice but to have the surgery in the U.S.
Her treatment at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona cost $100,000, and she and her husband put a second mortgage on their home and borrowed from family and friends to pay for it.
When she recounts that part of her painful story, she weeps.
"That's the stuff that I find so tragic -- having dinner with my friends and I know how much money I owe them," Holmes says, tears streaming down her face."
She paid all her life through taxes. And when she got sick they gave her the finger.
Canadian and British papers have stories like this pretty steadily.
Of course anyone of any intelligence knows that this is done because it makes no sense to have duplicate, expensive facilities when you can get the treatments just a few miles away. Canada has a lot of sparsely populated areas.
Of course you also seem to conveniently leave out that Canada pays for this treatment. You see, since they care about their people and not lining the pockets of your corporate masta's, they do what makes sense.
then again, you momma was the compassionate one, so no wonder you hate anyone with a sense of decency.
Ahh yes... the Shona Holmes story. A perfect example of Tea Party lies and bulls**t.
The reality of Shona Holmes claims is somewhat different... Canadian and British papers do something US media doesn't - follow up and verify the facts.
1> She had a benign Cyst, NOT Cancer
2> She received treatment and an appropriate set of appointments with Specialists. Doctors in Ontario told her that her condition was benign but did require treatment, however she decided that she had life-threatening Cancer and needed to go to the Mayo Clinic for immediate treatment.
3> She lied about her Medical Incident (diagnosis, history and treatment) in paid ads by the Tea Party
There was a CBC story done on this whole case and the way it was blown out of the water by the Tea Partiers, but I can't find the link right now, so this will have to do:
"Holmes has become the darling of conservatives and the stop-public-health-care movement in the United States. She's testified before Congress, been on Fox TV as well as CNN, and her story is retold on hundreds of right wing blogs. She's now doing a nasty TV ad for Patients United Now, a Republican-led group opposed to Obama's reforms. You can see the ad at www.patientsunitednow.com. The group is spending almost $2 million on it to target politicians in Washington.
For a person living with cancer, the idea that someone's care could be unreasonably delayed is truly scary. It also doesn't reflect the experience I've had or the experiences that have been shared with me by so many other patients. Even CNN interviewed Doug Wright, a more typical patient in Toronto who is receiving very speedy treatment for his cancer.
Still, I found Holmes tale both compelling and troubling. So I decided to check a little further. On the Mayo Clinic's website, Shona Holmes is a success story. But it's somewhat different story than all the headlines might have implied. Holmes' "brain tumour" was actually a Rathke's Cleft Cyst on her pituitary gland. To quote an American source, the John Wayne Cancer Center, "Rathke's Cleft Cysts are not true tumors or neoplasms; instead they are benign cysts."
There's no doubt Holmes had a problem that needed treatment, and she was given appointments with the appropriate specialists in Ontario. She chose not to wait the few months to see them. But it's a far cry from the life-or-death picture portrayed by Holmes on the TV ads or by McConnell in his attacks."
P.S> Not the truth ever got in the way of your opinion Kasha, but these cases are not the standard in Canada and Canadians are very happy with their Universal Healthcare - almost everyone feels there can be improvements, but it is viewed as a fundamental cornerstone of Canadian Society.
I cite data collected from H U N D R E D S of M I L L I O N S of people collected over D E C A D E S while you cite *one* example and insist "stories like this [are published] pretty steadily." **
Even IF your example is true, do you not understand the absurdity of ignoring an entire haystack to focus on one needle?
They do have coverage. They get to see a doctor. You obviously don't know what happens in the real world. The guy with the tumor who never gets seen I guess doesn't worry about it because it kills him in your view. Once again the fact is people in nations with universal healthcare LIVE LONGER AND PAY LESS. This is FACT. This is reality. We also would reduce the critical operations by catching things sooner because people are covered and do not need to wait til they can hardly breathe, are puking everyday, or having a stroke to get help which is the way the current system works.
You are great at marketing how you believe things work in America but when did you last stay in a hospital or see how they work?
Equality of situation is an impossible and absurd goal. The only way to even come close to achieving it is through massive destruction. Level fields are achieved with bulldozers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"more nutritional aid for low-income mothers-to-be and young children."
More? So he's acknowledging they already get food stamps and free breakfast and lunch at school, right?
"improve the quality of public schools"
That's easy. Give the school the power to throw very disruptive kids out. The ones that make it impossible for the teacher to teach and the other students to learn.
Problem solved.
They do indeed. Unfortunately today, that is often not the case. Soldiers report the difference between what they were promised education-wise by their recruiter and what they actually got is huge and only a tiny percentage get anything close to what was promised.
Don't change the subject. The point made is that YES YOU DO benefit from someone else getting a diploma.
Pleaze excuse crymtyphon from taking the test. His brain don't wurk so good since the accident. Now he always weres his bicycle helment when he maks poopies in the bath tub and reds the NY times.
God, leftists are sooo literal. After growing up with them I should know this.
I use the word "doctor" as a shortcut. To express the fact that Vietnamese and other Asian immigrants have averaged much higher success rates than black and Hispanics.
And there's no public plight for the Vietnamese-Americans, or their Financial Status.
Same can be said of MANY immigrant groups, the Nigerians, Ugandans, Slavs, Phillipinos.
When you look at it objectively (as in Labeling people and believeing in Stereotypes like the Liberals do)....it's only the ILLEGAL immigrants who have had the most trouble in this country.
We meaning the people of the United States as expressed by our laws.
Yes, I know. Leftists don't believe in laws.
BTW, maybe you didn't get the memo:
The race card is officially worn out.
Even middle-schoolers make fun of it now. But you go ahead as it makes you feel good.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusion called me a racist by saying this:
"you and the gang of people in white sheets and pointy hats?"
Oh "middle schoolers make fun of racists too"?
No, now they make fun of tossing around the accusation. They do this by saying "that's racist" at inappropriate times. This signifies they are aware the accusation has been waaay overused and beat to death.
Even the libs who write 30Rock do it. They have Tracy Jordan tossing the "racist" accusation at irrelevant times to show the same thing.
1) Try surviving on food stamps. A few politicians have done so publicly - use the google to learn more.
2) NYC spends $29,000/year per student? Citation needed since that's $2,000 less than the totally-awesome private school the president sends his kids to.
So I was off by $2,000. Sue me. Meanwhile, even in my little upstate NY town we now spend $20,000 per student. When plenty of teachers make it to $100,000 and retire at 55 it adds up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Average teacher salary in Albany NY is $54,000, so that means if "many" are making $100,000, just as "many" are making $20,000 or less, please show citation
Average in Rochester is $42,000
Average in Syracuse is $47,000
Average in Lake Placid is $52,000
I downloaded the 2010 schools file, eliminated anyone that did not work a full year in 2010 (based on hire start date) and averaged the salaries......
Average: $48,214.04
That is for pay ranges from 7/1/2009 to 6/30/2010 and 4/1/2009 to 3/31/2010 (appear to have two different fiscal years, maybe depending on function).
for FY 7/1/2009 to 6/30/2010
Average: $56,857.90 - this seems to be teachers and superintendents as they are also showing hire dates.
for FY 4/1/2009 to 3/31/2010
Average: $30,394.38
This is not entirely clean as I am seeing individuals on the report a few times (looks like pay increases) but he numbers are similar and become part of the average with little impact . Also note that there are individuals on both ends of the scale that may skew the average up or down, i.e. James Feltman making $657,970.48 as a superintendent.
Just taking him out (not the other superintendents, drops the over all average from $48K to $46K
I never mentioned averages. And I'm not clear on how to make sure there are no part-time teachers and TAs included.
What I've said is that in the mid Hudson valley in NY state, lots of teachers make it to $100k.
What I've done with that SearchNY site is pick a local district and look for people making over $85,000. Also my wife works in a nearby urban school district and my son and his wife are both relatively new teachers in upscale Westchester.
It's no secret that teachers around here start at $50k. Higher down in Westchester. My daughter-in-law had 5 years in private schools first. Maybe that's why they started her at $75k.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha - I do know that level of education plays a big part - also, isn't the cost of living pretty high in Westchester? Dollars are relative and if the average is about $50K, there are plenty starting below that
Screw it... including EVERYONE hired in ANY school in the NY area, for 2010, only 11% made more than 95,000. (That's not just teachers, btw. Anyone there). Does that count as "lots"? 9.4% make >= $100,000.
LOL. You also never mentioned that a run-of-the-mill three bedroom, two bath split-level ranch in Westchester will ran about a million bucks...almost 20 years ago. So there's that.
What? You aren't surprised that someone known as "nygenxer" has family in Yorktown Heights, Valhalla, and Somers or that I've dated my way through Tappan Zee, Mahopac and White Plains. So yeah...I know Westchester.
Care to guess how many NY teachers a smart guy like me (who was ALWAYS a teacher's pet) knows? And how many of my high school friends are now teachers?
I'll bet you know plenty of people on food stamps since over 43 MILLION Americans are on them.
And you know plenty of people whose kids get fed at school? Say...do your friends know that you would rather that they and their children go hungry so that you can save a few pennies a year in taxes?
And these "plenty of people" that you know are doing fine now? Please do tell us their inspiring tales that are no doubt chock-full o' bootstrap-y goodness! :)
*****
(savethesea has already addressed your bogus school budget numbers.)
"Really? The mother gets food stamps and the kids get two meals a day year-round at school"
Kids go to school year-round in NY? In my kids elementary school alone, there are 20 homeless families (Dateline or 60 min recently did two stories).
I spoke with the social worker right before the holidays and she told me about the kids from these families - not sure if they were going to eat much over the holiday and when school is in, if they will eat over the weekends.
I could give two f**ks about what their parents did or did not do to get into those situations, but many in my area are one paycheck away (as are many nationwide) from homelessness or malnutrition.
I do give two f**ks about the kids though. You would have to be a pretty cold-hearted individual to not care about their plight, they never asked for their lot in life.
Also Kasha and Norman, please let me know how the guy with a wife and two kids who just lost a decent construction job, got evicted, and is now living weekly in a motel is ever going to get out of that situation?
The motel will cost roughly $800 a month. He has no or limited income and can feed his family using only foodstamps. Sure you can find an apt for $800.00 a month, but you will need first month and security deposit. Also, you cannot relate to a person who does not know how they are going to eat tomorrow as the brain functions differently when basic needs are in question. Let's add in that one kids gets a severe case of the flu and must stay home from school. Mom or dad cannot go to their basic labor job and the kid does not get his lunch and breakfast that day at school and everything slips one level lower for the family.
I find it fascinating how one can condemn so easily without ever having walked a mile. The world is not as black and white as you would like it to be.
Do a little research on Maslow's hierarchy of needs and then maybe learn a bit about empathy.
Whether they go to summer school or not, in a lot of districts they serve two meals a day your round. Is this news to you? If it is, you should question some of your other "facts."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Is what news? the fact that kids get two meals a day in school if they qualify? Not news to me, summer school is not always an option but some parks extend the program. Not sure what your point is and if they do extend the program, it is still only 5 days a week.
Are you saying that 2 meals a day 5 days a week is sufficient?
I would guess that you do not have kids and have not spent any time around disadvantaged kids, it you did "empathy" may be part of your day.
Obamacare would "give Americans the guaranteed care" ?
Guaranteed? No one ever said that. If they don't deem you too old. If you can wait for an appointment. If they don't deem the treatment too new (there are lots of drugs and treatments standard here now that are deemed "experimental" by the NHS in the UK).
Yes, it's not legal to deny putting their name on a list. That doesn't mean you get drugs, or MRIs or treatment or an operation. It means you get a card. Period.
Again, in Canada and the UK thousands take pain pills waiting for months for treatments, MRIs or operations. You can keep pretending that's not true if you want.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I think I need to continue on this actually. My problem with you modern conservatives is that you often cite a rational debate and then offer no fix. Sure more people in a waiting room equals more wait but you aren't solving the problem by railing against healthcare for all. People still die in the street. People still wait longer to get help because they aren't covered. We still pay more as a nation. The real question isn't could this idea have negative consequence but DO YOU HAVE A PLAN THAT FIXES THE PROBLEMS? and you don't which is what's scary. The whole conservative stage is full of this rhetoric and no solutions.
There are hundreds more deemed experimental by the for profit insurance companies in America. We also do already have this type of discrimination in medicine. They often will not give a kidney transplant to a 80 year old before someone younger. Is that wrong? maybe it is but you aren't advocating fixing anything, you are advocating ignoring both these people and see what happens which is a horrible policy. You seem like a horrible person.
You libs pitched this for fifty years and we're STILL not buying it. The majority of voters want Obamacare repealed.
Plus, it's obviously a job killer. You realize that half a million union members have exemptions, right? Because their union said it would cost too much.
Awww. Well, unless they get a Saudi sheik to pull strings and get them in even though their marks don't qualify them.
And then the Saudi sheik could pay for them too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I know about it! (Waves hand in the air excitedly).
There was this sixties radical guy on the radio
and he said that he had heard a saudi prince
say that the Califate chose a kenyan sheep herder kid
to put through Harvard and into the white house!
Naturaly, the 'maim-dream' media hid this TRUE fact,
allowing America to think that people like Kasha
were denied the degrees and awards and presidency
because Obama worked harder.
Really, it is very insulting to Kasha and I hope
everyone takes it exactly as serious as it is.
Well, sorta.
It was Percy Sutton, lawyer, businessman, politician.
He was in the NY State Assembly. He was Manhattan borough president. He was Malcolm X's lawyer. He revived the Apollo.
A couple of years ago he was being interviewed on NY 1.
When the subject of Obama came up, he volunteered that he'd been contacted years ago by this representative of a Saudi billionaire and asked to write a recommendation to help get this young man he'd never met into Harvard. The young man was Barack Obama.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
My goodness!
Percy Sutton; lawyer; businessman; politician;
What about playboy philanthropist engineer?
You display that silly urban legend of a leprosy
mark upon you soul as a warning to others.
The warning says:
what you tell us about serious subjects
comes from the same process of
analysis that leads you to cognitively dissonate
on one Mr. Percy Sutton;
who is said to have said that he once heard
someone say that a saudi prince said that he
pointed at a Chicago street kid and said
'get that boy to Harvard!'
Make sure you bring the story up at
every discussion of taxes, school systems
or war!
Really, it's as good as those warning labels on
cigarettes that show rotted lungs.
Like the Saudis that funded Bush's first oil company.... what was their family name again... Oh, right Bin Laden... and I believe they had a son... what was his name ... oh, yeah right, Osama... now, .... oh damn what was your point there?
Wasn't that guy's dad...what was his name...? George HW Bush...also in business with another guy...also named bin Laden? And weren't they having a business meeting together on 9/11? And didn't value of their defense company go through roof when his son started an unnecessary war in Iraq and gave lots o' contracts to his dad...and his VP's company...the one who shot that guy in the face...his retirement package was based on his company's performance and they got "emergency" no-bid contracts...and the 20-year military vet who questioned the contract got shown the door...and the general who told them that they needed more troops got canned...and the FBI agent who specialized in al Qaeda was forced to retire after being told to "back off the bin Ladens" in the spring of 2001? He took a job as head of security of the World Trade Center...
/Not a conspiracy nut but Goddamn, that s**t stinks to heaven.
Instead of trying to raise people up, why don't we just attenuate the advantages of those who were born lucky.
In my case, I was born with extreme good looks, high IQ and below-the-belt blessings. The govt could simply force me to wear an ugly mask to cover my handsome face and could force me to wear headphones that made distracting loud noises to counteract my high level thinking processes.
Sounds great but we'd also need to put a ball-gag in your mouth so we don't have to listen to your bulls**t and we can make you attend college to cure your ignorance.
To address the problem of your ego, WWJD...?
Leprosy: that'd take care of both your handsome face and your alleged below-the-belt endowment.
It's what his boyfriend always makes him wear. Unfortunately, kasha thinks it erotic. the truth is, his top just hates listening to him as much as everyone else.
swift2Jan 9, 2012
I just love the economic triumphalists who think that, before Reagan, the US was a miserable, socialist country where everyone was the same. The truth is, when you create a vibrant middle class -- okay, "redistribute" -- what we had from the '40s to the '70s was the most amazing economic growth the world has ever seen. And since conservatism made us all selfish little beasts? Not so much. We've had a slow decline and one stock market bubble after another. Part of the intellectual bankruptcy of conservatism.
NeosopheusJan 9, 2012
What is more advantageous and justifiable? That one man be paid $1 million, or that two men be paid $500 thousand, or that four men be paid $250 thousand, or that 10 men be paid $100 thousand? What situation provides for the greater common good and greatest overall benefit to society?
Capitalism in this country has been taken to an absurd extreme, which makes it no better than socialism or communism. The national debt now equals the entire economy - $15 trillion+, and what is more, total consumer debt as of 2011 is over $14 trillion, and they both quickly growing. How long before the collapse of the American empire?
NeosopheusJan 9, 2012
Correction: that should read "total consumer debt as of 2011 is over $11 trillion," not "$14 trillion." My mistake.
http://www.creditscore.net/u-s-consumer-debt-in-2011/
swift2Jan 16, 2012
The point is, consumer debt exists to such a huge extent because the credit marketers had worked very hard to put us in debt.
PresidentCamachoJan 10, 2012
"What is more advantageous and justifiable? That one man be paid $1 million, or that two men be paid $500 thousand, or that four men be paid $250 thousand, or that 10 men be paid $100 thousand? What situation provides for the greater common good and greatest overall benefit to society? "
Your whole statement is BS in that assumes that all men and women will work as hard, do as good a job, contribute the same etc. What if one man works and the rest sit on their ass and don't contribute because they don't give a crap? To you it seems that the solution is to go ahead and divide s**t up equal anyway. Well what happens when the people who put more effort into the systems see this and say f**k you and don't work either? What country exactly is this working in? Who would you like to role model?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tribbledotJan 10, 2012
You assume that people wouldn't work to survive. You assume that everyones just ripping you off by choosing to be poor, homeless, disabled, elderly, or sick. How much more realistic is that? How is it that every CEO deserves compensation 300 times their average worker but can't possibly work 300 times harder? How is it that your delusion even makes sense to you?
PresidentCamachoJan 10, 2012
"You assume that people wouldn't work to survive"
We are not talking about working to "survive", we are talking about working for equal amounts of money.
"You assume that everyones just ripping you off by choosing to be poor, homeless, disabled, elderly, or sick"
Where the hell do you get this idea?
" How is it that every CEO deserves compensation 300 times their average worker"
Where did I suggest they do?
The delusion is yours, you made it up.
What country sets an example that you like and does it better than us?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterJan 10, 2012
What he fails to see is that CEO's compensated 300-400 times that of their workers is not a historical average nor does it align with other wealthy nations. A combination of rules/laws and culture have lead to this massive difference in compensation. That compensation was not 'earned', the game has just been fixed.
For those that disagree, explain how getting to this compensation difference isn't related to policies over the past 30 years. In the 70's and before, we were roughly similar to Europe and other wealthy nations. Today, those other countries generally have about 30-40x CEO compensation vs their workers. That's about 10% of the difference in the US. It's absurd.
The US has 40% of the world's billionaire's compared to about 28% for Europe, despite the fact that they have about 250% more population.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
PresidentCamachoJan 11, 2012
I don't fail to see any of that, I already asked where I said that and instead you just repeated it.... And went on with complaining about CEOs. I don't think crazy compensation for corporate leaders makes any common sense in many cases, especially if they are the captain of a sinking ship.
I am really talking about something entirely different than what you are replying to and commenting on the fact that it isn't so easy and it doesn't just work to divide s**t up equal and pay people the same just because.
daimposterJan 11, 2012
Something is wrong with you. Nobody is saying you said CEO's make 300-400 times that of their workers, we are stating a fact. A quick google search would help you.
Also, nobody is arguing that work should be divided up equally and pay the same --- thats communism. We are just trying to make a point that the growing income disparity between the CEO's and their workers and the top 1% and the rest is a major problem. If their is $1M to be made in income among 5 people, would it not be better to have a more evenly distributed rather than $900k, $25k, $25k, $25k, $25k? The latter would have about 80% of the population near the poverty line.
Yes, talent has much to do with who is wealthy and who is not but a bigger factor these days is where you are born (the wealth of the family an individual is born into). The US is among the worst in nations where you can move in the income ladder because we have made the distance between each rung further apart.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
NeosopheusJan 10, 2012
Your whole rebuttal is BS. You assume that there aren't people who are capable and willing to work as hard or harder and be happy making a less money, especially given this economy.
"To you it seems that the solution is to go ahead and divide s**t up equal anyway."
Is that what I said? I simply asked some questions that I find interesting. It is you who inferred the rest, but just for fun I will play your game.
"What if one man works and the rest sit on their ass and don't contribute because they don't give a crap?"
Then that person or people get fired. No one gets to sit and do nothing while receiving benefits and compensation and no one, other than you, is suggesting otherwise.
"Well what happens when the people who put more effort into the systems see this and say f**k you and don't work either?"
I don't know about you, but my work ethic simply wouldn't allow for me to do this. I have to work to survive and I enjoy working and getting things done.
You are so scared of socialism that you have injected your fears into something that in no way was written to advocate that philosophy. What did Marx say about socialism, anyway? Didn't he say that socialism was the direct consequence of a capitalistic economy, a response to a majority of wealth becoming concentrated in the hands of a minority? What have all studies of wealth distribution in this country shown to be happening?
I suggest that if we really want to avoid socialism that we will work to bring balance to capitalism. Less people are making more; more people are making less. Do you really think that is sustainable?
PresidentCamachoJan 11, 2012
"You assume that there aren't people who are capable and willing to work as hard or harder and be happy making a less money, especially given this economy"
I don't disagree with this at all, there is always someone willing to work harder for cheaper. That is a reason why we have a thriving illegal labor force and whey we outsource to India and China.
Congratulations on your work ethic, Do you really think we can rely on everyone sharing your high standards and ideas when it comes to liking work???
I can't believe that is supposed to be a legit response!!! LOL.
"I don't know about you, but I like work blah blah blah."
f**k you, I don't know about you but I like to get high all day LOL. Ok, now give me half your money bitch. Thank you for you assistance. It's not my fault really.
Are you blind? Look around you, does everyone you work with and interact with daily love working as much as you do?
"No one gets to sit and do nothing while receiving benefits and compensation"
OK, and rule number two...... no chewing gum!!! You are kidding me right? HAHAHA. Ok. How can you not see a problem that exists in all kinds of places? What planet are you from?
"Then that person or people get fired"
Ok, thennnnn..... what after they get fired? What do you do with them? rehab program? education? what is your solution? Why can't you or most others that just complain at least provide a role model? or a road map or something? What country do you want to be like???? WHO is doing it in such a way that you would be happy?
At least answer that please!
" Less people are making more; more people are making less. Do you really think that is sustainable?"
Think what is sustainable?? You are asking if I think an effect is sustainable?? That is not even the right question! I don't think the actions or causes that led to the situation (effect) our economy is in are sustainable no, of course I don't! duhhh.
And you jumping to the conclusion that I am "afraid of socialism" based on anything I said is absurd. Maybe you are just being touchy lol.
yurmutha412Jan 10, 2012
The US is only doing middling compared to the socialism used in Europe. No one mentions the failures over there, even though they are bringing the whole Union to it's knees. Blaming all the problems on capitalism doesn't make sense because other socialist countries are facing many of those same problems. The reason the pay structure has changed isn't because we aren't stealing from the rich as much anymore, it's because globalization has made the US less competitive and we've lost a huge number of factory jobs. I'm not against giving the poor a better chance, but it's not going to bring factories to the US. We have to find ways to compete with the low wages paid in other countries and that means using robotic manufacturing, lowering corporate taxes from the highest in the world, and speeding up business permits that take years to get approved. Redistribution isn't a solution. It won't magically make our unemployment problems go away. Spain uses it and they have 20 percent unemployment. We need to solve the problems at hand.
daimposterJan 10, 2012
First, there is very little 'socialism' in Europe --- the vast majority are a mixed economy.
Germany has a lower unemployment rate than the US and yet they 'redistribute' much more than the US. Same can be said about various northern European countries. The southern European culture and working environment is not the same as the northern countries. We can learn a lot from those northern nations.
And furthermore, you compare the US to Europe and the effect of globalization. The major difference is that the effects in the US have been felt almost entirely by the lower & middle class.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yurmutha412Jan 10, 2012
Not when you look at Greece. It's being felt by everyone. Germany has a lot of people that understand business, make a good product, and are exporting more than they import. It doesn't have anything to do with their redistribution system. That's the reality of it. We have to bring back factories to the US.
daimposterJan 11, 2012
Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweeden, Denmark, Belgium, etc. NORTHERN countries ---- have VERY LOW income disparity and very high income. Perhaps their 'redistribution system' is creating very high quality workforce.
Look at these income disparity maps/graphs. It's sickening to see that most of the wealthy nations have very low income disparity (purple or blue on the map) and the US is around or higher than most of Latin America, Africa and China.
In the past 30 years, most of the countries have lowered their GINI coefficient or remained relatively stable while the US has increased drastically.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/GINIretouchedcolors.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Gini_since_WWII.svgComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yurmutha412Jan 11, 2012
But when you look at a list of countries by average wage, you get a completely different picture than the socialistic premise you are pushing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
The US is at the top and certainly has nothing to do with the other countries marked on that ridiculous map. You should have marked red for the most socialistic countries. Many northern European countries, like Norway, are pumping oil hand over fist to get their wages up, yet Democrats here are completely against pumping oil. You hate corporations or any thing that brings money to the country. If you had your way we would be all evenly poor, pushing us right to the top your silly map.
NeosopheusJan 10, 2012
All systems, in order to thrive and reach full potential, require balance. How can you have a functioning economy when more and more money is being concentrated in the hands of a minority? The less money in the pool, the less there is to go around, the less there is to spend on goods and services. Right now, our economy is running on credit. As of August 2011, total consumer debt was over $11 trillion. I am not talking about nation debt, I am talking the total of all individual debt. Do you really think that is sustainable?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yurmutha412Jan 11, 2012
A certain level is sustainable. It depends on the amount. It's not the most efficient and I don't carry any. The supposed transfer of power is that higher paying factory jobs closed and people moved to retail. The most immediate solution is to increase the number of factories. Then we can export more, instead of being an importing nation as we are now. Other solutions will arise naturally. For instance, there are more people taking care of servers right now and involved in information because of the internet. More are involved in higher paying health care jobs. I'm not against higher personal taxes on the rich, but for corporations, we have to stay competitive with the global tax rate in order to survive as a nation. There's been an enormous shift because of globalization and the economy still hasn't adjusted to it. It will. People were worried about the same thing when everyone wasn't a farmer anymore. Eventually, robotics will make fewer and fewer people needed for factories. The economy shifts and we end up with higher paying jobs eventually. It has to be jobs, though, not welfare. Welfare states collapse.
screwkevinJan 10, 2012
"what we had from the '40s to the '70s was the most amazing economic growth the world has ever seen"
It's not like the fact that every developed country except US was in shambles after WWII had anything to do with that. /s
kwanijmlJan 10, 2012
Not to mention that government was actually smaller during that time than when Reagan came along. Reagan may have spent the money on mostly "defense", but spend money he did.
In fact, this time period after WWII and before Reagan is marked by something of a return to individual and economic freedoms, from after the new deal era (many of the new deal provisions were ended) and WWII.
The keynesians at the end of the war were proclaiming that our economy would fall apart when all the soldiers returned home and we stopped producing the materials of war. . . .but just the opposite happened. They can't get over that failure, so they use other metrics and historical data from the time to fit their theory of an economy requiring government intervention to function.
Point being that an economy is far too complex a beast to be able to use empirical evidence alone to determine facts and truths.
Sound principle and axiom-based theory must be applied to understand the workings. We can't determine conclusively what caused the relative prosperity of this time period using historical data(was it because it was the heyday of the unions, was it because we came out of the war as the only developed economy still standing, was it because of the repeal of new deal era policies, combinations of innumerable factors?) . . . but we can know that, all else being equal, a central bank inflating the currency and manipulating interest rates will produce malinvestments, and create a business cycle (booms and busts). We can know that, all else being equal, central planning fails, because of the problem of economic calculation. etc.
dustbunny52Jan 10, 2012
"The keynesians at the end of the war were proclaiming that our economy would fall apart when all the soldiers returned home and we stopped producing the materials of war"
Could I please have a citation on that? I looked over my old texts and I cannot see anything like that. The predictions that I can find are all for expanding economy. Since large amounts of prior spending were for improved infrastructure, the local businesses were having trouble getting the people that they needed and the return of the men would result in a large number of marraiges and young marrieds needing homes, all point to an improved economy. This would be the kind of economy the Keynesians would then want to increase taxes so as to start paying off the large debts that were incurred during WWII.
It doesn't look like the Keynesian theories were stressed until the occurence of stagnation in the 60's.
The outcries you seem to point to would likely be coming from the military-industrial complex. They would not like having to pay the money to re-tool factories to change from making bombs to making refrigerators.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kwanijmlJan 11, 2012
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/paul_samuelsons.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Deal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_economic_expansion
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/01/paul_krugmans_depression_economics_98548.html
The keynesian claim that counter-cyclical policy is necessary to raise (or keep) an economy out of recession and into full employment, is also frustrated by many other historical episodes that they like to ignore, or spin a different way, such as the depression of 1920-21.
Or, why is it that the two most drawn out depressionary periods in this country's history both happen to coincide with the two greatest periods of federal government intervention into a recession time economy, and also coincide with previously more active federal reserve policy?
It's also easy to examine historical data and 'find' things that don't look so good for free markets and laissez-faire; I will not argue against that.
My point, which you ignored, is that economics is, if anything, a social science and hypothesis are not appropriately tested by means of the same methodologies as used in the physical sciences. Human action of millions of individuals that make up the market is too complex to be accurately analyzed by psychologists, let alone economic aggregates. Variables cannot be controlled nor isolated; they are are too varied and numerous to even begin to imagine all of them, let alone acount for them in aggregates or econometric models.
What we can do is logically deduct axioms from human action (not psychological phenomena, but rather self-evidently true axioms derived from the existence of human action), and build upon these a priori deductions to build economic theories.
See Praxeology:
http://www.youtube.com/praxgirl
Read "Human Action" by ludwig von mises
dustbunny52Jan 11, 2012
Thank you for trying. I was a bit disappointed. The first two articles have no comment as far as predictions during WWII for what would happen after the war was over.
Yes, Paul Samuelson became a neo-Keynesian. He was instrumental in defining and describing the 60's stagflation. Before that, he was a true Keynesian and drew parallels between the economic boom, the WWII investment in infrastructure and the need to reduce spending and increase taxes to pay off the debts from WWII.
The third article had a rebuttal of Keynesian explanations as to why there was a boom. The rebuttal was framed around the ideas of military-industialists Charles Edward Wilson, Leon Keyserling, Dean Acheson and Clark Clifford. All of them advised a state of permanent warfare to bolster the economy. The first was the CEO of GE. The others were lawyers with strong ties to the military and the military support industries. I guess you would call them lobbyists now. All of them advised that we keep spending huge amounts of money to defense industries to keep up our economy. Fortunately, we did not do this. We reduced defense spending, increased taxes and the economy did very well.
The fourth article was more of a political rant than a historical article.
I did not mean to ignore any particular point that you were making. I was honestly curious where you were getting your ideas from. The comment you made did not match up with what I was taught about Keynesian economics. They sounded more like the rants of business leaders who were worried about their golden egg disappearing after WWII was over. Costs of retooling a factory do tend to be very large and painful for management.
kwanijmlJan 11, 2012
In response to your last comment (since I can't respond directly to it):
Dugg, just for at least reading a little from each link. . . . it's just nice those rare times that someone actually takes time to respond to what you are posting instead of just ranting on a red herring or a straw man. . . I can see that I kind of did that to you and I apologize.
I also agree that the 4th article was more of an editorial, and not a very historical/scholarly source. . .however, I included it as a reminder of an even more pointed example, and more historically well documented case, than the American story, of government ignoring the keynesian advice to engage in (or continue) deficit spending, but not doing it. Because of not following this advice, what West Germany got was nothing short of an economic miracle.
Once again, though, I could be dead wrong, if I'm basing my viewpoint on this empirical, historical evidence. Perhaps there were other factors in the U.S.'s and Germany's return to prosperity which played a greater role.
daimposterJan 10, 2012
Yet most of the statistics took a drastic turn in the early 80's ---- no coincidence that Reagan and 'reaganomics' took control of politics, is it?
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
It's amazing how everyone does better when everyone does better! :)
The golden age of the middle class coincided with a top tax rate of 90%!!!
N I N E T Y P E R C E N T.
(Choke on that, conservatives.)
NeosopheusJan 9, 2012
I want to know when the candidates are going to address the entitlement problem in this country; the entitlement problem that exists at the top levels of corporate and financial America, and is pervasive throughout our government. CEO's and other top executives making 300 to 500 times more than the average workers who actually drive the business. They say, "Well those kinds of salaries and bonuses are necessary to attract top talent. They are entitled to it."
Then we have banks that gamble and make immensely bad investments, taking huge risks that no sane and rational person would make. Then, when the whole thing comes crashing down and the s**t house is on fire, they simply come strolling up, asking for bailouts, as if they are entitled to America's tax money and to be free of the consequences of their unscrupulous risk taking.
A similar attitude seems to come out of our Congress and upper level government positions. They act as if they are entitled to automatic pay raises, access to insider information, special treatment by corporations, and freedom from consequences for actions that would land average Americans in jail - entitled to all these perks and special treatments because of their titles and status.
Yep, there is an entitlement problem, it just isn't the one that everyone is talking about. Corporate, financial, and bureaucratic entitlements that separate a minority from the reality of the majority. A reality in which those who can afford it least have lost the most. Massive unemployment, underemployment, underwater mortgages, stagnant wages, rising health care costs, rising energy costs, etc., that affect the majority while the minority is insulated from the pain that ultimately, they have caused and perpetuated. Entitlement indeed.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Great post, Neosopheus. Dugg!
johnmosbyJan 9, 2012
I live in D.C. and there's another entitlement program that I'm sure you're aware of--the Department of Defense. We waste millions on missiles while we have serious problems in our own country. Even if you don't agree that burning taxpayer money on new weapons of death is a waste, the lack of accountability in the defense industry is astounding. I've witnessed it myself; six figure and up salaries for unqualified people who do very little work.
johnmosbyJan 9, 2012
I live in D.C. and there's another entitlement program that I'm sure you're aware of--the Department of Defense. We waste millions on missiles while we have serious problems in our own country. Even if you don't agree that burning taxpayer money on new weapons of death is a waste, the lack of accountability in the defense industry is astounding. I've witnessed it myself; six figure and up salaries for unqualified people who do very little work.
golfguy6Jan 10, 2012
I agree 100%, but neither side has stepped up to fix the issue. The problem I have with politics today is each side is too busy positioning instead of solving the issues.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Dugg.
karmashockJan 10, 2012
CEOs make that all over the world. Look at what CEOs make in China or Japan or Germany... it's not something you're going to change.
And really, the CEOs are not the problem. If you took ALL their money away. All of it. It wouldn't make much of a difference in the budget gaps.
So your little bit of sniveling class warfare is pointless. It doesn't matter. If you want to fix things then you have to impact things at the middle class level and below. There just aren't enough people at the top to make persecuting them profitable.
And of course that is always the bait and switch in class warfare. They start out saying "we'll go after those evil rich people" and then when push comes to shove they'll just rob the middle class instead. It's easier. Every past progressive push has always worked out that way. They start out talking about going after the rich and before you know it they're attacking small businesses and private medical practices like somehow it's your dentist's fault that the government is out of control.
Anyway, whatever... I know no one is listening anymore. People just come on to this site to vent. They close their eyes, post something stupid, and leave. it would be nice if people bothered to actually discuss the issues but that's not what digg is about.
NeosopheusJan 10, 2012
The overall point is that the wages of CEO's and other executives have increased rather disproportionately compared to worker pay. More and more money is going to an entitled few while jobs are cut and and wages have become stagnant or seen minimal increases. Look at the shrinking middle class and ever increasing consumer debt as evidence of this. That is a fact and yet pointing out the truth becomes class warfare? Sounds more like emotionally charged rhetoric to me.
"So your little bit of sniveling class warfare is pointless. It doesn't matter."
So pointless that you felt compelled to respond? Doesn't matter? That is a matter of opinion, not fact, and one that is rather pessimistic.
"If you want to fix things then you have to impact things at the middle class level and below."
You think? I seem to recall a guy named Karl Marx who wrote that in a capitalistic economic system, eventually a majority of wealth will become concentrated in the hands of a very small minority. Every study of wealth distribution in this country shows that is exactly what is happening. Further, he stated that eventually people are going to get fed up to the point that they are going to band together and take that wealth back. Do you think that this is not true? Do you think that this lopsided wealth gap is sustainable?
"There just aren't enough people at the top to make persecuting them profitable."
That may or may not be true, but the fact is there is more than enough money at the top. I'm not advocating that anyone take that money; I am advocating that, for the betterment of society, those at the top voluntarily give some back.
According to the IRS, in 2008, over 893,000, $500,000+ adjusted gross income tax returns were filed. Just for the sake of argument and to keep the math simple, let's just say that 1 million people made $500,000+. Let's say that all 1 million people gave back $50,000 to pay for wages and benefits for new workers. That would be $50 billion toward that purpose. Is that insignificant?
Did you know that as of August 2011, total consumer debt was over $11 trillion? Now, why do most empires fail? Could it have something to do with their economies and the value of their money?
This is a serious conversation that needs to be had and it needs to involve all members of society who are willing to participate and stand together; both the affluent and the less affluent.. If we truly fear socialism, then we will work together on saving and bolstering the middle class. It has nothing to do with class warfare as you and others have asserted. It has everything to do with saving this country and our way of life.
"I know no one is listening anymore. People just come on to this site to vent. They close their eyes, post something stupid, and leave. it would be nice if people bothered to actually discuss the issues..."
That is a blanket statement that does not reflect reality. I am here to listen and learn. I am here to share ideas and knowledge. I am willing to discuss issues with anyone who is willing to do so in a respectful manner. I fear for the future of this country. I fear for the future of my children. I am willing to work to do something about it. Are you?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
karmashockJan 11, 2012
I can only respond with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78
Any policy build upon envy is going to be self destructive.
You can't argue that they have too much. You must instead argue why YOU deserve what they have.
Why should you be paid more?
See... I don't disagree they're paid too much but that's just from my perspective. From the company's perspective... that actually pays them... the fee is acceptable. Why should that same company pay it's executives less and you more?
At best, I could see paying the executives less and not changing your wage at all. What does that accomplish for you? Does that make your life better? I don't see how the executive's pay matters to you or anyone besides the executive and the company.
Are you pissed that the world isn't fair? The world isn't fair. Go watch animal planet or step outside and just pay attention to nature. The world is VERY unfair and it has always been unfair. Fair is something children and idiots believe in but everyone over about age 12 has grown out of it.
The world is this way. I don't like that it's unfair. It would be great if it were fair. But the world isn't fair. It isn't. And you can't make it fair without GOD or some all powerful super being which I assure you will NEVER be something you can substitute with the federal government. If you try to use the federal government to create "fair" all you'll do is create a new nobility. You'll get a king. And the king or his ministers will decide what is and is not fair. In a democracy, 'fair' is just going to be whatever the existing committee thinks is fair. And that could mean anything.
The point I'm trying to make here is that you're focusing on the wrong thing. Don't worry about what's fair because that's f'ing impossible. Instead, focus on what is better for your family, yourself, and your country. Focus on MATERIAL goods. Things that exist in reality. Truth and justice are concepts but if I asked you to actually point to it in reality you'd be hard pressed to find it.
While you may hate the CEO or the unfairness of their wealth, consider how good the company is for society, for you, for your family, and for the country. These companies make much of our modern world possible. You can't do most of the things we take for granted without them. Look at China... they were unable to enter the modern world without creating corporations.
And even if you don't have corporations do you really think there won't be privilaged people? Look at the Chinese Communist Party leadership... they're all driving around in half million dollar cars with hordes of servants. Did they earn all of that? How much more do they earn in relation to the average person in China? What about the Russian Communist party during the reign of the USSR? Same thing... they were living in mansions, driving fancy cars, going to all expenses paid trips to fancy resorts in Europe and gambling away on the public dime. That's the world and it isn't fair.
No system you create will be fair. It will instead be a human. We are humans. We make human societies and human societies are not fair. Or if the are fair then the standards by which fairness are judged are very different from what either of us would call fair.
Nepotism is going to happen. Cronyism is going to happen. The strong will exploit the weak. Your parking place will be stolen at the mall parking lot by someone just a little faster and more ruthless then you... and that's just life. Get over it. This has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. You are not the first one to notice any of this and you won't be the last. But it doesn't matter. The world will keep turning.
NeosopheusJan 11, 2012
That is a rather dismal way to view the world but you are entitled to it.
"Any policy build upon envy is going to be self destructive."
Any system that reaches extremes is going to be self-destructive.
"You can't argue that they have too much. You must instead argue why YOU deserve what they have."
History and empiricism argues that they have too much. The system is unsustainable; it has nothing to do with envy.
"Why should you be paid more?"
I didn't say I should be paid more. I make plenty of money. I am saying the empirically and demonstrably, a few are making more while many are making less. That is a fact.
"At best, I could see paying the executives less and not changing your wage at all."
I'm self-employed; I pay my own wages. Could you see the benefit of paying the top less in order to employ more people? What provides the greater benefit to society?
"Are you pissed that the world isn't fair? The world isn't fair. Go watch animal planet or step outside and just pay attention to nature. The world is VERY unfair and it has always been unfair. Fair is something children and idiots believe in but everyone over about age 12 has grown out of it."
The last time I checked, we have the ability to reason and communicate and learn from history that has been written down and otherwise recorded. We also have the ability to change the world.
"The point I'm trying to make here is that you're focusing on the wrong thing. Don't worry about what's fair because that's f'ing impossible "
I realize what I can and cannot change. I simply don't subscribe to your absolutism. "This is how it is; deal with it."
"While you may hate the CEO or the unfairness of their wealth, consider how good the company is for society, for you, for your family, and for the country."
I don't hate CEO's. If you haven't noticed, the economy is still in the toilet. Do you really believe that we would be in the same situation if more people had more money, rather than a few people having more money?
"No system you create will be fair."
I guess you forgot what our founding fathers wrote:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Did you get that? A more perfect union. I think it is pretty safe to say they believed in and were striving for a fair system.
"Nepotism is going to happen. Cronyism is going to happen. The strong will exploit the weak."
You don't understand the fundamental law of mutual existence. They cannot be who they are without us, and we cannot be who we are without them. Those things only happen when the majority refuses to stand together for what is right and just. These things are not inevitabilities, only potentialities that manifest if we allow it.
"Get over it. This has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. You are not the first one to notice any of this and you won't be the last. But it doesn't matter."
I don't have to accept anything that is rightly within my power to effect. Alone, I can only do so much. United, we can move mountains. It matters because we decide it matters just as we give meaning and power to everything in this world.
I notice you did not address any of my points or questions. You complain that "it would be nice if people bothered to actually discuss the issues...," and yet you have deflected and retreated to a helpless and deterministic worldview. Things won't change for those who choose a stagnant reality devoid of possibility over a reality in which there are infinite dynamic possibilities of which we can collectively bring to fruition.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
karmashockJan 11, 2012
Our system is not extreme. It is full of moderating elements. If you think this is extreme then the world has some surprises in store for you.
As to history proving your point. That may be... but that's like saying "evidence exists to prove my point so I don't need to prove my point." You need to at least cite this history. And as to it being unsustainable... perhaps. But that doesn't mean YOU deserve money. It simply means that someone else might not deserve it. And where does it go if not to them? The shareholders? Does that solve your problem? You're going to need to justify people paying YOU or if you prefer the underpaid worker more money. Because currently, the system that determines what people are paid is governed by supply and demand. The supply of labor against the demand for that labor. The price paid is the amount required to get the supply to meet the demand. Why should the company pay you using different logic then you use to determine what products to buy? You have a demand for various goods. You look at the supply. And you pay what you think to be reasonable price for that product. Do you ever buy something from a store and say "this is too cheap!" and then give the clerk extra money? No one does that. And no company is going to pay you more then you're worth.
As to some making more while some are making less... why is that? And why is that wrong? Perhaps those making less are less valuable and those making more are more valuable? You can't think that the value of any labor remains constant throughout time. At one time a good mason was worth a lot of money. Today, such a man isn't worth nearly as much because he has to know how to use modern machines and technologies. If he doesn't then he's not that valuable. Likewise, a lot of your lower paid workers haven't adapted to the modern economy while many of your higher paid workers have adapted. Being at the top of any organization will also generally ensure high pay. But it's a distraction to focus on them because there really aren't that many people like that. It's not economically relevant.
As to my absolutism, call it a healthy respect for inertia of reality. if you want to change this you're going to need more force then you have. What you're talking about doing is moving a mountain with a toothpick. And the mountain doesn't just sit there. It actively restores itself. You don't have the equipment to do it. You'll just waste your time. If you want to change this you'll need a complete social revolution, a totally new economic system THAT ACTUALLY WORKS, and you'll probably need to genetically engineer everyone that participates in it to filter out human instincts that sustain the system. Do you have any of that? No. So you're wasting your time.
I'm not an absolutist. I simply have a clue. You're not getting to the moon by flapping your arms really fast. That isn't absolutist... it's physics. And you're not fixing these elements of human nature and our society by electing someone to office or bitching about it or starting some sort of social movement. You have no idea how strong these elements are... and they self reinforce each other because whether you like them or hate them... they work. Every other system has lead to people starving to death. Which indifferent to their justice kills the system because dead babies are generally seen a flaw in any economic system.
As to the founders, no they weren't going for fair. They were going for a system where the government didn't actively dick over everyone. They wanted rule of law. Fair? They'd laugh at you.
As to your law of existence, the problem is that it's been tried before. What happens is some little social movement gets together to overthrow the nobles and in the process they turn themselves into the new nobles. This has happened nearly every single time. The US is exceptional in this regard and they only resisted that by keeping the government WEAK. Are you in favor of a strong government or a weak government? Because if you want a strong one... then you're going to make nobles. And if you make a weak one it will mean the nobles will be out there in the private sector. I'd just assume keep them private. No need to give the bastards the force of law behind their whims. But then everyone seems to want a strong government.
I remember Woody Allen saying a couple years ago that Obama should be made Emperor for a few years. Total dictatorial control over everything... and why not... then everyone gets what they've always wanted... to be ruled like peasants. The king takes care of people. The king determines what is fair.
What could possibly go wrong.
As to what is rightly in your power to change... flap your arms to the moon then. I'll be over here sipping ice tea and giggling. The most you'll ever do is create an institution powerful enough to enslave men. For nothing short of that will control the CEOs. And the first thing any such organization will do is enslave you. In fact, the CEOs might just become part of the government. Then not only will they have all the wealth and power they had before... now they'll have the power of the government behind them. That's what happened in the USSR. It's what happened in Cuba.
It's how that game works. The way to win... is not to play.
I accept the excesses of the CEOs because it's more acceptable then the alternative. You believe in a perfect solution where there are no problems. I've seen where that goes if you're not careful. I'll take what I have now and be grateful for it. Because the alternative is slavery and damnation.
NeosopheusJan 11, 2012
"Our system is not extreme. It is full of moderating elements."
$15 trillion+ and rising national debt; $11 trillion+ and rising consumer debt. Not extreme? More wealth accumulated at the top than at any point in history. Not extreme? More people imprisoned in this country than any other. Not extreme? Good luck making a tenable argument otherwise.
"As to history proving your point."
I suggest starting with the Great Depression. Then read about the history of all empires that have collapsed. Does the collapse have anything to do with their economies and the value of their currencies?
"But that doesn't mean YOU deserve money."
I already addressed that baseless assertion in a previous response.
"And no company is going to pay you more then you're worth."
Yeah, you are right. No CEO or other top executive gets paid more than they are worth. Oh wait, you said "I accept the excesses of the CEOs..." You concede the point.
"As to some making more while some are making less... why is that? And why is that wrong?"
Do you remember Marx and what he said was an inevitable consequence of capitalism?
"if you want to change this you're going to need more force then you have. What you're talking about doing is moving a mountain with a toothpick."
Already been addressed in my previous post.
"You're not getting to the moon by flapping your arms really fast."
Straw man. Try again.
"If you want to change this you'll need a complete social revolution, a totally new economic system THAT ACTUALLY WORKS..."
I suggest that OWS is indicative of what is going to happen on a mass scale if things continue along the path they are on.
"As to the founders, no they weren't going for fair. They were going for a system where the government didn't actively dick over everyone. They wanted rule of law. Fair?"
Several of the founding fathers railed against excessive debt. A "more perfect union" is not one in which we have a corporate cleptocracy where power equals money. Try again.
"In fact, the CEOs might just become part of the government. Then not only will they have all the wealth and power they had before... now they'll have the power of the government behind them."
Are you blind to the fact that CEO's have become a part of the government? What of Citizens United?
The lines between government and corporations have blurred and the two are hardly distinguishable. Look how much money corporations spend lobbying government - do you think that lobbying has no effect? Our government has been increasingly taken over by corporations and if you can't admit that or see that then you are truly blind.
"The way to win... is not to play."
The way to win is to stand united and work as neighbors, friends, and families to protect our collective interests. We take what has been happening with GoDaddy and apply that mechanism systemically and methodically. It's that simple.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
karmashockJan 11, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78
As to the debt, I thought we were talking about the corporations being out of control?
CEO pay is in no way responsible for the government deficits. That's just over spending. The government is collecting LOTS of money. If 2.5 trillion in revenues isn't doing it for you then the only thing extreme is your failure to grasp the absurdity of that situation.
As to empire's collapsing, I suggest you look up the Roman Empire. It fell in on itself in large part due to bread and circuses. The wheat fields of Egypt were shipped as tribute to Rome where the grain was given out AT NO COST to everyone. And FREE games were offered to everyone in the city. Strange wild animals battled each other in Arena. Slaves from the four corners of the empire were brought to fight or otherwise amuse the crowd.
Where did it all go wrong? Well for one thing, the reason they had bread and circuses was to distract the people from their loss of rights. The imperial senate was an oligarchy and they had an emperor. The free food and entertainment was meant to placate the people. However, last year's wonderful gift becomes next year's entitlement, and then the following year's civic right. The point being that people weren't happy just getting free food and entertainment. They always wanted more. And beyond that the fields of Egypt could feed Rome for free but there were limits on how far that would go beyond the eternal city. So lots of force had to be used internally within the system to keep the plebs in line. Riots were common. And while food might have been free it was also very hard to make a living in Imperial Rome because all the wealthy employers owned slaves. It was very common for people to sell themselves into slavery just to feed their families. The system was quiet dark.
It weakened the empire. Who wants to fight and die for an empire that exploits you at every turn and in which you have no hope of ever rising any higher? The free food and entertainment were worthless because there was no hope of ever getting anything better. That was the cost of the bread, circuses, slavery, and imperial rule... social stagnation.
A primary problem with socialism which I assume you're telling me is the solution to all our problems is that the first cost is lower economic productivity. That means fewer jobs. Higher unemployment. Less social mobility. More power concentrated in the hands of fewer people.
You're ultimately advocating modern bread and circuses. And you think you'll be happy with a check from the government, free healthcare, and whatever else. But the price of all that will be never amounting to anything ever. You might make the society more equal but you'll do it mostly by making the society less wealthy in general.
What little patriotism we have in this country will drain away. And like the romans when attacked after rotting from the inside out for a few centuries of it we'll collapse like moldy old fruit.
Thank you for your suggestion, but I'm not foolish enough to see that as a good idea.
Anyway, you're just spluttering now. If you're interested in an actual discussion where actual thoughts are exchanged backed by actual information then you know where to find me. But if all you've got is mindless adolescent and often baseless ideology then please find an stupider crowd to pitch your wares.
NeosopheusJan 11, 2012
"As to the debt, I thought we were talking about the corporations being out of control?"
Go back and reread my entire initial post. I covered several different topics, not just government and corporate America. I am not going to rehash what I already took the time to write.
As far as the rest of your post, it is irrelevant. I have made claims and backed them up. While I haven't provided links to each and every one of them, you should be able to do some research on your own and verify them yourself.
As to your assertion that I am advocating socialism, again, you misconstrue my entire argument. Either you aren't reading what I post or you are twisting what I have written on purpose. Reread what I have written; it is quite clear what I am advocating as a cure for our ills.
"Anyway, you're just spluttering now. If you're interested in an actual discussion where actual thoughts are exchanged backed by actual information then you know where to find me. But if all you've got is mindless adolescent and often baseless ideology then please find an stupider crowd to pitch your wares."
Spluttering? That's a good one. I am and have been interested in actual discussion; it is YOU who have not read, have not understood, and appear to have made little effort to actually address the questions I have raised.
I tell you what: I will put my education credentials and my experience up against yours any day. I am not some mindless shill quacking away like an idiot. I have four degrees and have been self-employed almost all of my working life. I have made more money in a month than average Americans make in a year and I have the tax returns to back it up.
How dare you attack me or my credibility. Have I not been respectful of you? Have I denigrated or otherwise insulted you? NO, I have not. I have taken the time to address your points, whether valid or not.
Your true colors have been revealed through the course of these missives. Your straw man responses, your absolutism, and your disrespect have done nothing to further your understanding or your credibility. I REALLY do have better things to do than try to communicate with someone who is unwilling to attempt to understand.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Yep: the emperor is as naked as the day he was born.
Cue Digg's right wing noise machine insisting that black is white, down is up, tomorrow is yesterday and Krugman is an idiot.
novenatorJan 9, 2012
Haven't you heard? If the poor were not so lazy and would just get educated and a good job, we could ALL BE MILLIONAIRES! Every single person!
samthurstonJan 9, 2012
HEY HEY HEY what are you some kind of SOCIALIST?
norman619Jan 9, 2012
I grew up poor and guess what? I'm not poor now. Neither are any of my siblings. why? We educated ourselves and took advantage of opportunities that came our way.
cosmicsurferJan 9, 2012
GOOD for you! And I bet you are a female Hispanic or black from a small town in West Texas or Mississippi. No?
What happened for you is NOT the reality for 300 million people.
You got lucky and you built on that luck.
Were you abused from birth? How about born with a disability?
You are only you - uniquely so.
You had support of your siblings and I bet support from some significant adults.
And I bet you had meals on a daily basis. I bet you saw a doctor on occasion and were cared for when you became ill.
Trying to apply your life experience to everyone that came before or after you is hubris.
norman619Jan 9, 2012
LOL!!! So you think you know what my life growing up was like? Oh please...
tetomontiJan 9, 2012
You're confusing an anecdote (your personal experience) with population-wide statistics. Your retort ("I was poor and I made it") is equivalent to (and as misplaced as) the retort of the guy who got to be 100-year old while smoking 2 packs a day, boasting, "see? smoking doesn't cause cancer".
cosmicsurferJan 9, 2012
Reading comprehension not your forte.
I didn't imply that I did know anything about you.. In fact YOU are the one that implies that you exhibit the epitome of humanity that unfolds from a constant baseline.
Nothing is further from the truth.
Good for you for being who you have decided to be.
You are not 7 billion of us.
Good for you for having the luck to have the opportunity and the experience and the choice to go to the next choice to go to the next choice with each new thing arising uniquely for you and you only.
You had the luck and the ability and the choices arising uniquely to you and no one else..
My point went right over your head as it will again.
You are NOT the norm except for someone of your age, born where you were born, when you were born to whom you were born at the moment you were born, in the conditions and the family structure at the moment in time and the specific conditions that were all together in unique ordered chaos with the same contacts and the same choices and the same educational opportunities experiencing the same experiences.
You cannot apply YOUR experience to anyone unless it is someone who has experienced the exact same life conditions, no matter how insignificant you believe them to be, as you have experienced from the moment of conception....
From how your mother responded to that conception physically, socially and emotionally
From the development of that clump of cells and the bombardment of every molecule in that development - the DNA and genetics chosen within the cell structure to the activities of the host
All the way through birth and how your existence was treated, the luck of your experience of time, place, person, activity and the air you breath to the location of allergens and your response to them
The people with whom you came in contact and the way you responded
The activities offered and the books read.
YOU are a unique culmination of them all and nothing is consistent with anyone else on the planet before or after.
GOOD FOR YOU for being the great and mighty Norman. You are not anyone but you. To expect that anyone else on the planet can be like you is pure hubris.
Just because you came from what you believe to be poor conditions and are no longer poor does NOT mean everyone else can do exactly as you have done.
Each person is unique and their life experience is unique.YOUR presumption of being the epitome of all people is as far off as claiming a Sperm Whale in the Pacific can be exactly like a Penguin in the Bronx Zoo
tre03Jan 10, 2012
"GOOD FOR YOU for being the great and mighty Norman. You are not anyone but you. To expect that anyone else on the planet can be like you is pure hubris. "
I don't think that's hubris at all. Maybe naive depending on the circumstances, but not hubris. Sometimes people simply don't know how good they are at something and they mistakenly think that anyone could achieve the same thing. I think if Norman were walking around with that attitude...saying that he's so good as whatever it is that he does and that's why he made it out of the poor house...THAT, my friend would be hubris.
bwiiiJan 9, 2012
Holy douchebag!
I bet you despise yourself even more than you despise those who have been LUCKY enough to acheive (or steal from the poor) their success in life...
I'd wish you peace and success in life, but you'd just be depriving others of theirs if you actually succeed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
clvngodessJan 9, 2012
No such thing as luck, not in business. It's always about who you know, what institutions you are affiliated with or connected to, and things along these lines.
Strategy, planning, determination, structure, and seed money.
mjm6783Jan 9, 2012
"No such thing as luck, not in business. It's always about who you know, what institutions you are affiliated with or connected to, and things along these lines."
Key phrase, "who you know", not too many inner city black kids with Mitt Romney's connections.
asfinktersezwutJan 9, 2012
LMFAO!
When I met Donald Trump back in the late 80's I asked him his advice on succeeding in business. He was a really interesting guy back then - very friendly and not the egomaniacal nutcase he has become (he was a hard-ass businessman and a brutal boss, but if you didn't work for him he was okay). He told me at the time that in his opinion it was all up to - Personal skills and abilities, Persistance and Determination coinciding with Timing, Opportunity and a whole lot of Good Luck.
Not everyone has the skills and abilities, so not everyone can succeed.
Many people lack the strength and determination to persist in the face of adversity.
You can have all the skills and determination to succeed, but the market has to be right for you to succeed.
Equal opportunity is a myth - you have to be in the right time and the right place for everything to come together.
More people fail than succeed, you need a whole lotta luck for it all to work out right. Things go wrong more than things go right and that's why you need to be persistent and keep trying because if you have the tools and the determination you have to keep trying and eventually with some luck, the right opportunity comes along at the right time...
But never discount luck.
FenderStratocasterJan 10, 2012
"Key phrase, "who you know", not too many inner city black kids with Mitt Romney's connections."
It's what you know and who you know.
I know from personal experience.
I dropped out of HS and spent many years engaging in minor crimes, drugs and alcohol. One day, I wanted better for myself. So, I cleaned up my act, got a menial job that required hoisting a shovel and getting dirty. Soon, I grew tired of that type of work. I got my GED, tested and get accepted to a college, then got my degree. Then I worked entry level for two years. After that, I switched jobs, but I took along my networked contacts from my previous job. I began to move up in that job, and I used my contacts for advancing business. I made more contacts over time.
One day, I decided I didn't like the idea of enriching someone else on my hard work. So, I took money out of savings and cashed in my 401k. I rolled that money into a new business venture. I used my acquired contacts to grow my business. That business was started in 1998.
Today, I am comfortable middle class. Mu income continues to grow yearly. I still get dirty conducting my business. My wife is a stay at home mom, and we own out own home. We have no debt, and the cars are paid.
My mother was twice divorced. I had no dad in the home. I also am dyslexic.
The point I am trying to make is that only hard work, and sacrifice, along with perseverance is the key to success in this country.
Also, ask yourself why so many immigrants want to come here. Because they the opportunities that many Americans refuse to see, or to grasp.
Being a failure is not due to color, class, or circumstance. Being a failure is most often attributed to laziness and lack of motivation. We have a whole generation of 20 and 30-somethings who are sitting around waiting for someone to give them that big break. They think it's owed them. The folks who make it are the ones who jumped in and made that break for themselves, by working for it.
Cosmic surfer, you sound like a defeatist. You seem bitter, that your life is a disappointment. It is not luck that has blessed certain people.
Luck is playing the lottery, or pulling on a slot machine lever, hitting the jackpot. Statistically, the odds are stacked against anyone who plays these games, expecting to get lucky.
Successful people aren't lucky. They reap the rewards of hard work. They thinking, and calculated moves in their lives earned them the rewards of their labor. If they failed, the picked up and kept trying until they earned the payoff. There is no luck to being successful Luck is for suckers.
By what I have read from you, your attitude seems to have gotten in your way. Maybe you are your own worst enemy.
Excepting trust fund babies and people from old money, look at those who earned a fortune in the span of their own lives. They did it by hard work, using business connections, and not depending on luck. These are the people the OWS 99 percenters are jealous of, and who's money they would just assume to take for themselves, because those OWS protesters are too f**king busy worrying about what others have over what they have, rather then going out, minding their own business, and earning it themselves.
In closing, all I can say is to cross your fingers, wish for luck, and one day you will have it all. And, if you believe that strategy is going to pay off, they you're going to get 'lucky', I have a tent I will sell you as your next address at the local OWS encampment you plan to attend... That is, if you can afford it.
Good Luck!
bluto36Jan 10, 2012
@fender
strange,
most defeatist i know are very liberal and very "progressive"
most people that "did it themselves" are not.
just some observations
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Uh, Vietnamese boat people came over, went to the same schools. And their kids are doctors.
rockcosmosJan 9, 2012
WHOOSH. Why are we not surprised?
clvngodessJan 9, 2012
No. Not all. I know a few who became other things, like landscape architects, artists, parents, liquor store owners, and so on.
eraptorJan 9, 2012
For those Vietnamese who succeeded in attaining the American dream, good for them. But, your bold claim is not a universal truth among Vietnamese boat people.
Furthermore, the criticisms and concerns of most Americans these days are founded on the steady deterioration of economic opportunity in the U.S. over the past 30 years, NOT whether a few Vietnamese boat people succeeded in becoming doctors. If that path continues, those doctors will see their financial opportunities collapse along with everyone else. If patient's lack income, it stands to reason the healthcare industry will too since doctor's aren't paid with "wishful thinking".
miklkitJan 9, 2012
Besides, those Vietnamese did it in the 1970s before Reaganomics.
ljseinfeldJan 9, 2012
(they were all on welfare, and probably also received free healthcare)
twinklyjesusJan 10, 2012
@ljseinfeld
That is a bald-faced lie. They worked their asses off and matriculated.
They earned their success,
and do eraptor...there are no universal truths
PresidentCamachoJan 10, 2012
@eraptor
"For those Vietnamese who succeeded in attaining the American dream, good for them."
"NOT whether a few Vietnamese boat people succeeded in becoming doctors"
It is much more than a few Asians, if you have ever visited California you would know that it is more like a majority of the health care industry and large chunks of other industries as well. They come here because we provide opportunities that our own citizens are to lazy to take advantage of so they do it for us. Why do you think there are so many successful people who have migrated here? Wait let me guess, they must just be lucky too.... The wind blew their boat to the right place. Even at your poorest you will live like a king compared to the millions they left behind in many cases.
----------------------------------
When will the victims notice the obvious correlation that those who "get lucky" are mostly the same ones who are more determined, work harder, educate themselves more, etc.
Nope, instead we pick and choose a smallish amount from 1% of the population and blame everything on them while idolizing other 1%ers and falsely claiming the sentiments of 99% of the population. And that in itself is not as shameful as the inability to accept any blame or see anything beyond corporate corruption and people who have more than them as a problem for the state of our nation.
Does luck, time and place and all that come in to play? You bet but not for most of us, otherwise it would not be luck. You work around that if you are responsible for yourself.
PresidentCamachoJan 10, 2012
@eraptor
"For those Vietnamese who succeeded in attaining the American dream, good for them."
"NOT whether a few Vietnamese boat people succeeded in becoming doctors"
It is much more than a few Asians, if you have ever visited California you would know that it is more like a majority of the health care industry and large chunks of other industries as well. They come here because we provide opportunities that our own citizens are to lazy to take advantage of so they do it for us. Why do you think there are so many successful people who have migrated here? Wait let me guess, they must just be lucky too.... The wind blew their boat to the right place. Even at your poorest you will live like a king compared to the millions they left behind in many cases.
----------------------------------
When will the victims notice the obvious correlation that those who "get lucky" are mostly the same ones who are more determined, work harder, educate themselves more, etc.
Nope, instead we pick and choose a smallish amount from 1% of the population and blame everything on them while idolizing other 1%ers and falsely claiming the sentiments of 99% of the population. And that in itself is not as shameful as the inability to accept any blame or see anything beyond corporate corruption and people who have more than them as a problem for the state of our nation.
Does luck, time and place and all that come in to play? You bet but not for most of us, otherwise it would not be luck. You work around that if you are responsible for yourself.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
@PresidentCamacho:
If the Bell curve is to be believed, Asians are also at the top of the food chain intelligence-wise.
Be that as it may, do not discount the support structure provided by a STRONG family unit that most Asian-Americans seem to have.
kasha34Jan 10, 2012
"If the Bell curve is to be believed, Asians are also at the top of the food chain intelligence-wise. "
Plus Ashkenazi Jews.
bluto36Jan 10, 2012
oh s**t the bell curve
i thought the debate was over and it was racist to even think about the bell curve
nygenxerJan 11, 2012
We should never be afraid to ask, "What if -- ?"
macparrotJan 9, 2012
Some people have crappy upbringings or don't take advantage of available opportunities or both. Including hispanic females or people from small towns. If you don't even try is the system to blame or yourself?
ajh16Jan 9, 2012
So address the abuse. If you are born with a disability, that may be s**tty luck, but life isn't always fair. If the disability makes it so that you aren't capable of moving up in the world, then that's life. It is no different than if someone is born without much intelligence. If the problem is discrimination because of the disability, then address that.
If anything, the problem with our system is that it allows people to stay at a level above what they deserve because their parents had status rather than not giving opportunities to those who don't. No matter how many opportunities you give someone, it won't do them any good if they don't take them.
I'm not saying our system is perfect, it certainly can be improved, but it has to be pursued carefully and be sure to fix the problems. That means carefully identifying the issues, cutting programs that don't address them and boosting programs that do and trying to make sure that help is only provided to those who are trying to put in the effort themselves as well.
I guess another way to say it is that I have no problem throwing any amount of money at merit based assistance programs, but I have a fundamental problem with any assistance program where the requirements are simply to be below level 123.
PresidentCamachoJan 10, 2012
YUP cause it is all about luck! Hard work has nothing to do with it, just sit around and wait to be lucky and complain when you are not. Typical victim.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
YUP cause cosmicsurfer didn't say anything like that at all! Just sit around and wait to inject a bogus talking point and complain when you are called on it. Typical conservative yutz.
PresidentCamachoJan 11, 2012
@nygenxer (referring to nginx?)
"Good for you for having the luck to have the opportunity and the experience..."
"You had the luck and the ability and the choices arising uniquely to you and no one else.."
" the luck of your experience of time, place, person, activity and the air you breath"
YUP dumbass, nothing like that at all!!!!! sure didn't!!! Did you bother reading the comments??
And that somehow makes me conservative. Why is that? They don't believe in luck or something?
And it is not a bogus talking point, If you did not notice, the title is "America's Unlevel Field" and talks about differences in opportunity and such. That is what is being discussed here. Victims equate success to luck many times. Where is my talking point not relevant? Where am I complaining? Did you comment on the right post??
nygenxerJan 11, 2012
You criticized cosmicsurfer that "...it is all about luck! HaHard work has nothing to do with it..."
No one is discounting hard work, nor is pointing out the ridiculousness of discounting luck and the connections associate with wealth, discounting hard work. You exaggerated it as doing so and I called you out on it.
In cosmicsurfer's comments that YOU QUOTED he/she mentions luck and opportunity, experience, ability, choices, experience (again) and activity. Funny thing: he doesn't mention sitting around, waiting and complaining.
Who will deny that luck is almost always part of success? Who doubts that luck is usually a part of failure [where laziness isn't present]?
Are you not a conservative? Your comment "Typical victim." is the standard conservatives boilerplate repeated ad nauseum when this subject is the topic of discussion.
FenderStratocastor: "Being a failure is most often attributed to laziness and lack of motivation...sitting around waiting for someone to give them that big break...you sound like a defeatist. You seem bitter, that your life is a disappointment. It is not luck that has blessed certain people."
rthakidn: "...many born into poverty lift themselves out. It is done with hard work and perseverance, not whining and complaining..."
Sounds exactly like what you wrote.
PresidentCamachoJan 10, 2012
"GOOD for you! And I bet you are a female Hispanic or black from a small town in West Texas or Mississippi. No?"
So what is the secret behind the people with the background you describe who become successful? Wait, let me guess! they got lucky somehow!!! It all comes down to luck huh? Hard work, education, etc. non factors right? Those people just happen to get lucky more right? Well if that is the case, what is stopping others from doing the same thing? Maybe they will get lucky too!!! Or maybe it has to do with actually taking personal initiative and doing something with yourself? No, that can't be the case. It is much easier to sit with the rest and go "seeeeeee there are a whole s**t load of us poor unlucky mother f**kers :(, there are so many of us in the same boat that it has to be someone else's fault" Have fun living the victim life style!!
So since you brought it up, what if you are not a one legged, deaf, blind, black female Hispanic from a small town in West Texas or Mississippi? If not can you shut the f**k up and get off your ass? What if you are a educated white college kid with working class parents and you don't have a job? Can you shut the f**k up and get one? Or are they equal to and oppressed like the one legged, deaf, blind, black female Hispanic from a small town in West Texas or Mississippi?
How do you go about proving one's success is luck anyway? If it all luck to you really think laws can correct and govern such a force? Wouldn't that be like passing a law against tornadoes in trailer parks?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
PresidentCamachoJan 10, 2012
*If it is all luck, do you really think.....
chelseaelizobethJan 10, 2012
I think most honest people will tell you that luck/serendipity/forces outside one's control play a major part in the course of one's life, for better and worse.
I was lucky to be born in a lower working class home (dad is a truck driver, mom didn't graduate high school) that placed a very high value on education and talent, so I worked hard on those areas. I also had to get a job when I was sixteen, because my family couldn't afford to fully support me and my sister, so I had to continue to perform admirably in school while working after school and 16 hours on the weekends. I hardly remember what it's like to not have a job, and being twenty-two, that's a pretty lucky thing these days.
I was also unlucky enough to have an emotionally abusive, controlling despot of a mother, but that's a whole different topic. It did, however, affect my life to an equal degree. Luck is all the forces outside of our control. We are lucky if these forces push us forward in life, and work to our benefit, and we are unlucky if they keep us where we were, or push us backward. Nobody exists in a vacuum, we are all affected by the choices of those around us, and our family's circumstances. All we can do in life is deal with the consequences, and hope our choices don't f**k anyone else's life up too badly.
PresidentCamachoJan 11, 2012
@chelseaelizobeth
"I think most honest people will tell you that luck/serendipity/forces outside one's control play a major part in the course of one's life, for better and worse. "
If you are talking about thing like where you are born, your genes, etc you can call it luck or whatever but is really all statistical chance and based on math, not cosmic forces that do not exist such as luck.
"Luck is all the forces outside of our control"
No it is not. Forces beyond are control have to do with things like physics, acts of nature, random chance, statistics and such. You can call that luck if you would like I guess...
"I also had to get a job when I was sixteen, because my family couldn't afford to fully support me and my sister, so I had to continue to perform admirably in school while working after school and 16 hours on the weekends. I hardly remember what it's like to not have a job, and being twenty-two, that's a pretty lucky thing these days."
Give your self some credit for Christ's sake!!! It does not sound like you were lucky to me at all. It sounds like you worked hard, took pride in what you were doing, did what you had to do to support your family, attained a steady job etc. Your circumstances might or might not work out to your favor but it sounds like you are making the right choices! That is not luck my friend! That is called making good choices, and if you keep making them they tend to pay off at some point. And if you want you can call that getting lucky when it happens I suppose..... To me that is just shortchanging your efforts though.
You might call it unlucky to have the relationship with your mother that you do but it's not unlucky, it is the way it is. It just means you have choices to make or not to make. There again, things you can not control and luck are not the same. You also have to make things happen and choose not to be a victim of circumstance.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Great for you, norman619. Your success means that you are extraordinary. Do you understand the word "extraordinary"? Do you understand the societal ramifications that your success being "extraordinary" entails?
Upwards social mobility in *France* is greater than that in the US (!), so for the overwhelmingly vast majority of people like you, being born poor - or rich - is a LIFE SENTENCE and as such, is antithetical to a meritocracy.
concusionJan 9, 2012
amazing how he managed to get himself out of poverty, yet is clearly dumb as rocks. I guess he gives hope to morons everywhere.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Does he give hope to morons? Let's ask rthakidn.
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
What's your story then?
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
@Grag_Orlock:
You wouldn't like his story. Big words. No pictures. No pop ups. No bunny to pat.
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
@nygenxer
Funny, I don't feel I have to treat the liberal half of the country as drooling morons just because they have a different point of view.
But don't go changing. It just highlights how intellectually bankrupt your own arguments are.
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
Cite please, re: upwards mobility in France.
My own family fled Europe in the late 40's because of the lack of mobility and opportunities. France is still an economic basketcase, and the only one with a decent economy (Germany) has it because they've been bankrolling the weaker economies to maintain their import/export ratio.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Didn't you read the article? This is old news but LMGTFY:
"...mobility is lower in the US than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/mobi-m19.shtml
"At least five large studies in recent years have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower in American than in comparable nations, belief in America as a land of opportunity not withstanding."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
"According a report on social mobility published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], the United States ranks pretty poorly among industrialized nations on intergenerational advancement..."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/11-5
"The report finds the U.S. ranking well below Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain in terms of how freely citizens move up or down the social ladder."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html
MusicManGPJan 9, 2012
Nice anecdote. You don't believe that's a valid refutation of hard data do you?
concusionJan 9, 2012
I think the notion that everybody is just like you shows lack of IQ/intelligence or a lack of looking at things through anything but your own point of view. Seriously norman, why can't everyone be like you? Ah right they are just LAZY
novenatorJan 9, 2012
That's what I'm saying norman, EVERYONE can be just like you, and be millionaires. 320 million millionaires in America, because wealth is not a zero sum game! Just think of it, the entire nation could retire, and nobody would have to work ever again. Everything would just magically get built, cleaned, and fixed because we're all RICH!!
Yeehaw!
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
As opposed to taxing the top 10% into oblivion, everyone not being millionaires, but still not having to work.
Except of course that would do nothing to address either our debt, or increase the number of jobs. But it would satisfy the envious slackers of the country.
Bravo.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionJan 10, 2012
taxing the top 10% into oblivious? ok buddy.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Adjusting taxes on the wealthy back to the historically-low rates of the Clinton era is "taxing the top 10% into oblivion"?
It's moronic comparisons like that just make it very difficult to take conservatives seriously on the subject of taxation.
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
If it were indeed the Clinton level, you'd be right. However the bulk of the 'tax the rich' arguments here tend towards the 40's-70's level, where the rate went straight up to 94%.
And again blaming everyone who doesn't see things your way as a moron... really, you must be so much fun at parties.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
@novey:
In Zimbabwea everyone is a multi-trillionaire and life is just awesome! Oh no...wait. Not awesome. What's the word...? s**tty.
http://lee.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/zimbabwe-100-trillion-dollar-bill-obverse.jpg
:)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
samthurstonJan 11, 2012
"Everything would just magically get built, cleaned, and fixed because we're all RICH!!"
Don't be silly novy, it's not magic.
it's Mexicans. They come to work for a little bit and then we deport them.
stabsteerJan 10, 2012
Hmm let me guess you may have had some help, either from someone with money or the government. Which one was it?
JustSayNoPartyJan 10, 2012
admirable. But what does this talking point mean? Don't worry about rapidly escalating tuition costs? Don't worry about awful schools in poor areas? Don't worry about all the disadvantages? Everyone just needs to pull themselves up by their own boot straps?
PresidentCamachoJan 10, 2012
What a dumb ass comment. Who said that if you got off your ass it will make you a millionaire? Of course we all can't be millionaires, is that your only definition of success in life? Can people have success if they want it instead of complaining how unfair it is and make the personal choice to not be a victim? Yup, and you are completely ignorant if you think thousands are not in the victim boat looking for an excuse to explain their lack of satisfaction in life.
rthakidnJan 9, 2012
I love it when Krugman writes something. All you lefties wet your pants and start blathering about how conservatives are blind.
As usual, Krugman's pen has nothing but redistribution coming out of it.
Pages and pages could be written to illustrate Krugman's stupidity, however it would all be lost on the lefties at DIGG. So I'll try to shoot holes in the socialists interpretation of American in just a few short sentences to make it easy for you guys.
Barack Hussein Obama. He's one of those lamented by Krugman, yet he has climbed to the pinnacle of America and possibly the world. Please explain to me Mr Krugman, how a poor black kid born into the lowest level of American society can climb to such a position. Unless of course you lefties are insinuating he is just a token??Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
I love it when you conservatives try to change the discussion with emotional buzzwords like "redistribution" that imply that liberals want everyone to work so that someone LAZY doesn't have to. That's far from the truth. Ensuring equal opportunity guarantees that we remain a meritocracy and not become ruled by a self-perpetuating aristocracy like the 18th century England our forefathers fought against.
Ready-or-not, here are the grown-up facts about redistribution:
NO person is an island and NO success is had without the societal institutions that we all share. [Don't believe me? Then name a single successful American that succeeded entirely on their own.]
As such, it is only fair that most of the wealth earned via the commons be returned to the commons -- and it's not only fair, but it is also vital to the economic health of a meritocracy as it ensures the perpetuation of an environment fertile for the next generation of innovators to succeed and earn wealth -- rather than having accumulated wealth that stagnates society into a merit-less aristocracy more concerned with protecting yesterday's wealth than with society's future.
Do you not see how the attitude "f**k you, I got mine", coupled with the money to buy political favors, is poisonous to democracy? This brings us to the ultimate expression of "redistribution": the estate tax that conservatives have renamed "the death tax" to once again take advantage of an emotional buzzword.
If one does not own one's molecules after death, it is absurd -- and ultimately destructive to society -- to control one's wealth beyond death. I support a tax-free inheritance as do most people and $5 million tax-free is enough of a head start for anyone.
Obviously if liberals like myself were as extreme in their support of equal opportunity and redistribution as you shrill conservatives cry wolf about, this would not be the case. It is; please incorporate this reality into your worldview and stop crying wolf -- and if your parents are going to leave you more than $5 million, then STFU; and if you think you're going to leave an estate worth more than $5 million to your kids, you are almost certainly delusional...or French, since there's more upwards social mobility there than here.
rthakidnJan 9, 2012
Did I hit a nerve? You've been quite winded explaining your point, but you didn't address mine. I stated Krugman is WRONG to say the playing field is not level. I gave a very extreme example why he is FOS. Now some would say, BHO is anectodal, I expect that. The fact is, many, many born into poverty lift themselves out. It is done with hard work and perseverance, not whining and complaining that one of my programs has been cut. Those with the ability to succeed will find a way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionJan 9, 2012
but saying the playing field is completely equal is completely ridiculous. Either you are stupid are ingenuous. Pick your poison.
rthakidnJan 9, 2012
Oh, you crack me up. Address my point. I don't believe for a second, I have the opportunities afforded Donald Trump Jr. I do hope and aspire to achieve more than my parents. If I do great, if not, than that's my fault. NOT Donald Trump Jr's. I'm not sure who ever promised you life was "fair".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionJan 9, 2012
not sure who ever promised me life was fair either, but you just said we all get an equal playing field, now all of a sudden of course you don't. The problem is, like you just said, you aspire to achieve more than your parents. That used to be the case in America that people had the opportunity to do better then the generation before them, but that obviously is not the case anymore. Maybe one day it will be, but to pretend like nothing is wrong and the playing field is equal is f**king stupid.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Hit a nerve? Heaven's no!
Saying things like, "All you lefties wet your pants and start blathering about how conservatives are blind" and using Obama as proof of how the playing field is level -- completely ignoring the haystack to focus on the needle -- only makes me feel sad for you.
Try reading my long-winded comments. You will learn something. I'd love it if you thoughtfully challenged my arguments, but we both know that's not going to happen.
eraptorJan 9, 2012
@rthakidn,
"The fact is, many, many born into poverty lift themselves out. It is done with hard work and perseverance, not whining and complaining that one of my programs has been cut. Those with the ability to succeed will find a way."
Those who ONCE lifted themselves out of poverty were ONLY able to do so because the U.S. maintained a "social ladder" which gave them the tools to do so (i.e., a strong and effective public education system, robust public health system, the advent of the social safety net (which is NOT a useless entitlement), and wage levels/benefits (healthcare & pensions) that EXCEEDED the REAL cost of living).
I know this because some elements of my family used it to achieve the very success you mistakenly assume to be possible today. That social ladder has SINCE been dismantled by misguided conservative public policies over the past 30 years so it no longer operates as it ONCE did. Evidence of this truth is found in the perverse/gaping wealth disparity which has grown over the past 30 years. That redistribution of wealth TO the top 1% would NOT have been possible without tearing up the social contract/social ladder which once existed.
The Conservative agenda has been determined to destroy that social ladder ever since it was created. Tragically, they succeeded in moving that agenda forward after electing Ronald Reagan. His affability/popularity masked the destructive nature of the conservative agenda and that's why so many Conservatives worship the man and his "achievements" to this day. Absent Reagan, Republicans would have gained no significant traction in the country with their anti-American beliefs.
outpastplutoJan 10, 2012
No. People have been able to "lift themselves up" even when the entire system was trying to keep them down. The most relevant thing here is the individual. Before any sort of handout means anything, the individual must value their own future and be committed to achieving it.
So your family is still much more important. This will shape your basic outlook and how you approach what opportunities you have.
So just blindly throwing money around doesn't have that much impact.
This is why immigrants manage a level of achievement that far surpasses native born Americans in similar economic circumstances.
"Tribal knowledge" is also very valuable. If your parents have gone to college themselves, they can help you succeed rather than getting in your way. Even well meaning working class parents can sabotage their children with really clueless advice.
jlaughJan 9, 2012
Barrack Obama is sure not a rags to riches story. His mother worked for one of the foundations, and Barrack Obama has been hugely connected his whole life. He went to an elite grade school, and elite college. And his path to the presidency was way to easy.
Ouzel7Jan 9, 2012
"Krugman is the son of David and Anita Krugman and the grandson of Jewish immigrants from Brest-Litovsk..."
I wonder if his grandparents came here with a bunch of money and influence.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rthakidnJan 9, 2012
Yeah, well. I don't know about that, but I'd tell Krugman to live as a pauper by donating his money to charity, then he has the right to lecture us.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spatula7Jan 9, 2012
Ya, because ideas are only valid if you act and behave like Jesus...which I guess completely invalidates any of the messages coming from the mainstream churches.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Ah, so you would then heed the tenets of Jesus Christ, the Buddha or the Dalai Lama? EXCELLENT!
********
Who wants to finish this guy off? I have to go to work.
rockcosmosJan 9, 2012
I love it when willfully ignorant ideologues attack anything they perceive to be "leftie" when, in fact, it is just not molding into their limited comprehension thereby scaring the holy bejesus out of them because of that tiny little crack in the cement of the ideologue's self imposed cave is starting to grow
"YOU lefties", "You socialists". When it is your continued ignorance that forces your blather preventing actual hearing
rthakidnJan 9, 2012
Do you understand left and right? Did you read the article? This discussion is decidedly left vs right. If you can't handle it, don't participate. You seem to believe you somehow have the moral high ground because you CARE. Well, people on the right (at least some) believe the nanny government we have now has done more to limit the poor than help them. 50 years of the "great society" has lead to nothing, in fact has made matters worse. You keep telling the poor, that the only way they will succeed is if government or someone else helps them. They'll sit around waiting and will achieve NOTHING! Congratulations, you've just guaranteed another generation of underachieving deadbeats.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spatula7Jan 9, 2012
And there it is, helping the poor and underprivileged with social programs paid by taxes is actually hurting them and everyone else.
So the best strategy is cut all social program funding right now, because all the people who are not working right now are only doing so because of the social support provided to them by our taxes. All education, health care, back to work support and unemployment, while those out of work find new jobs, take it away, cause it's making them all lazy and there are plenty of jobs for everyone, they just don;t want to work.
And this strategy is working perfectly well in other places where?
And the non-partisan, unbiased and peer reviewed research and statistics to back this claim up, for all the world to see, review and understand is where exactly?
And of course those that implemented the social programs in government paid by our tax dollars in the first place never researched and were/are completely ignorant of how much it hurts our society.
And of course it is the sole reason we just had an economic disaster (due exclusively to our debt) and why everyone is talking about it now.
And If the all those stupid lib-tards would just get out of the way and let us (those that have studied the problem extensively and know better) dismantle the stupid social safety nets, the lib-tards and the rest of western civilization will look upon us (those that know better) and thank us one day for showing them the light of their wisdom as free markets magically (and of course with hard work) grant us all life, liberty and happiness.
That's what you believe? Uh-huh.
miklkitJan 9, 2012
"And this strategy is working perfectly well in other places where?"
Somalia! Those Somali pirates are doing pretty well. At least the ones that are not starving to death.......
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Somalia: The Libertarian Paradise!
jhnthnJan 9, 2012
did you even read the article? he said that of the top tier schools, only 3% of the students originate from families from within the bottom 25%. this explains why obama was able to make it, while the vast majority of others don't. he also stated the 74% come from the top 25% of income earners. this obiviously shows that the richer you are, the greater the opportunities exist for you.
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
"the top 25% of income earners" which would be a cut-off of about $75k a year.
My my, what a princely sum, clearly these are members of that shadowy 1%. Let's confiscate their assets immediately.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhnthnJan 10, 2012
whos saying that? and what does this have to do with what the article is about. people born into low income families are less likely to succed than simular people in other countries. but just because some do, is not grounds to assume the playing field is fair or even for those who are trying to achieve.
no where is anyone asking for a handout or to take from the rich.
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
Ok, so I made the logical leap that if the playing field isn't fair for whatever reason, then Krugman's call to action will be....
Pick one:
a) blame the republicans, as they are the root of all evil
b) blame the rich, as they benefit from an unequal system and are likely perpetuating for their nefarious goals
c) subtly or not-so-subtly call for increasing taxes to flatten the inequality and punish the rich republicans.
d) all of the above.
I chose D as that's the underlying message to the full article.
Oh and I was wrong, the cut-off is around $66k/year for that upper 25% mark. Wow, such an elite group. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhnthnJan 10, 2012
or it could call for reform instead of fighting to maintain a system that benifits only the top. fixing the problem, instead of doing nothing is usually a better coarse of action. again, no one is demonizing the rich. no one is calling to take from the rich. a majority of tax shortfalls could be fixed simply by closing tax loopholes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhnthnJan 10, 2012
and your only confirming what the article states, that members of the republican party will only resist trying to improve the lives of poor. and will claim that there isn't a problem in america.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
I'm not a republican, but I will resist half-baked commentaries from Krugman that make little economic sense. And bulls**t no one is demonizing the rich - what else do you call focusing on the top 25% being more likely to attend the better universities.
I don't see increasing financial aid to the poor as helping them. Personal experience there - I've seen members of my ex-wife's family sit on their asses playing xbox or having more kids vs trying to hold down a job, because they recognize they'll lose some of those financial aid benefits if they make more than a certain amount (indeed, one went so far as to demand payment for his work in cash to avoid reporting it), and realizing they'd have to give up a relatively easy life.
So yeah, I don't think much of lazy folks getting more aid.
I have more sympathy for those actually trying to improve themselves, but there's not much I personally can do but offer the occasional job to such a person. what about more student financial aid for kids in need? well, where'd that get us? Tuition increases 3-4x the rate of inflation and a whole lot of spoiled fools with $50k loans for unmarketable skills.
spatula7Jan 9, 2012
I don't think the article is about Krugman expressing grief about Obama. I think it is about Romney falsely accusing Obama of trying to reward those who may not deserve it, while at the same time trying to pretend that his (Romney's) policies help those in need with better opportunities in life (which clearly they don't).
After reading the article it appears that Krugman has very valid points.
I think Krugman in general would like to see many more poor black kids (and others that are less fortunate) have the opportunity to follow in Obama's footsteps. And by expressing his (Krugman's) views, he is hopefully influencing people to vote for people that support the types of policies that will help make that a reality, as opposed to the policies being promoted by Romney.
ajh16Jan 9, 2012
While I still thing Krugman is an idiot most of the time (mostly because he seems to only look at the flaws on one side of the isle, while both the issues are equally on both sides and need to be addressed to have anything less than a disastrous outcome), I have to agree that, other than possibly universal health care, he made a good argument that I agree with in this particular case.
It seems like he just through health care in there for fun without any real support though. Fair education and helping the truly disadvantaged to have opportunities is necessary and basic health care should be universal, but it needs much tighter controls on costs first and measures to reduce excess waste before a wholesale check is underwritten by the government to allow the excess costs to continue until the country's finances come tumbling down.
golfguy6Jan 10, 2012
People like you are the problem and not the solution. You insist on pointing fingers while providing no real solutions.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
I'm not part of the solution. I'm part of the distillate. [rimshot]
But seriously...since you asked, here's my solution:
First off, it is important going forward that we learn from our past mistakes which means acknowledging that the GOP economic philosophy of Friedman/trickle down economics doesn't work and tax cuts for the rich don't create jobs.
OK, so what does work? Well, what ended the last depression? It was government spending. Whether it was gov't spending on the New Deal or gov't spending on WW2 or both, the bottom line is massive government spending. Keynesian economics puts money back into the pockets of the middle class who are the foundation of any healthy democratic society.
[Note that today all of the wealth (and more) gained from the middle class from 1945 to 1970 is in the pockets of the wealthy. ]
Absolutely, positively, no serious discussion about the budget can be had without cutting the defense budget. So let’s start with military budget cuts as well ending the bogus war on nouns (drugs and terror).
We MUST regain control of our government from corporations. Therefore, we need a separation of corporations and state similar to the separation of church and state so that corporate and state powers are permanently, absolutely and irrevocably separate as well as instituting term limits for corporate charters (say, 25 years).
We need to reinstate Glass-Stegall and the rest of the New Deal banking regulations and perform a full auditing of the federal reserve. Politicians need free airtime on broadcast networks in the 90 days leading up to Election Day so that they are less beholden to monied interests.
Every foreclosed property that the banks can't prove they own should be given to the homeless poor and working class. This stabilizes communities, families and property values – it’s like a tax break for everyone.
The national minimum wage should be at least $12 an hour and annual increases should be automatically tied to either the inflationary rate or whatever raise Congress gives itself - whichever is larger.
[For decades wages have grown slower than the rate of inflation the end result of which is that now we are all underpaid. The minimum wage needs to be enough to actually live on. The economy needs people to earn enough money so they can pay off old debts and take on new ones.]
What about international competition? Easy: restore the equivalent pay taxes that once protected worker’s pay from exploitation and outsourcing, and include adjustments for environmental protection (or lack thereof). To those who say that US manufacturing will never return, I point out that Germany's super economy is based almost entirely on manufacturing. How do they do it? With strong unions AND universal health care. If German manufacturing can compete with modern-slave wages, why can't we?
How about some tax cuts? The first $25,000 of income should be free from federal taxes. Social security insurance payments for the elderly should NOT be considered taxable income nor should unemployment insurance payments. We’re also going to make things fair have by making the rich pay the same percentage of social security tax that everyone else pays. Doing so ensures adequate funding of the program...forever, basically...in fact, if everyone paid equally, we could **expand** Social Security – even lower the retirement age! Eliminating taxes on social security payments, expanding social security benefits and lowering the retirement age will encourage more baby boomers to retire, thus opening badly-needed employment opportunities for the rest of us.
To save more money and stimulate the economy at the same time, we need universal health care, universal higher education, and student loan forgiveness.
We MUST achieve renewable energy independence. It’s is a national security issue and should be treated with the same urgency as the space race of the 1960s. Also, our infrastructure needs repairing. Bottom line: put people to work preparing the United States for the next 100 years JUST LIKE our great-grandparents did for us.
**********
All in all, we're actually very lucky: there's lots of work to be done and lots of unemployed people needing work, and just when we need money interest rates are nearly zero. The solutions practically write themselves!
Just as long as we never, ever go back to proven failures of Friedman/Reaganomics/trickle-down economics, and we neuter/de-fang the corporations who've hijacked our government, we will be A-OK.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ajh16Jan 10, 2012
For the defense budget, I can agree partly, but you are kind of self defeating. You said that massive government spending was necessary to end the great depression and listed a war (with high defense spending) as one of the causes for ending it, yet in the same posting you suggest that cutting defense is necessary.
Don't get me wrong, I'd agree there is a lot of waste and bloat in our defense spending that could be cut out, but simply saying cut defense spending tends to leave the bloat and cut good programs that develop technology that eventually gets pushed to the consumer market and keeps America an innovator.
What do you mean by putting a 25 year term limit on corporate charters? Do you intend to break up companies every 25 years? What happens to the assets of the company at the end of 25 years? Why wouldn't companies simply leave the United States entirely rather than deal with the headaches of having themselves ended every 25 years? Maybe I'm not understanding you, but this doesn't seem workable without more explanation.
You'll get no argument from me on the banking stuff, I whole heartedly agree. As for the free air time for politicians, it is an interesting idea, but how do you decide which politicians get air time. Do we just set some number of signatories required to get air time, do we allocate it proportional to signatories, if so, then where does the funding come to get the signatories. Not that I don't think it is workable, but it isn't necessarily simple either.
Another thing on this topic would be to adjust the voting system such that it is actually viable for a third party candidate to win without shooting yourself in the foot. Currently if you have right of centerist third party candidate C, leftists A and rightist B, I might agree more with C, but because the divide between A and B is so close to 50/50, if I vote for C instead of B, I end up with A which I disagree with the most. I would much rather have a system where I could demonstrate that I would prefer the moderate instead of some neocon nut job, but the current system doesn't support that unless the parties wanted it to and the parties have no interest in that. The system can only grow more polarized until that is fixed.
I'm not sure what you mean about every foreclosure that the bank can't prove they own, but if they can't prove they own it, then why are they able to foreclose in the first place? If you are simply saying the burden of proof for foreclosure should lie on the bank, then I am in agreement with you, but if you are talking about taking the house and giving it to someone else, then I am confused. (Not only the poor and working class get foreclosed on.)
I absolutely disagree on minimum wage unless you make either an age restriction or a job exception. There is no reason that a 16 year old should need to be making $12 an hour, similarly, for a single parent trying to support multiple kids, $12 really isn't enough. It would be difficult to make this work though since it would make companies want to illegally hire younger workers to avoid paying more. Since an age or dependency based gradient would be difficult, then perhaps a minimum wage by job category would be better.
The problem is not that our wages are too low, but that our cost of living is too high. The higher wages are driven, the more difficult it is for companies to invest in job creation and the more compelling it is to go elsewhere. While trickle down economics don't work, making it economically infeasible to hire a work force is going to drive business away and/or cause more inflation as prices rise and the middle class is further eliminated. Just look at history, while the minimum wage has gone up substantially over the last 20 years, the middle class income has not significantly changed. This is equally if not more responsible for the decline of the middle class than the wealth accumulation by the upper class.
Your suggestion of taxes to adjust for foreign wages might work, but it also could blow up in our face. We're heavily trade dependent and if other nations decide to similarly tax, we'd very easily be starved of resources very quickly. It might work or it might make the problem far worse, it is hard to say. Also, many international corporations could simply move to avoid the taxes and then import product. Taxing the imported product would almost certainly bring trade backlash.
Your tax cuts bit is a mixed bag for me. I'm not opposed to the $25,000 untaxed necessarily, but am not sure it is viable in our current financial state. It is already something like $7500 per dependent which could easily be 25,000 or more for many families. I would agree that it is silly to tax social security income and unemployment income since that's effectively just a hidden reduction in benefits. I'm mostly torn because I don't like social security in general. In my view, it should be an optional service and has been far too mismanaged.
If it could be fixed to be competitive with any realistic retirement system, then I would agree, but the fact is social security literally costs me millions as someone who makes well under 100k a year in combined family income. If I worked from the time I was 20 to the time I was 65 and invested my social security and medicare taxes in to a moderate yield 401k, I would end up with $1,073,362.96 by the time I was 65. That's over a million dollars I would have had. Even if it stopped collecting interest the day I retired and I lived until 90, I'd never see all that money back.
That said, if the system is to continue, then yes, I agree with your assessment, but the system needs to at a minimum be fixed to actually invest rather than simply roll the costs forward since any reduction in work force increases the burden and is devastating to the economy as it forces dead weight to be carried that is no longer contributing (where as investment would still contribute).
"To save more money and stimulate the economy at the same time, we need universal health care, universal higher education, and student loan forgiveness." No, No, No, No and No. This is ineffectual and does nothing. At a basic level I would agree that universal health care would be good, but the current approach is entirely incorrect. The health care system is a money wasting disaster. It needs to be streamlined and costs and bloat need to be reduced. Providing government funding to feed the monster is not the answer. Fix the problems first, then provide universal basic care with the ability to contribute extra for better care. Health care must be pay for what you get or someone will get ripped off. If you want the best doctors and best equipment, then it should be expected that a premium will be paid for the service. That premium is what should be part of what is helping to keep costs down for basic care.
ajh16Jan 10, 2012
As for higher education, we already have too many people wasting their educations on degrees that do them and the economy no good. I'm not opposed to providing funding for education, but it is something that must be earned. Simply throwing money at everyone that wants to get an art degree is not going to do s**t for the economy other than make a giant money hole that drives it further in to the ground. Our problem is already too many educated workers with not enough jobs requiring education. How does spending more money to increase the number of people looking for educated jobs help? It doesn't. It just feeds another overgrown monster that needs to be starved and trimmed down.
As for student loan forgiveness, wth? If someone decided to go to school for something that didn't have jobs available, that isn't anyone's fault but their own. I don't mind deferring payments even, but eventually they must pay it back. There is no reason going after a degree that couldn't get you a job should be any different from wasting your money on an expensive car or a new TV you didn't need. The only reason I'm in favor of deferring is because it makes more sense to give some grace and eventually get repaid than it does to simply lose the money forever.
On your last point about renewable energy and infrastructure improvements, I agree 110%. A TVA style infrastructure improvement program targeting our 21st century infrastructure could do wonders for both the economy and our future viability and getting further away from oil dependance is only prudent. I would say that building new nuclear plants in the short term is probably the most efficient use of funds and then once our financial house is more in order, we can look more strongly at the more costly non-nuclear alternatives.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
As an EE who minored in computer science and is now forced to compete with someone in India with an MS who can live a middle class lifestyle on less than $6 an hour, I have to disagree with you.
Medical doctors typically have student loans in the six figures, but did you know that not even they are immune to outsourcing?
Will you at least agree that the TOC of student loans are such that they'd make Tony Soprano blush? That the ability to discharge these loans via bankruptcy is a vital ability? That there is no reason for private lenders to charge the rates and fees they do for loans that are gov't-backed and therefore, risk-free? That social security insurance should be protected from student loan vultures?
With $1T in outstanding student loan debt - sounds like a lot but it's only 1/30th of what we pumped into Wall Street - and u6 unemployment hovering at 18%...and most of the jobs created pay s**t...and we've had two "jobless recoveries" in a lost decade...IMO the situation is untenable and the direct boost to the economy by freeing those who are supposed to be raising families is not debatable.
Only a greedy, short-sided society would be foolish enough to hobble its prime members thusly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ajh16Jan 10, 2012
Right, but erasing student loans doesn't address the underlying issue. Why is it even possible for someone making $6 an hour to compete with you? Something is fundamentally broken there and simply wiping out student loan debt isn't going to fix that. If, and I stress if, the problem was to be solved, then maybe I could see student loan forgiveness being considered, but at the end of the day, the fact is still that if it wasn't worth going to college because other people could do it cheaper, then it wasn't worth going to college.
And don't think I'm detached from reality here. I graduated with my undergrad in computer science in 2006 from a school that cost over $33,000 a year, so I hardly am not part of the demographic that would be affected.
I would agree that the rates on loans are poor if not federally subsidized and would be in favor of increasing government buy up of student loans and converting non-subsidized loans in to subsidized ones, but I think it is something that needs to be paid back. I'm perfectly fine with helping people that can't currently get jobs that acted on good faith by deferring them, but that's very different from simply wiping the slate clean.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
@ajh16:
Par 1: We don't have to spend money on defense like we did in WW2! :) So no self-defeating contradiction: cut the military budget and spending on health care to pay for spending and tax cuts elsewhere. Prioritize the budget domestically.
Par 2: We spend more than the next SEVENTEEN countries combined (see link and note the number they give [$700B] is about 1/2 short of the $1.1+T that we actually spend).
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/military-spending
Par 3: My bad for not explaining. Two problems I've noticed. 1) CEO pay is based on short term gains, ergo they do reckless things in order to pump up their bonuses - the long-term consequences be damned. This causes people to lose their jobs and investors to lose their money. I'd like to change that most compensation for the top executives is delayed by years. 2) Innovation is great, but it is often wasteful of human capital and invested public resources. After 25 years, the charter dies, the company is cashed out and we the people get dibs on the physical and intellectual assets. This can cushion the transition from one tech revolution to another and the economics thereof...what I mean is: consider what happens to a city when a factory shuts down and to all of the support industries elsewhere. Wouldn't it be better for everyone to slow it down gradually - not only retaining technological expertise but being able to provide workers with potentially lifelong jobs? Corporations used to have strictly-defined limits to how long they could operate; it's time to revisit that idea - especially if corporations are people: should they be immortal or live for a generation. There's more to it, but that's the gist.
Par 4: Which politicians get free airtime? All of them. The airwaves belong to the public - anything that reduces a politician's reliance on outside money is a good thing. TV ads are expensive as hell. Those are OUR airwaves. They shouldn't cost a damn thing.
I agree with you 100% on having a "weighted vote". The era of choosing between Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee simply has to end.
Par 5: "...[if the banks] can't prove they own [a home], then why are they able to foreclose in the first place?" Great question! They have 1) set up kangaroo courts and 2) the Obama administration has refused to call them on it. They should be charged under RICO: we have an organized, systematic attempt to steal real estate that crosses state lines and involves proven acts of perjury and forgery. See, researching and establishing a title is a fairly involved process that involves research and paperwork dealing with local town records. It takes time and it's pricey - the two things you don't want if you intend to flip flip flip flip flip the ownership of a home loan as quickly and as many times as possible into as many credit default swaps as you can. So the banks and mortgage companies successfully lobbied the gov't to allow them to avoid having to establish title by set up a their own self-policing to hold all the titles in a weird quantum state, and we looked into Schrodinger's title company the states collapsed into an unverifiable mess where no one could legally claim ownership to the mortgage loan because the loan had been chopped up and sold repeatedly in CDS. [I am dead serious. Without exaggeration, this is what happened.] If no one is holding the title to the mortgage loan, they should be SOL; hence the illegal kangaroo courts and my disappointment with Obama on this issue. People are being thrown into the streets at gunpoint by banks that **CANNOT PROVE** they own the property. Criminal SOBs.
To be clear, because it is a bit complicated: the banks were PAYING THEMSELVES (charging potential homeowners) to have the title legally verified...which they weren't doing because they had set up a single title holding company to reduce costs. The only protection that a lender has should a foreclosure become necessary is the fact that they are holding the title, but because **they didn't do what they were legally required to do** **what they were charging customers for** they shot themselves in the foot and instead of being held responsible for their literally fraudulent actions by forfeiting the properties that they **can't prove they own** **because of their own misdeeds** we bailed them out [$29T+, not a typo], allowed them to keep the properties and they gave themselves bonuses. And they've refused to lend money to small businesses to get the economy going again. And they've cut people's credit card spending limits - which would also stimulate the economy. So they are sitting on trillions of our dollars while the politicians are talking about budget cuts.
The pièce de résistance? The banks are making money now by taking our cash that the gov't gave them for FREE by. lending. it. BACK. to. the. gov't....at. INTEREST.
My hand to God, this is NOT an exaggeration. Unemployment gave me plenty of time to follow this story in excruciating detail. If you're curious, start your research with Rolling Stone magazine's Matt Taibbi for some excellent articles on the subject then google until you want to scream.
And it's been three years - no one has gone to jail.
(apologize for the length)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
@ajh16 (cont'd):
Par 7: Wages have been stagnant for 30+ years. As such, what is now the average hourly salary is not very far from what the minimum wage should be had increases in pay continued as they had been for decades (i.e., tied to inflation*, increases in efficiency, productivity and corporate profits). That's a bitter f**king pill to swallow, but it's the damn truth.
Consider the last generation was able to pay for college -- without loans -- by working minimum wage PART TIME. Consider that medical costs have risen at the same pace. Consider that CEOs are making 300 TIMES what the entry-level worker makes - but look at the data for everyone else since 1970: it's flat f**king line. Will inflation increase? Probably, but this will reduce the value of everyone's debts.
After decades of decline, we absolutely need wages to increase AHEAD of the inflationary rate. It may be the economic equivalent of an adrenaline shot to the heart, but that's what we need.
*How inflation is calculated has been completely distorted - but that's a whole other topic.
Par 8: Outsourcing - I mentioned "equivalent wage tariffs" without explaining what they were.
To protect workers here and abroad from a race to the bottom, imported goods were taxed to equalize wages. [A company's greatest cost is usually wages.] If a pair of shoes made in Chicago had $1 in labor costs but those same shoes imported from Taiwan had 5 cents worth of labor, a 95 cent tax was added to each imported pair of shoes. So there was NO BENEFIT to outsourcing jobs to countries with (comparatively) slave wages.
I'm from NY. Jobs were essentially outsourced to the south for lower wages, no unions, lower taxes, local gov't incentives and lax environmental controls. Sound familiar? It should.
Companies made huge amounts of money [read: executives made huge bonuses] by simply moving south. That trick made executives wealthy as f**k but it was a one-shot deal. Once all the juice was squeezed from that berry, there was nowhere else to go but outside the United States. If only they could get rid of that pesky wage-equivalent tariff...oh wait, that's exactly what they did! [Ain't lobbyists great? We have the best democracy money can buy!]
So the jobs and the race to the bottom first went to Mexico, then China; from China to Vietnam, India and South America. The last stop seems to be Africa. Or robots. (No, seriously: Japan is investing in robots because they've calculated that robot labor will be the only way they'll be able to compete with China's wages in 20 years or so.)
It's amazing what you can learn when you have the time to REALLY pay attention. :)
Par 9: This protects workers in both countries from exploitation and outsourcing - and pollution! (see above) Multinational corporations won't like it but f**k 'em. TBH, I think politicians are waking up to the fact that government power and influence is being overshadowed by that of corporations, but whatever. Shakespeare said, "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers." Today it's, "The first thing we do is hobble the multinational corporations." Followed by castration and de-fanging.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
@ajh16 (cont'd):
Par 10: One of the factoids that conservatives like to throw around is that only half of us pay taxes. At best, that's a partial truth. They are referring strictly to federal taxes but that neglects all the other taxes that everyone pays - and that the poorest amongst us pay proportionately the most for. Others before me have suggested the first $25K or so being tax free. I see it as a starting point that more importantly is tied to the minimum wage (if you'll remember, I advocate >$12/hour which is about $25K/year).
Actually social security is one of the most successful and cost-effective programs instituted by an gov't ever. The administrative costs are a fraction of a percent - almost every penny goes back to the taxpayer. Even with the economy in the s**tter, it's still fully funded for almost 30 years. Why should the tax STOP for those making more than $106,500? Where's the fairness in that? Raising the insurance tax so that everyone pays the same amount fully funds it into infinity and eliminates another political football. People who put their money into 401Ks lost almost everything in 2001...and again in 2007. Have you looked carefully at the fees you're paying with your 401K? Trust those bastards on Wall Street? Never again.
Bottom line: it's insurance and it's not just for retirees. Do you get mad when you don't get all your money back when you buy car insurance? (Do you get ANY money back when you buy car insurance...?) Supplement it as you can. Pray if you want to, but I caution youthful ego ("That'll never happen to me!"): for the majority of retirees, it is their ONLY source of income.
PS - Considering privatizing social security insurance? Check out what happened in England when Thatcher went the for-profit route in the 1980s.
Par 11:
Par 12: To see how universal health care will lower cost, you just need two things:
1) You have to be able to tell which of two numbers is bigger and 2) you need to know that every other country on Earth has it [except I think for Somalia and Liberia]. And then you can easily for yourself that they all pay far less than we do per person - most pay way less than half of what we do! That's what happens when you take the profit out of for-profit medical care. How else do you think these insurance companies can afford to pay their CEOs such ridiculously high salaries?
It doesn't get any simpler than that. And speaking of simple: imagine never having to fill out all that ridiculous paperwork ever again, or trying to find a doctor "in your plan" or having to make several appointments or having to call the insurance company before going to the emergency room or getting a prescription filled. It's also nice knowing that you don't have to work a s**tty job you hate just because the benefits are good (maybe you've got a sick kid or whatever); it's great knowing that you have coverage if you're unemployed (and you're not getting ass-f**ked by COBRA - the last thing you need when you lose a job is a huge bill just to keep your coverage going) and it's really, really awesome knowing that you won't have to lose your house and life savings if a family member gets sick or injured. Oh yeah, and you never get rejected, never have to choose between buying medicine or buying food or paying your rent...
The only complaint ever heard about universal health care is having to schedule a non-emergency procedure a few weeks in a advance. Is that a big deal compared to putting it off for years because you don't have the money?
How do for-profit insurance companies make their money? By denying medical treatment:
Percentage of rejected claims
PacifiCare 43.9%
Cigna 39.6%
Anthem Blue Cross 27.3%
HealthNet 24.1%
Blue Shield 21.9%
Kaiser Permanente 20.2%
Aetna 5.9%
http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/entry/california-insurers-deny-26-of-all-claims/
Note that about 45,000 Americans die annually due to a lack of access to healthcare (it's as many as 82,000 according to a new Commonwealth Fund study). So Americans die every year because of insurance companies denying claims. To put it another way: that’s a 9/11 every few weeks, meaning that these companies are 14 times better at killing Americans on our soil than al-Qaeda and the REAL death panels are the boardrooms of those companies. And it’s all legal. And where does that money go? Other than the politicians and the ad agencies on Madison Avenue to scare people with talk of “death panels” and “socialized medicine”…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_the_September_11th_attacks
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=434113
45,000/52 = 865
3000/865 = 4 = a 9/11 every three and a half weeks
45000/3000 = 15 = private medical insurance kills 15x as many Americans as al Qaeda
...it goes to executive pay!
2007 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271
L. Glassc**k (2006): $23,886,169
2008 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212
2009 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $18,058,162
Coventry, Allen Wise: $17,427,789
WellPoint, Angela Braly: $13,108,198
United Health, Stephen Helmsley: $8,901,916
Cigna, David Cordoni: $6,593,921 (took over from CEO H. Edward Hanway)
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $18,800,000
Humana, Michael McCallister: 6,509,452
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $3,643,342
2011
McKesson, John Hammergren's: $131,200,000
Express Scripts, George Paz: $51,500,000
UnitedHealth Group, Stephen Hemsley: $48,800,000
Allergan, David Pyott: $33,800,000
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20111014/NEWS/310149974#
http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2011/03/16/health-insurance-ceo-total-compensation-in-2009/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
@ajh16 (cont'd):
Did you notice how many of Forbes magazine's top paid CEOs in the world work providing Americans health care?
Not done yet! What about for-profit pharmaceutical companies? You know, the ones who abuse the patent system and successfully lobbied to deny the gov't the ability to negotiate prices? The guys who don't work on "non-profitable" diseases and basically haven't cured a f**king thing since polio? [Dr. Salk, Dr. Salk - where for art thou, Dr. Salk?]
Pharmaceutical Companies (from 2008):
1. Miles White - Abbott - $33.4M
2. Fred Hassan - Schering-Plough - $30.1M
3. Bill Weldon - Johnson & Johnson - $25.1M
4. Bob Essner - Wyeth - $24.1M
5. Robert Parkinson - Baxter - $17.6M
6. Daniel Vasella - Novartis - $15.5M
7. Richard Clark - Merck - $14.5M
8. Frank Baldino - Cephalon - $13.5M
9. Sidney Taurel - Eli Lilly - $13M
10. Jeff Kindler - Pfizer - $12.6M
11. Jim Cornelius - Bristol-Myers Squibb - $11.3
12. Franz Humer - Roche - $11.1M
13. Robert Coury - Mylan - $8.5M
14. Jean-Pierre Garnier - GlaxoSmithKline - $6M
15. Werner Wenning - Bayer - $4.77M
16. David Brennan - AstraZeneca - $4.3M
17. Gerard Le Fur - Sanofi-Aventis - $3.27M
Big Pharma donates a few bucks to a college in exchange for exclusive control of over anything patented.
Think internet patent trolls are an issue? Compare that to genetic patent trolls. And patenting life? How the f**k is that legal? What kind of Frankenstein s**t is that? (Again, thank lobbyists.)
Experimenting new drugs on orphans and third world citizens? Yep, they do it.
Knowingly dumping poisoned drugs in other countries? Of course they do it.
Lying in test data provided to the FDA? You'd better believe it!
And thanks to the revolving door between the regulators and the regulated, any fines they pay are inconsequential to the profits made while breaking the law or doing something unethical -- oops! I meant, "while acknowledging no wrongdoing whatsoever." Excuse me.
How about suing third world countries for providing AIDS medicine to their sickened people?
Let's not forget all the folks jailed and killed and all the families broken up...and all the wasted tax dollars and private property seized thanks to the war on drugs.
"Civil liberties? What are those?"
"Prohibition of alcohol was a failure? I can't hear you!"
It's hard to sell an anti-nausea pill [that must be swallowed] to cancer patients when instant relief can be had by a hit or two from a f**king weed that George Washington grew, every president since Reagan has smoked, is IMPOSSIBLE to overdose on or become physically addicted to.
But the drug companies are happy to work hand-in-hand with insurance companies to push addictive narcotics on as many children as possible. Then, like any thug drug dealer, they cut the supply to jack up prices! Or haven't you heard about ADD and the bulls**t adderall (et. al) "shortage"?
Fun fact: in 75% of all bankruptcies due to medical bills, the families HAD medical insurance. Now, if you can lose your house and life savings just because a family member gets sick or injured DESPITE YOU HAVING MEDICAL INSURANCE, clearly the answer ISN'T more health insurance!
Let me be the first to tell you: universal health care IS coming. Just like the housing bubble, their greed - that is, decades of annual cost increases of 7 - 8% - has pushed the numbers to the breaking point.
The rats are already leaving the ship - count the number of for-profit companies who are leaving the business because 15% profits [because by law they now must spend 85% of premiums on health care] is just not enough.
"Not enough to pay our ridiculous salaries," they mean.
(For comparison, the profit margins for supermarkets are between 1 - 2 %. Do you see Kroger heading for the door? Is Wal-Mart quitting the supermarket biz? No.)
f**k the insurance companies and f**k the drug companies too. Universal health care will show them who is boss.
/two cents worth a quarter
ajh16Jan 10, 2012
I'll agree on pharmaceutical companies. I list them as one of my things that is wrong with the medical field. Personally if I could structure things the way I wanted, I would use government funding to help cooperative medical research with the breakthroughs being given to all participatory pharmaceutical companies to compete based on quality. It would advance the state of the art faster through better cooperation and would drive prices down since everything would effectively be a competitive generic market.
The biggest problem with pharmaceuticals is that the amount of waste in the system that make it virtually impossible not to make a bloody fortune. You have numerous companies all working on curing the same things. Whoever gets their first gets the rights and everyone else looses their money. You have a division of brain power and multiple parallel processes that will vastly be a waste. In order to survive, when a product is successful, it has to be sold at an insane margin just to have enough money to fund all the projects that don't win. The number of bio-tech companies that go out of business is insane.
Another big thing is all the weight of poor malpractice law. While I realize the cost of malpractice insurance and actual suits is a minimal portion, the amount of extra measures that must be taken to protect against it cost a fortune.
There is also the issue of the rate of advance of technology forcing hospitals to constantly update hardware to stay competitive. An idea I've toyed with is that the government might also be able to provide funding for larger equipment purchases at a regional level provided that participating hospitals share equipment. This would allow for a higher overall quality at lower overall cost as well.
If we can remove a lot of the risk from health care, the costs can drop a lot. You had also mentioned education for doctors in another post. I also thing that providing funding for people who want to pursue becoming doctors in exchange for discounted service as a doctor after graduation would be a good program. It would effectively be like the ROTC for the medical profession. Say for example that after graduation, they would work for 8 to 10 years at something like $60 to $80k a year in exchange for their medical schooling being covered.
The fact is that I currently have better health care and more responsive service as a middle class American than most other countries can get from anything I have heard. Maybe I've just been lucky to get good coverage at a decent price, but I don't have to go through any of the hoops you have. I've never had a claim denied, I can just go straight to the hospital in an emergency, almost nothing that is covered requires prior approval by my carrier.
As for the CEO salaries, $10 or $15 million a year I don't really consider that absurd for what they have to manage and the problems they have to deal with. The ones that started getting in to the 40 million range I'd agree with you though.
If you can fix all the issues I pointed out and THEN provide socialized medicine that still allows people to buy better quality if they can afford it, I'm not opposed to it, but only after those other problems are fixed. My main concern is that the trend in US government is to throw tax dollars that we don't have at problems without actually fixing it.
Universal health care is a great goal, and I hope we can get there, but it isn't possible without first fixing the existing problems. It isn't a solution, it's a goal.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
This looks like a job for...UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.
Faster than a speeding lobbyist !
More powerful than big pharma !
Able to leap red tape in a single bound !
Look! At every other country on Earth!
It's works !
It's f**king obvious !
It's UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE !
Yes, it's UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, strange visitor from other countries where insurance lobbyists don't have powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, who can save the lives of thousands of Americans, end obscene profits of drug companies, and, disguised as Medicare/Medicaid, a mild form of universal health care from a great American president, fights a never-ending battle to save the lives of seniors, sick children and all Americans desperately in need of a new medical system.
Without UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, your insurance rates and drug prices will go UP, UP and AWAYYY!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mjm6783Jan 9, 2012
Once again, a Krugman article brings out the worst in both sides of Digg Nation. Instead of an intelligent discourse on the topics of the article, the Left cries "Oligarchy!!" and the right cries "Socialism". Anyone who thinks that any of the problems we have are new or somehow worse than ever are kidding themselves.
We've always had these issues, and will continue to have them as long as our representatives are bought and sold.
GUESS WHAT? Poor people have WAY fewer opportunities to better themselves, and because MOST of them were raised by parents who failed to teach them the life skills necessary to take advantage of the ones they do have, they will likely stay poor.
GUESS WHAT? On the other hand, many poor people, recognizing their own s**tty circumstances, throw in the towel on trying to better themselves. They scapegoat employers, fabricate medical conditions for disability, produce children that they fail to raise, and generally f**k up society.
Both sides are right about the problems. But both sides are wrong about the solution. You want to fix the issues of income inequality? It's going to take a lot of one on one attention from well trained social workers and educators (good luck with that BTW). Creating government handout programs, or cutting welfare and "letting the market pick winners and losers" are both stupid ideas that will only perpetuate the problem.
ajh16Jan 10, 2012
Yeah, I guess this is where my philosophy comes in that help programs should only be merit based, at least beyond survival level. I see no point in funding someone who is going to waste what they are given and make no effort to better their life. On the other hand, I see a whole hell of a lot of reason to throw money at someone that is trying to better themselves, but lacks the means to do so. Better filtering is the key and more selectively applying aid where it is needed. I don't know whether that will work out to more or less aid being needed, but the results will certainly be far better.
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
The problem is that better filtering breaks down at the federal level. State and more likely local are probably better positioned to best determine how to properly apply funds to help those who are trying to better themselves.
If you go with Federal, you end up with immense amounts of graft and corruption because the bureaucracy is simply too large. See Medicare ($48B losses due to fraud in 2010 -- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50543.html)
ajh16Jan 10, 2012
Yeah, but you could federally fund and then distribute to states based on need. I would agree that funds should be located based on demographics to localities and then the localities should be responsible. Ideally, only funding should come from the federal level and leave the responsibility for distribution up to the local level. The filtering process definitely requires hands on, accountable work.
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
Agreed. Perhaps though you can use the Federal level to hold the locality accountable for improvements.
ajh16Jan 10, 2012
Maybe, but I would guess that local elections would be better at that, and cheaper. Paying someone who is disinterested in Washington looking in is far less effective than local individuals who see the impacts first hand, for free.
delphium226Jan 9, 2012
Unfortunately the topic of social mobility takes more than just a sound bite to explain, so most of today's 'conservatives' won't get it.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Actually, it's YOU who doesn't get it. If you look at a list of millionaires from ten years ago, most of the names are different than they are today. Meaning there's more social mobility here than anywhere.
That's why this is the number one spot to immigrate to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Jan 9, 2012
RTFA
"Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement “up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.” National Review, a conservative thought leader, wrote that “most Western European and English-speaking nations have higher rates of mobility.” Even Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who argues that overall mobility remains high, recently wrote that “mobility from the very bottom up” is “where the United States lags behind.”"
Keep swallowing your own s**t Kasha. No doubt you find it nourishing.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
You look at the bottom. I look at the top.
Q: Why are you so bitter? Is it because when nature was handing out natural gifts you got passed over?
concusionJan 9, 2012
the only bitter person I see around here is you kasha. Just go re-read your comments, lol.
delphium226Jan 9, 2012
@kasha
Lol. Even when I disproved your talking point using your own parties words you don't get it.
Let's try it again, slowly. I want to see you debate your own candidates...
Kasha says "Meaning there's more social mobility here than anywhere."
Santorum says "up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.”
Paul Ryan says “mobility from the very bottom up” is “where the United States lags behind.”
So kasha, what do you have to say to Santorum and Ryan? Let's hear it.
penglustJan 9, 2012
And silence......
NeosopheusJan 9, 2012
Don't you love it when people fight against their own best interests?
delphium226Jan 10, 2012
@kasha
No answer? You know, it's actually a sign of strength and maturity, not weakness, to admit you were wrong and to move on with your life.
mistermysterJan 9, 2012
We have both the highest poverty rate AND the widest income gap in the industrialized world. But hey, who cares about reality right? If a list of 10 Americans can do it, that must mean EVERYONE can! All 300 million of them!
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Depends how you define "poverty."
The US Census says that most Americans they define as "poor"
@@ own homes
@@ have color tv, dvd, air conditioning
@@ have a car.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionJan 9, 2012
oh boy, it is amazing how much of a simpleton you are.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Have you noticed you rarely have something to actually contribute?
Random, meaningless insults from lefties don't even sting.
If this was a middle school debate class, you would been flunking.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
publiclurkerJan 9, 2012
you do realize that everyone knows that you are not interested in the truth, so doing anything but ridicule you is a waste of time.
savetheseaJan 9, 2012
those damn complaining "poors" with their color TV's and all ............
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Are you denying it's true? Or do you favor confiscating money from people like me to give to "poor" people with houses, cars, color tvs, cable, cell phones and air conditioning?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitJan 9, 2012
I know a guy who hasn't worked in well over a decade. He was a welder until his eyes gave out. He is on food stamps and not much else. He has a back room full of working televisions that people have given to him. Do you know what the resale value of your tv is? Pretty much zero.
savetheseaJan 9, 2012
who is programing your thinking kasha? As a person from Westchester County, I doubt you even know what poor looks like.
Go help feed some hungry kids, talk to them, learn that they all have a lot of love and want to learn - then report back to us. It is very easy to judge from an ivory tower.
penglustJan 9, 2012
@@ own homes -- Gotta be bull s**t
@@ have color tv, dvd, air conditioning -- TV and DVD are by far the cheapest form of entertainment and I doubt they have 5.1 sound system with the 60" TV. More likely cast offs
@@ have a car. -- with the state of public transportation how in the hell are they supposed to get around. The $500 dollar beaters they tend to drive really rides your shorts up for some reason.
NeosopheusJan 9, 2012
Considering total consumer debt of $11 trillion+ as of 2011, it is highly doubtful that those people actually "own" any of those things.
http://www.creditscore.net/u-s-consumer-debt-in-2011/
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
"The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
Seventysix percent of poor households have air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher."
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america
It's true, yo. If you actually get out there in the real world you'll see.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
"The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
Seventysix percent of poor households have air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher."
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america
It's true, yo. If you actually get out there in the real world you'll see.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
NeosopheusJan 9, 2012
@kasha34, that may very well be true, but given the sheer numbers of those products that have been produced and circulated in society, basic statistics and common sense will tell you that they are readily accessible to everyone. One thing your source leaves out, and this is a salient point, is what is the condition of those products? Do they own $200,000 houses, new cars, new televisions, new dvd players, etc.? There is a big difference in price between something new and something that was purchased second-hand. And, given the fact that you can buy houses in low-income areas for a few thousand dollars, it really isn't a fair point to make without pertinent details.
emo110Jan 9, 2012
@kasha34..
Yea, lets use 2004 reports from the Heritage Foundation to identify what's truly going on today...
The right-wing Heritage Foundation had to warn its staffers not to watch so much Fox News on their computers, because it was causing the think tank's system to crash.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
Might as well supply links directly to Fox News! Either way the information would still be twisted and misinformed.
roddackJan 9, 2012
Human life is not some sort of race or game in which each person should start from an identical mark. It is an attempt by each man to be as happy as possible. And each person could not begin from the same point, for the world has not just come into being; it is diverse and infinitely varied in its parts. The mere fact that one individual is necessarily born in a different place from someone else immediately insures that his inherited opportunity cannot be the same as his neighbor’s. The drive for equality of opportunity would also require the abolition of the family since different parents have unequal abilities; it would require the communal rearing of children. The State would have to nationalize all babies and raise them in State nurseries under ‘equal’ conditions. But even here conditions cannot be the same, because different State officials will themselves have different abilities and personalities. And equality can never be achieved because of necessary differences of location. -Rothbard
norman619Jan 9, 2012
We all are born with different advantages and disadvantages. This is a fact of life as you pointed out. It's like this in the wild and it's the same in human society. It's the age old game called survival of the fittest. I was lucky enough to be born to parents who understood this fact and made sure my siblings and I learned what we needed to survive and thrive in the real world. People like Krugman live in a fantasy world where everyone is equal or believe they can make everyone equal. You make due with what you have. The victim mentality so many here seem to embrace does more harm than good.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionJan 9, 2012
ah you're full of s**t norman. You're such a patriot. We're all born differently, so lets not change that some have an advantage. Hey that giant asteroid thats going to vaporize earth, it was always there, thats the way of the world, don't do anything to stop that asteroid from vaporizing earth, because hey, thats how the universe works, and be damned to change anything.
Closed AccountJan 10, 2012
You should bow and pray every night to whatever diety you favor that the majority of smart people DO NOT use their overwhelming intelligence to gut little pigs like you.
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
oh look, internet tough guy! don't cross him!
Funny how the lefty brigade here has to resort to name calling and threats when anyone questions their logic.
Closed AccountJan 10, 2012
I didn't say I was one of them...Thanks for that compliment. I'm just saying..be happy that "libs" are compassionate towards mental midgets like him. That is all. (Bragging about intelligence is internet tough guy now?...please shoot yourself.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockJan 10, 2012
"gut little pigs like you".
And please, you have nothing to brag about.
jhw539Jan 9, 2012
"with Pat Buchanan as our leader, we shall break the clock of social democracy."
-Rothbard, on who he thought would make a better president than Clinton during the 1992 primaries
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Wow. That's an extremist view. Are the people digging your comment reading through to the end?
It's a loooong leap from "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (to which I include universal health care and the right to an education) and to the communal raising of children by a totalitarian state!
Hyperbole much?
norman619Jan 9, 2012
The people digging him down feel the government should wipe their asses for them and breastfeed their children for them. The founding fathers would have some choice words for us if they were here to see how far the nation they created has fallen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Equating advocating universal health care and higher education with "the government should wipe their asses for them and breastfeed their children for them" is ridiculously disingenuous.
You've stated elsewhere in this thread that you believe in giving people a "hand up." What is more of a "hand up" than ensuring people the medical care [without fear of bankruptcy and beyond the reach of unemployment] necessary to live and the education necessary to better one's situation?
For heaven's sake, norman619: by definition, teaching a man to fish requires education. :)
roddackJan 9, 2012
Rothbard was a rabid anti-statist which makes his position understandable given that context. His notion of a totalitarian state, in this case, was derived from the logical conclusion that in order to have a situation in which all people are equal and possess no advantage over another requires that they all start from the same point which to achieve would require a state with virtually unlimited power to eliminate as many random variable as possible.
I find it interesting that you consider the pursuit of happiness to include a right to universal health care and an education as opposed to the right to pursue health care or education. To me rights are only those things that place no obligation on others to act. I don’t see how one could have a right to healthcare without forcing someone to provide it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
OK, let's think this through. I submit to you that you WILL PAY for me WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. Here we go:
Let's say the libertarians get their wish and I am free to die in the street. YOU WILL PAY someone to pick up my body and YOU WILL PAY someone to bury it or YOU WILL PAY to burn it. If you don't, YOU WILL PAY to eradicate the vermin attracted to my dead body, YOU WILL PAY for health issues you suffer and YOU WILL PAY to purify the water system my corpse contaminates.
Let's say we stick to the present system and I am too poor to buy health insurance but not poor enough or old enough to qualify for the public option. YOU WILL PAY for my medical care via higher insurance premiums when I use the emergency room just as surely as YOU WILL PAY for uninsured drivers.
BUT let's say the United States does what every other country in the world does and provides its citizens with universal health care. YOU WILL PAY...less than you are paying now because there's no middle man [apparently, a 15% profit margin is not high enough - some insurance companies are quitting the business!] and YOU WILL PAY...less because prevention is cheaper than an emergency room visit. And YOU WILL PAY...less for prescription drugs because we will be able to negotiate cheaper drug prices.
Of course, if we have the public option YOU WILL be still free to PAY...more for private health insurance, but why would you?
roddackJan 9, 2012
One is based on free choice the other is not and that is the key difference. Despite that the likely outcome is that I will pursue the same course of action the ability to make that choice is the essence of liberty.
In addition you assume that this libertarian world won’t actually see a lowering of cost even though if libertarians get their way massive barriers to entry for medical field such as the AMA limiting the number of new doctors, the FDA advertising restrictions which delay information, drug lag, etc… all serve to increase competition and lower prices in the end.
A public option is only acceptable if it is allowed to fail and no legislation requires people to part take in it or an alternative.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Feel free to move to the government-free Libertarian paradise that is Somalia.
Bon voyage!
jlaughJan 9, 2012
There are two ways to fix healthcare in the USA, full socialist healthcare with all the bargaining power of the entire population, or to outlaw all forms of health insurance so we actually have a free market.
As it is now insurance guarantees the hospitals will continue to raise the cost to the point of stupidity, and we have a useless parasite class (our insurance industry) sucking money out of the sick.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kwanijmlJan 11, 2012
The very act of outlawing the selling or buying of health insurance would be antithetical to a free market; the act itself would preclude the existence of such.
jlaughJan 11, 2012
Insurance is a scam, it's not antithetical to outlaw a con.
jlaughJan 11, 2012
If there was no health insurance our hospitals would have to bring their prices in line with what people could pay.
The flip side is a single payer system that brings down the cost through economies of scale.
roddackJan 10, 2012
Hooray the Somalia "argument"! Which should really be called the I can no longer defend my position so instead I shall a mighty straw man. Of course the equivalent response would be if government is so great then why don't you move to North Korea?
See the hilarious thing about the Somali argument is that since the collapse of the Biarre regime the standard of living has literally gone up along with growth in their tech sector etc... But you will conveniently ignore that fact.
The truth is that you don't want to admit that your entire defense of the state and its actions ultimately rest upon the exact same basis that even the most despotic dictator's defense rest upon which is might makes right.
dcherryholmesJan 9, 2012
You have a right to a public defender. They don't work for free. Personally, I find conservatives engaged in "angel on the head of a pin" Pharasitic arguments about what a right is, to be tiresome.
fitrahahmad4Jan 12, 2012
nice info
http://effective-network.blogspot.com/
number1greenJan 9, 2012
It's not about the equality of opportunity. It's about the equality of free will & how one handles it.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
I'd define the oddly-worded expression "equality of free will" as equivalent to "equality of opportunity."
I said, "oddly-worded" because what's the literal meaning of "equality of free will" and how would one ensure it?
Because I don't think you are referring to the force of will of an athlete or a parent with kids to feed versus a slacker, rather you're referring to the OPPORTUNITY presented to anyone to exercise free will in order to become an athlete or parent or slacker.
Note that protecting opportunity automatically protects the full expression of one's free will.
rockcosmosJan 9, 2012
It is so much more than that. Free will and a buck can get you a cup of coffee. It is the culmination of luck, time, place, ability, genetics, family, history and the ability to use it.
JustSayNoPartyJan 10, 2012
FTA: "America actually stands out as the advanced country in which it matters most who your parents were, the country in which those born on one of society’s lower rungs have the least chance of climbing to the top or even to the middle."
It's hard to deny that America has a very 'Unlevel field'. Yet, conversations always devolve into the same 'typical talking points'. I do believe some of this is a willful lack of understanding regarding issues presented by various sides.
No, almost nobody wants equal outcomes. We want people to succeed based on their efforts. Though at the same time, many recognize that 'life happens' and a limited social safety net is appropriate in a civilized society. This can of course go to far.
For those that say 'poor people actually do pull themselves out of poverty', I believe that is willful ignorance. Does it happen? Of course. Is it a statistically significant amount? I don't think so. Where you are born and to whom has more impact in our country than others in the Western World. How does that make us the 'land of opportunity? Our slipping middle class, increasing costs of tuition, poor schools in poor areas, poor access to health care and on and on does lead to an unequal level of opportunity. That's not the America I want for the future.
Yes, we have to push for a strong work ethic and earning what you get. But, we also need to make an effort to ensure it doesn't happen for many with two hands tied behind their backs. We'll succeed the most when opening up more opportunities to more Americans. More opportunities for 300 millions Americans is a pretty powerful force.
skyislandJan 10, 2012
Past processes continue in future. A principle of geology.
Right now wealth is continuing to be more and more concentrated among the wealthy in US.
Right now greenhouse gas concentrations in atmosphere are increasing faster and faster.
This is having predictable results. Things like dehumanization of the poor by corporate rise.
The playing field is cratered. Each new generation taking the field uses money as tickets..
norman619Jan 9, 2012
No one can take you out of poverty. You have to do it yourself. You have to be willing to do what is required. As long as we keep giving people hand out instead of a hand up they will stay where they are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
IxodoiJan 9, 2012
I agree that everyone must help himself. However, I believe some people are in such a terrible state they must get help from the society.
The problem is that these people are given fishes when they should be given rods.
norman619Jan 9, 2012
I agree 100%. Some people's idea of help is making someone dependent on them. This is what the government tends to do. They don't show people how to help themselves. they tell them to sit back and let Uncle Sam take care of them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
IxodoiJan 9, 2012
Exactly. I guess making someone depends on you is good for the ego, but it isn't the way to take care of poverty.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
It's NOT ego to help a starving child with a bloated belly and sticks for limbs. It's EMPATHY.
You're right on one thing: it isn't the way to take care of poverty because even when we help, we don't go far enough - which just forestalls the problem.
For example: starvation in Ethiopia. The comedian Sam Kinison did a whole bit about this - it's not PC, but he was essentially right: we need to go in and get those people the f**k out of the desert, thus solving the problem once and for all.
But that's a much bigger and far more expensive project than the world's politically leaders are willing to advocate, so...we offer some aid but since it's never enough to *permanently* end the suffering, it's therefore not a solution to world hunger.
Doing some but not enough just kicks the can down the road, and the next time drought comes the human tragedy is worse. But it's NOT ego to want to feed a starving child. It's empathy!
aikicroneJan 10, 2012
Right on!
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
The Peace Corps is first-rate diplomacy, far better at winning people's hearts and minds than bombing their village -- and much cheaper!
crymtyphonJan 9, 2012
Well said.
jlaughJan 9, 2012
Norman619
What you don't understand is that the government purposely designed welfare to be a system where people are dependent on it, while having little opportunity to get off of it.
The elite want a dependent class, so they can eliminate their real enemy the middle class. It's called pressure from above and below.
kwanijmlJan 11, 2012
I agree with that, and yet welfare does not have to be expressely designed that way, in order to create more dependents. . . .it is also an inherent economic principle which creates this effect.
Subsidize anything, and it grows.
jlaughJan 11, 2012
I agree that welfare doesn't have to be designed that way, but it has been.
Ideally welfare would provide job training, daycare for single parents, and a transition off welfare. Instead it's been designed to keep people on welfare.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Agreed. Liberals and conservatives may argue as to what constitutes the "fishing rod" but we all agree on what you said.
(That's right conservatives: just like you, NO liberal wants to work so that someone LAZY doesn't have to.)
treehugger87Jan 9, 2012
Bulls**t. I worked hard and continue to work hard for everything I get, but so do millions of other people.
I grew up with the number 1 advantage you can have in America: I'm a white guy. I have received countless opportunities that would have otherwise been denied me because I can put on a good (white) face.
There plenty of people who doing "what is required" and working their ass off only to be stuck in their same situation year after year.
macparrotJan 9, 2012
And there are plenty of others of all races and backgrounds that managed to make it and be successful because they were willing to work hard and maybe got a few breaks or were lucky at some point along the way. If you just throw up your hands and say I can't do well because of some X factor then yes, you won't be successful
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
@treehugger87 & macparrot:
As a white guy GenXer, I paid the price for the sins of my father via reverse discrimination. I support affirmative action 100%, as long as it's economically-based -- as such it would still disproportionately help minorities but I will not/cannot/do not support discriminating against poor people who happen to be white.
This was the same outlook that MLK Jr. eventually realized before I was born, and it's even more true today than the day he was murdered.
outpastplutoJan 10, 2012
I have seen "affirmative action" given repeatedly to those that never really needed it to begin with. They had that "good family" thing sorted out. The lack of some handout would not have hindered their progress.
The problem of poverty is a little bit more involved than just the usual liberal approach of writing a check, patting yourself on the back, and going home.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
In my experience, it's usually conservatives who prefer simplistic approaches: "Just say no" and "You're either with us, or you're against us." Certainly the GOP has won many elections with simplistic sloganeering and talking points. Usually conservatives criticize liberals as being wonky intellectual elitists; we generally "lose" arguments when we explain complex, nuanced issues in necessary detail.
Be that as it may, you are right. Poverty is too complicated a problem to be solved by writing a check. A holistic approach requires fundamental changes starting with universal health care, higher education and a living wage.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
You're half-right. The other half that your comment is missing: no person is an island and no success is had without the societal institutions that we all share.
Don't believe me? Then name a single successful American that succeeded entirely on their own.
BTW, the better those institutions, the better the opportunity and quality of life for each individual.
drnbhashyamJan 10, 2012
Equality,leveling are good words to use and free but not in practice.Discrimination, favoritism,nepotism plague all societies all over the globe....
cr00059nJan 10, 2012
What an unbiased review of Mitt Romney and the possible long term capabilities he has for America! .
vintage_verbenaJan 10, 2012
who cares what mitt romney has to say? Romney and Obama are six to half a dozen. You want real change? Vote for Ron Paul!!
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
No, vote Stewart/Colbert 2012
ShovelbabyJan 9, 2012
In Krugman's mind, equality of opportunity is to give more $ to certain groups based on what a few people who have bought their way into power decide is a more "fair" distribution of opportunity. Life isn't fair and taking from successful and giving to those who don't have as much does not level the playing field. Donald Trump went bankrupt and he made his way back up in no time as have others. Mike Tyson was megarich and he blew it all.
It isn't about how much stuff you have. It's what you do with what you have. That is something that no government or person can give you. They can attempt to teach you how to make your life better and that is far superior to giving you money, but if you just want someone else to take care of you, you will never be on the same playing field as those who are successful.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Jan 9, 2012
So investing in education is stealing from the rich?
drmangrumJan 9, 2012
America spends more on education than any other country. The quality of that education has progressively regressed over the years. As a taxpayer (not part of the 51% that doesn't pay income taxes), it sickens me to continually hear liberals cry for more and more money to be sunk in a system that simple DOES NOT WORK.
There is no reason to throw yet more money onto the education bonfire when there are no measurable improvements.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
OK then. Which country's students test best? Finland. Yes, socialist Finland with their highly-paid union-represented school teachers, universal health care, child care, generous unemployment insurance benefits, standard paid vacations, paid maternity/paternity leaves, teh gay marriage, low income inequality and livable minimum wage.
You want to follow their example? AWESOME!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Jan 10, 2012
I bet you won't get any kind of response.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
I bet you're right. The list of facts on Finland seems to be a comment-stopper. I saved it in my toolchest last week -- 'cuz you just KNOW they will be repeating the same bulls**t talking points again in the near future.
delphium226Jan 10, 2012
@drmangrum
You have a good point. So let's fix it, not defund it. I can't believe I have to point out such an obvious thing to someone alive in this day, age, and economy - you do realize that it benefits all of us to have as well educated a population as possible right? The US hasn't led the world in multiple disciplines and economically because the fairies will it, it led because it has a well educated population. Now, more than ever with the rise of China and India, we need to fix and invest in education to remain competitive.
What's the conservative alternative?
1. Defund education
2. have a less skilled workforce
3. profit? Lol.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
No, Shovelbaby. You have been misinformed. I assure you that NO liberal wants to work so that someone LAZY doesn't have to.
Ensuring equal opportunity guarantees that we remain a meritocracy and not become ruled by a self-perpetuating aristocracy like 18th century England.
No person is an island and no success is had without the societal institutions that we all share. [Don't believe me? Then name a single successful American that succeeded entirely on their own.] As such, it is only fair that wealth earned via the commons be returned to the commons upon one's death. Not ONE PENNY of estate tax is paid on the first $5,000,000 inherited. According to your rules, that should be plenty.
BTW: Donald Trump STARTED OUT with millions! And if you don't think that a former billionaire doesn't have the resources necessary to regain lost wealth...certainly moreso than a person whose never had money...then you are well beyond my ability to teach.
(Not for anything, but I've noticed that Trump goes bankrupt when convenient, i.e., a year or two before his divorces.)
ShovelbabyJan 9, 2012
You sure have put a lot of words into my mouth that I didn't say. Where did I say anything about liberals at all, let alone that they want to work so that someone lazy doesn't have to? I also didn't say anything about getting rid of societal institutions. I simply said that just giving money to people who have none will not make the playing field even.
I believe that programs to help people should be temporary and actually about helping them to become independent. As far as educational institutions, I believe that they should be focused on improving their results and that is not the same as throwing more money at them. Washington, DC has one of the highest amount of money spent per child on their students and is one of the worst performing in the country. There are tons of private schools that charge far less per student and outperform all public schools.
"As such, it is only fair that wealth earned via the commons be returned to the commons upon one's death." Wow! So farmers and others who have worked for years and built family businesses should have them taken away from the family when the head has an untimely death? How does a person who has put their whole life into accumulating something have no say on where the fruits of their labor goes? Just give it all to the government because they know better how to spend it than the heirs? Have you seen how politicians piss away money? People do not spend other people's money as wisely as they do their own. That is why the government wastes and abuses so much that they are given.
If you do not want an aristocracy, then you should not want government to be the only ones with power. That is what would happen if you take money away from private citizens when they die. Politicians always make exceptions for themselves.
You said that Trump started out with millions. I could have easily given examples of people who started out with no money - Oprah comes to mind. You also said that Trump had resources to start over. Of course he did, but the most important resources were not monetary, it was connections, drive and knowledge.
What you do not seem to take into account is that people are capable of helping each other. Government is not the only way to help people who need help.
"then you are well beyond my ability to teach" I had to laugh at that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Oy vey, seriously?
Starting with your third paragraph, the last time the "family farm" argument was used, the right could not find a single family in the United States who lost their farm to pay inheritance taxes. Not. One. Single. Family.
Oprah? Great, let's talk Oprah. From wikipedia:
"Winfrey had believed that her biological father was Vernon Winfrey (born 1933), a coal miner turned barber turned city councilman who had been in the Armed Forces when she was born.."
Wow. Her dad was a socialist living on the public dole. I wonder how she had medical care?
"...but after early success in the Upward Bound program, was transferred to the affluent suburban Nicolet High School..."
What's the Upward Bound program?
"Upward Bound is a federally funded educational program within the United States. The program is one of a cluster of programs referred to as TRIO, all of which owe their existence to the federal Higher Education Act of 1965. Upward Bound programs are implemented and monitored by the United States Department of Education. The goal of Upward Bound is to provide certain categories of high school students better opportunities for attending college. The categories of greatest concern are those with low income, those with parents who did not attend college, and those living in rural areas."
"She won an oratory contest, which secured her a full scholarship to Tennessee State University..."
What? A fully-paid college scholarship?
Mad props to Oprah but she clearly had help on the way up as do ALL successful people. It'd be nice if you did a little research before posting.
"What you do not seem to take into account is that people are capable of helping each other."
First of all, we're not discussing private charities - we're discussing your dismissal of progressive government efforts to ensure fair opportunities for all. So there's that.
Secondly, one cannot count on private charities. Is there a private charity that gives consistent money like a welfare program or social security insurance or unemployment insurance or food stamps or government pensions or Medicaid or Medicare or any of the gov't grants for college in a manner similar to gov't that the public has some say over? No? Then STFU.
irvman21Jan 10, 2012
Given that I personally know two families who have been forced to sell their farms due to inheritance taxes, I find that part of your post incredibly inaccurate.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Well then you personally missed your opportunity to cash in on your neighbors alleged misfortune.
The GOP, the Teabaggers and the Democrats searched far and wide and would have paid you handsomely for this information. C'est la vie.
ShovelbabyJan 10, 2012
Oprah had help and worked hard to make the most of the help she received. Good for her! Again you seized on one little thing I mentioned and went off on a tangent that did not do anything to disprove my point.
While I realize that a genxer from NY has sooooo much to "teach" me, you clearly are not going to entertain anything outside of your belief system, so it is not worth my time to further the discussion. I'm reminded of a video I saw of Peter Schiff talking to Occupy Wall Streeters. As a 1%er, he talked about what it was like being an employer and the kinds of decisions he faces and why he made those decisions. They told him that he was wrong and told him why he really did what he did. It was quite amusing.
Hopefully some day you will see what I am saying, but it isn’t any time soon I'm afraid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
YOU mentioned Oprah. She's a great example of someone who had help which proved my point.
I addressed 4 out of 6 paragraphs. How is that seizing on one little thing? Fine.
Paragraph #1: "...giving money to people who have none will not make the playing field even."
Have you never played the game, "Monopoly"? Logically speaking, how is giving money to people who do not have any NOT helping to make the playing field even? Secondly, who the hell is advocating such a thing?
You accuse ME of putting words in your mouth yet you turn, "I assure you that NO liberal wants to work so that someone LAZY doesn't have to. Ensuring equal opportunity guarantees that we remain a meritocracy and not become ruled by a self-perpetuating aristocracy like 18th century England" into "giving money to people who have none". WTF is wrong with your brain?
Paragraph #2: "I believe that programs to help people should be temporary and actually about helping them to become independent."
Great. Me too (see the quote of mine that I just mentioned - you know, the one you f**ked up.)
"As far as educational institutions, I believe that they should be focused on improving their results and that is not the same as throwing more money at them."
SUPER. Let's follow the example of the country whose students test best: Finland.
Yes, socialist Finland with their highly-paid union-represented school teachers, universal health care, child care, generous unemployment insurance benefits, standard paid vacations, paid maternity/paternity leaves, teh gay marriage, low income inequality and livable minimum wage.
You want to follow their example? Great! Let's do it!
delphium226Jan 10, 2012
Sorry to break it to you - actually, your point was disproved using your own example. Your refusal to accept it indicates your unwillingness to take in information that contradicts your beliefs.
ShovelbabyJan 11, 2012
If I had said that people shouldn’t receive help and if when they do that it shouldn’t come from the government, than you would have disproved my point, but that is not what I said. My point for the third time continues to be “just giving money to people who have none will not make the playing field even.” I didn’t turn any of your comments into redistribution of wealth because you responded to my original comment, not the other way around. What I originally said was about Krugman, not you: “ In Krugman's mind, equality of opportunity is to give more $ to certain groups based on what a few people who have bought their way into power decide is a more "fair" distribution of opportunity. Life isn't fair and taking from successful and giving to those who don't have as much does not level the playing field.”
I only mentioned Oprah as an alternative to my Trump example as she was the first rags to riches story I thought of. If you put millions of people in her same exact circumstances with the same assistance, how many would have gotten to where she did?
There are tons of other examples - Andrew Carnegie, Sheldon Adelson, Ray Kroc, Walt Disney, JK Rowling, Sam Walton, Olivia Hsu Decker, John D Rockefeller, Ursula Burns….. Each one of these people has a unique story and they have all had some kind of help. We aren’t born alone and left to learn and grow up by ourselves. Some of these people may even have had financial assistance, government or otherwise, but whether or not they did is irrelevant to what I am saying. It is what they do with their circumstances that makes or breaks them.
As I said in my original post, “It isn't about how much stuff you have. It's what you do with what you have. That is something that no government or person can give you. They can attempt to teach you how to make your life better and that is far superior to giving you money, but if you just want someone else to take care of you, you will never be on the same playing field as those who are successful.”
You keep responding to me as if I am someone who doesn’t want anyone to get any from government and that is not the case. I just think it should be limited and done with the goal of getting people off of that assistance.
As for your point about Finland, I agree that the US should look to them as an example on education. I have even commented on Digg about that in the past. They start school later and have less time in school than the US. Parents are more involved and teachers are given more free reign. Teaching is not necessarily high paid, but it is highly regarded and the teachers are some of the most educated in the country – they have very high standards. Finland also has low levels of immigration. So when pupils start school, they speak the same language, eliminating an obstacle that we face. As for their system of government, it would not work in the US. We are too diverse culturally and too large.
jcal101Jan 10, 2012
The problem is a supply & demand society. While it sometimes seems like we think otherwise, we need teacher, janitors, and police officers. If we really wanted to we could pay those people $80,000 for the necessary work they do, but it has to come from somewhere. Either the private sector would have to apportion salaries more evenly or the government would have to tax and subsidize more strongly.
However, while there is more demand for those workers there are also more people able to do those jobs, so it's less competitive than your consultants, lobbyists, and vice president's of communication. Don't get me wrong, society would fall apart just as quickly without garbage men, but we value their work as less important so we give them less.
lordgriggsJan 10, 2012
Spencer-Randroids!
caindependentJan 10, 2012
Interesting how all of the praise for this "spread this wealth" socialist speak is mid-day on a Monday. I'm betting that we're looking at a bunch of liberal college students skipping class to wax poetic about the inequalities in the economic structures in the US. Perhaps, it's the sociology or philosophy major who are shocked that their well thought out studies are failing to reap the economic benefits their "superior" intellect entitles them. Either way, my concern is that my vote is worth the same as the vote of posters such as nygenxer or concusion who can find time in their day of work (or job hunting) to post no fewer than 10 times on this topic alone that they are more entitled to the money I'm working for then I am. If they want to better their situations, it may be best that they keep their nose to the grindstone during their work day and keep their gushings over this tripe to off-hours.
The inequalities in income have been prevalent since the days of the Rockefellers, DuPonts, and Mellons. People simply didn't have the means to see it on TMZ and get themselves riled up. They worked hard to better their station instead of complaining that the game's fixed.
It used to be that a man would see another driving a nice car or living in a fine home and want to work hard so that one day they could buy one. Now a man will see the BMW driver and prefer to rip him out of it.
--I drive an old jeep, for nowComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
magnetism86Jan 9, 2012
Idiotic liberals have changed the meaning of "equal opportunity" into something that can more aptly be described as "we should get s**t that we didn't earn".
It's the American Dream, not the American Entitlement. Just because some people fail to properly take advantage the opportunities in the US doesn't mean that the system is failing them. They are failing themselves. And instead of looking inward at ways that you can make positive changes in your life to improve your success, a lot of you people are blaming everyone BUT yourselves.
You've been getting drunk on the idea that you deserve a piece of somebody else's pie. You expect the government to step in and take money from other people to provide to you. That makes you f**king pathetic. How can you not see that? What right does the government have to play Robin Hood? What right do YOU have to claim unto yourself that the wealth that people have accumulated for themselves doesn't belong to them, but belongs to you because you as an individual are lazy?
Yes, I said lazy. This response has been endlessly mocked on this website but it's true. A lot of Americans are just plain lazy (not criticizing the US alone here, it's WAY worse in Europe and Canada, Australia, NZ etc...) and you want to have a good life without doing the things necessary to provide it for yourselves. Part of the problem is liberal brainwashing, Democrats really like this movement of lazy hippies because in order to create this mythical utopian society where lazy people get to live off of the wealth of the productive, the government would have to take upon itself greater and wider powers over the economy (the main goal of Democrats' economic platform). Part of the problem is that you idiots were raised by baby boomers who spoiled you and never instilled in you a work ethic. Your entire sense of reality is bedeviled by your undeserved entitlement complex. So much so that you think it's moral or just to demand that you be given the money that someone else worked for, even though you have no legitimate excuse as to why you couldn't provide it for yourself, other than your laziness and incompetence.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Jan 9, 2012
Idiotic wingnuts like you have decided that you know what you think liberals think. You don't.
If you call investing in education 'entitlement' then you're a dumbass selfish POS who can't see past the end of his nose.
magnetism86Jan 10, 2012
The US already spends more per student on education than any country on the planet, and that's public education, not private education.
Throwing more money at something isn't going to fix it. And it certainly won't help make people successful by doing so either. All it will do is create even more people who are comfortable living off of money from the government.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
YES, the US spends more than most countries per student but US students also score better than the students of most countries! Is there room for improvement? Absolutely.
Which country's students test best? Finland. Yes, socialist Finland with their highly-paid union-represented school teachers, universal health care, child care, generous unemployment insurance benefits, standard paid vacations, paid maternity/paternity leaves, teh gay marriage, low income inequality and livable minimum wage.
You want to follow their example? Great! Let's do it!
BTW, please note that we are spending HALF of what the #1 country spends (Luxembourg) yet our schools are rated average. For comparison, the US spends the most on health care -- more than DOUBLE what #2 spends -- yet we are ranked 37th...behind France, Italy, San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Singapore, Spain, Oman, Austria, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Monaco, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Colombia, Sweden, Cyprus, Germany, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Morocco, Canada, Finland, Australia, Chile, Denmark, Dominica and Costa Rica.
I mention it here because it'd sure be swell if you conservative wingnuts tried to maintain a steady sense of proportion.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Jan 10, 2012
So the conservative alternative is to defund something because they can't fix it.Let's see how long the US remains a world leader in the sciences with a defunded education system.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
"Idiotic liberals have changed the meaning of 'equal opportunity' into something that can more aptly be described as 'we should get s**t that we didn't earn.'"
No, magnetism86. You have been misinformed. I assure you that NO liberal wants to work so that someone LAZY doesn't have to.
Ensuring equal opportunity guarantees that we remain a meritocracy and not become ruled by a self-perpetuating aristocracy like 18th century England.
We are failing miserably in this regard.
magnetism86Jan 10, 2012
"No, magnetism86. You have been misinformed.":
No, you just lack self-awareness. How can you call me misinformed when the very description I gave of the idiotic liberal ideology can be validated by simply looking at the comments on this submission?
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Citation needed. Please show where "liberals have changed the meaning of 'equal opportunity' into something that can more aptly be described as 'we should get s**t that we didn't earn'" in this comment thread.
ridgerunner5Jan 9, 2012
I love smashing the ideals of people who like to use Robin Hood statements.
Robin Hood did NOT steal from the rich to give to the poor
Robin Hood stole from the government that was overtaxing the poorComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Robin Hood is a fictional character who is as universally known for "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" as the character Dracula is known for drinking blood.
I agree with you that the poor are overtaxed. The minimum taxable wage should be $25K/year; social security and unemployment insurance payments should also be tax-free.
crymtyphonJan 9, 2012
Ridgerunner5, we ALL love it when you smash the ideals of people
who like to use Robin hood statements!
But add sound-effects, like 'ka-smash!'
And do 'thwack!' if/when the arrow of your rhetoric ever hits a mark.
Granted, in the dramatic silence between smashing and thwacking,
it will remain that legendary Robin Hood robbed: the rich,
and gave to: the poor.
Bishops; lords; princes and knights; all the 1% riffraff you naturally
confuse with government itself.
We, being Americans? do not.
ridgerunner5Jan 9, 2012
The first rich person that is also the government that comes to mind is Mayor Bloomberg
crymtyphonJan 9, 2012
Robin Hood would have no problem liposuctioning
a plump mayor of his excess financial fat*.
He would do so on the grounds that such people
oppress the poor; not because he is dissatisfied
with feudalism.
_______________________________________
*I see Robyn stopping Bloomberg's motorcade in the Bronx;
then hurrying him off to Central Park
where they have a feast with lots of celebrities
and OWS crazies and the Mayor enjoys himself like
friar tuck stuck headfirst in a wine cask.
Next day he wakes up on City Hall steps,
holding an arrow that sticks through a copy
of the deed transfer for Zuccotti Park.
ridgerunner5Jan 10, 2012
"holding an arrow that sticks through a copy
of the deed transfer for Zuccotti Park."
So Robin Hood, in your mind, steals from the rich to give to the richer?
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
While we're talking about fictional characters, why not mention billionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne? LOL.
ridgerunner5Jan 10, 2012
For one, Bruce Wayne doesn't tax the people of Gotham City. For another, he actually has a lot of charity programs setup through Wayne Enterprises.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
"a universal health care system, so that nobody need worry about untreated illness or crushing medical bills. "
Fallacy. Having "coverage" doesn't mean you get treatment. There are thousands of Brits and Canadians living on pain pills for months waiting for appointments or treatments or operations. Do they "worry about untreated illness"? You betcha. Does their tumor stop growing while they wait?
And "crushing medical bills"? When they come down to the US and pay for their treatment or operation? Yes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Perpetually untreated does not equal waiting a few weeks for treatment.
Fact: 2/3 of American households declaring bankruptcy do so because of medical bills - and 3/4 of them HAD health insurance. And people wealthy enough to come to the US for medical treatments, such as the King of Saudi Arabia, are not worried about "crushing medical bills."
Stop being stupid.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Plain-old Canadians come down here to have their lives saved when Canada spits in their face.
""My family doctor at that time tried to get me in to see an endocrinologist and a neurologist," Holmes recalled. "It was going to be four months for one specialist and six months for the other.
Holmes said she still couldn't get in to see Canadian specialists. Because the government system is the only health care option for Canadians, she says she had no choice but to have the surgery in the U.S.
Her treatment at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona cost $100,000, and she and her husband put a second mortgage on their home and borrowed from family and friends to pay for it.
When she recounts that part of her painful story, she weeps.
"That's the stuff that I find so tragic -- having dinner with my friends and I know how much money I owe them," Holmes says, tears streaming down her face."
She paid all her life through taxes. And when she got sick they gave her the finger.
Canadian and British papers have stories like this pretty steadily.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-06/politics/canadian.health.care.system_1_government-run-health-health-care-system-mayo-clinic?_s=PM:POLITICSComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
publiclurkerJan 9, 2012
Of course anyone of any intelligence knows that this is done because it makes no sense to have duplicate, expensive facilities when you can get the treatments just a few miles away. Canada has a lot of sparsely populated areas.
Of course you also seem to conveniently leave out that Canada pays for this treatment. You see, since they care about their people and not lining the pockets of your corporate masta's, they do what makes sense.
then again, you momma was the compassionate one, so no wonder you hate anyone with a sense of decency.
asfinktersezwutJan 10, 2012
Ahh yes... the Shona Holmes story. A perfect example of Tea Party lies and bulls**t.
The reality of Shona Holmes claims is somewhat different... Canadian and British papers do something US media doesn't - follow up and verify the facts.
1> She had a benign Cyst, NOT Cancer
2> She received treatment and an appropriate set of appointments with Specialists. Doctors in Ontario told her that her condition was benign but did require treatment, however she decided that she had life-threatening Cancer and needed to go to the Mayo Clinic for immediate treatment.
3> She lied about her Medical Incident (diagnosis, history and treatment) in paid ads by the Tea Party
There was a CBC story done on this whole case and the way it was blown out of the water by the Tea Partiers, but I can't find the link right now, so this will have to do:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/reality-check-shona-holmes-holmes-brain-tu
"Holmes has become the darling of conservatives and the stop-public-health-care movement in the United States. She's testified before Congress, been on Fox TV as well as CNN, and her story is retold on hundreds of right wing blogs. She's now doing a nasty TV ad for Patients United Now, a Republican-led group opposed to Obama's reforms. You can see the ad at www.patientsunitednow.com. The group is spending almost $2 million on it to target politicians in Washington.
For a person living with cancer, the idea that someone's care could be unreasonably delayed is truly scary. It also doesn't reflect the experience I've had or the experiences that have been shared with me by so many other patients. Even CNN interviewed Doug Wright, a more typical patient in Toronto who is receiving very speedy treatment for his cancer.
Still, I found Holmes tale both compelling and troubling. So I decided to check a little further. On the Mayo Clinic's website, Shona Holmes is a success story. But it's somewhat different story than all the headlines might have implied. Holmes' "brain tumour" was actually a Rathke's Cleft Cyst on her pituitary gland. To quote an American source, the John Wayne Cancer Center, "Rathke's Cleft Cysts are not true tumors or neoplasms; instead they are benign cysts."
There's no doubt Holmes had a problem that needed treatment, and she was given appointments with the appropriate specialists in Ontario. She chose not to wait the few months to see them. But it's a far cry from the life-or-death picture portrayed by Holmes on the TV ads or by McConnell in his attacks."
...and here's the Wikipedia just for good measure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shona_Holmes_health_care_incident
P.S> Not the truth ever got in the way of your opinion Kasha, but these cases are not the standard in Canada and Canadians are very happy with their Universal Healthcare - almost everyone feels there can be improvements, but it is viewed as a fundamental cornerstone of Canadian Society.
asfinktersezwutJan 11, 2012
...and NO RESPONSE from Kasha.... clearly wrong again... but incapable of simply admitting being wrong.
Sad and pathetic.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
@kasha34:
I cite data collected from H U N D R E D S of M I L L I O N S of people collected over D E C A D E S while you cite *one* example and insist "stories like this [are published] pretty steadily." **
Even IF your example is true, do you not understand the absurdity of ignoring an entire haystack to focus on one needle?
**Correction: make that BILLIONS of people.
tribbledotJan 10, 2012
They do have coverage. They get to see a doctor. You obviously don't know what happens in the real world. The guy with the tumor who never gets seen I guess doesn't worry about it because it kills him in your view. Once again the fact is people in nations with universal healthcare LIVE LONGER AND PAY LESS. This is FACT. This is reality. We also would reduce the critical operations by catching things sooner because people are covered and do not need to wait til they can hardly breathe, are puking everyday, or having a stroke to get help which is the way the current system works.
You are great at marketing how you believe things work in America but when did you last stay in a hospital or see how they work?
whiteravenJan 9, 2012
Equality of situation is an impossible and absurd goal. The only way to even come close to achieving it is through massive destruction. Level fields are achieved with bulldozers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bwiiiJan 9, 2012
Krugman & Reich 2012! We can get what we REALLY deserve!!
norman619Jan 9, 2012
We already have.
bwiiiJan 9, 2012
And we always will...
norman619Jan 9, 2012
Exactly! We will never get the government we want but we will always have the one we deserve.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Stewart/Colbert 2012
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
"more nutritional aid for low-income mothers-to-be and young children."
More? So he's acknowledging they already get food stamps and free breakfast and lunch at school, right?
"improve the quality of public schools"
That's easy. Give the school the power to throw very disruptive kids out. The ones that make it impossible for the teacher to teach and the other students to learn.
Problem solved.
"aid to low-income college students. "
That's what college loans are for. I'm not getting the benefit of some kid's diploma. Why should I pay for it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
"I'm not getting the benefit of some kid's diploma."
Yes you are. See the post-WW2 boom and winning the Cold War thanks to the GI Bill for details.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Soldiers earned it. And American soldiers still get big breaks on education, don't they?
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
They do indeed. Unfortunately today, that is often not the case. Soldiers report the difference between what they were promised education-wise by their recruiter and what they actually got is huge and only a tiny percentage get anything close to what was promised.
Don't change the subject. The point made is that YES YOU DO benefit from someone else getting a diploma.
kasha34Jan 10, 2012
What a weird argument you make.
Uh, it makes YOU feel good to see me walk down the street happy, so let me sleep with your wife.
If I really benefited from someone else getting a diploma then you wouldn't have to use the threat of force to get me to pay for it, would you?
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
If you're going to make childish comments, fine. "Eat your vegetables or you'll get a spanking."
See how I used the threat of force to make you do something that benefits you?
concusionJan 9, 2012
I'm not getting any benefit for you being alive, so go die already.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Eventually I will die.
But I'm not asking you for support, am I?
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
You don't have to ask because you live in a society.
If you don't want support from anyone else, just move your libertarian ass to Mogadishu where there's no gov't whatsoever.
sandylandersJan 9, 2012
NY Times bull s**t. Buried.
crymtyphonJan 9, 2012
That was no burial.
That was a sentence and a word scribbled on wrinkled paper,
explaining why you should be excused from the test.
And the signature at the bottom looks suspiciously
more like yours than a grownups.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Dear Teechur,
Pleaze excuse crymtyphon from taking the test. His brain don't wurk so good since the accident. Now he always weres his bicycle helment when he maks poopies in the bath tub and reds the NY times.
[Signed]
sandylander's motherComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Uh, Vietnamese boat people came over, went to the same schools. And their kids are doctors.
kirbiniJan 9, 2012
All of them? Wow, that's amazing. Wait, let's see if I can play...
Uh, Irish potato farmers came over, worked in the same sweatshops. And their kids are police detectives.
Uh, Mexicans came over, ate the same french fries. And their kids own landscaping businesses and taco trucks.
Uh, oppressed Jews came over, went to the same synagogues. And their kids own diamond shops.
Uh, cuban boat people came over, went to the same hai lai games. And their kids are professional baseball pitchers.
....
See, I can be a racist moron too.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
God, leftists are sooo literal. After growing up with them I should know this.
I use the word "doctor" as a shortcut. To express the fact that Vietnamese and other Asian immigrants have averaged much higher success rates than black and Hispanics.
Are you going to pretend that's not true?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
publiclurkerJan 9, 2012
Well, you should know the truth, but we all know you lack the basic moral fiber to admit it even if you had the brains to recognize it.
Just another load of crap from an ethically bankrupt waste of skin to justify his own personal bigotry against his favorite scapegoats.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Jan 9, 2012
Yes, everyone should be doctors!
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Aren't you the one who told me, repeatedly, that construction work was a "crappy job."?
delphium226Jan 9, 2012
Nope.
elcalrissianJan 9, 2012
And there's no public plight for the Vietnamese-Americans, or their Financial Status.
Same can be said of MANY immigrant groups, the Nigerians, Ugandans, Slavs, Phillipinos.
When you look at it objectively (as in Labeling people and believeing in Stereotypes like the Liberals do)....it's only the ILLEGAL immigrants who have had the most trouble in this country.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
I don't know if that's all true. And I don't really care if illegals, whether Chinese, Russian, Irish, Israeli or Mexican, do well or not.
If we didn't invite you here, get the f**k out.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionJan 9, 2012
who is "we"? You mean you and the gang of people in white sheets and pointy hats?
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
We meaning the people of the United States as expressed by our laws.
Yes, I know. Leftists don't believe in laws.
BTW, maybe you didn't get the memo:
The race card is officially worn out.
Even middle-schoolers make fun of it now. But you go ahead as it makes you feel good.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kirbiniJan 9, 2012
Who's playing the race card here? If I scroll up a page or two it appears that you brought it up first in a racist attack.
Just so you know, middle schoolers make fun of racists too.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
concusion called me a racist by saying this:
"you and the gang of people in white sheets and pointy hats?"
Oh "middle schoolers make fun of racists too"?
No, now they make fun of tossing around the accusation. They do this by saying "that's racist" at inappropriate times. This signifies they are aware the accusation has been waaay overused and beat to death.
Even the libs who write 30Rock do it. They have Tracy Jordan tossing the "racist" accusation at irrelevant times to show the same thing.
It's sad if you feel you don't have much else to contribute. So feel free. "THAT'S WACIST!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Um...
rudegarJan 9, 2012
without poor there can be no rich
if everybody get a raise or tax cut prices goes up and you will not be richer
if it's only you who get a raise and or a tax cut
you're richerComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
"low-income mothers and their children are all too likely to suffer from poor nutrition and receive inadequate health care. "
Really? The mother gets food stamps and the kids get two meals a day year-round at school.
"less-advantaged children get a far worse education. "
What makes those schools "far worse" is the attitude and behavior of many of the "students" and parents.
Good grief, in NYC they spend average $29,000 /per student per year! And the results are abysmal.
Should NY spend $40,000 a year? $90,000?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
1) Try surviving on food stamps. A few politicians have done so publicly - use the google to learn more.
2) NYC spends $29,000/year per student? Citation needed since that's $2,000 less than the totally-awesome private school the president sends his kids to.
http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees/index.aspx
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
I've known plenty of people on food stamps over the years. They did just fine.
And that was before most kids ate two meals a day at school.
"nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area"
http://tnschoolchoice.com/2011/02/true-cost-of-public-education/
So I was off by $2,000. Sue me. Meanwhile, even in my little upstate NY town we now spend $20,000 per student. When plenty of teachers make it to $100,000 and retire at 55 it adds up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaJan 9, 2012
try being off by $10,000
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-06-29-school-spending_N.htm
Average teacher salary in Albany NY is $54,000, so that means if "many" are making $100,000, just as "many" are making $20,000 or less, please show citation
Average in Rochester is $42,000
Average in Syracuse is $47,000
Average in Lake Placid is $52,000
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Teacher&l1=Albany%2C+NY&q2=Teacher&l2=Rochester%2C+NY&q3=Teacher&l3=Lake+Placid%2C+NY
not sure where exactly you live, but I am calling bulls**t
http://www.nystrs.org/main/retirees/retirement_faqs.htm
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
I don't know where they're pulling their data from. I know teachers. I have two in the family. In the mid Hudson valley they START at $50k.
Plus, if you actually care you can check here:
http://seethroughny.net/payrolls/
savetheseaJan 9, 2012
I downloaded the 2010 schools file, eliminated anyone that did not work a full year in 2010 (based on hire start date) and averaged the salaries......
Average: $48,214.04
That is for pay ranges from 7/1/2009 to 6/30/2010 and 4/1/2009 to 3/31/2010 (appear to have two different fiscal years, maybe depending on function).
for FY 7/1/2009 to 6/30/2010
Average: $56,857.90 - this seems to be teachers and superintendents as they are also showing hire dates.
for FY 4/1/2009 to 3/31/2010
Average: $30,394.38
This is not entirely clean as I am seeing individuals on the report a few times (looks like pay increases) but he numbers are similar and become part of the average with little impact . Also note that there are individuals on both ends of the scale that may skew the average up or down, i.e. James Feltman making $657,970.48 as a superintendent.
Just taking him out (not the other superintendents, drops the over all average from $48K to $46K
Where are you seeing a higher average?
crymtyphonJan 9, 2012
Note to self;
sit next to 'savethesea' on the next math test.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
I never mentioned averages. And I'm not clear on how to make sure there are no part-time teachers and TAs included.
What I've said is that in the mid Hudson valley in NY state, lots of teachers make it to $100k.
What I've done with that SearchNY site is pick a local district and look for people making over $85,000. Also my wife works in a nearby urban school district and my son and his wife are both relatively new teachers in upscale Westchester.
It's no secret that teachers around here start at $50k. Higher down in Westchester. My daughter-in-law had 5 years in private schools first. Maybe that's why they started her at $75k.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaJan 9, 2012
kasha - I do know that level of education plays a big part - also, isn't the cost of living pretty high in Westchester? Dollars are relative and if the average is about $50K, there are plenty starting below that
spectecjrJan 9, 2012
@savethesea - kasha's saying "Most teachers make $100k", so that's easy to disprove.
Take the median, not the average, and let him know your result :)
spectecjrJan 9, 2012
Screw it... including EVERYONE hired in ANY school in the NY area, for 2010, only 11% made more than 95,000. (That's not just teachers, btw. Anyone there). Does that count as "lots"? 9.4% make >= $100,000.
Median salary is $42,861.02
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
"I never mentioned averages."
LOL. You also never mentioned that a run-of-the-mill three bedroom, two bath split-level ranch in Westchester will ran about a million bucks...almost 20 years ago. So there's that.
What? You aren't surprised that someone known as "nygenxer" has family in Yorktown Heights, Valhalla, and Somers or that I've dated my way through Tappan Zee, Mahopac and White Plains. So yeah...I know Westchester.
Care to guess how many NY teachers a smart guy like me (who was ALWAYS a teacher's pet) knows? And how many of my high school friends are now teachers?
(Dude, you are SO on my home turf right now...)
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
I'll bet you know plenty of people on food stamps since over 43 MILLION Americans are on them.
And you know plenty of people whose kids get fed at school? Say...do your friends know that you would rather that they and their children go hungry so that you can save a few pennies a year in taxes?
And these "plenty of people" that you know are doing fine now? Please do tell us their inspiring tales that are no doubt chock-full o' bootstrap-y goodness! :)
*****
(savethesea has already addressed your bogus school budget numbers.)
savetheseaJan 9, 2012
"Really? The mother gets food stamps and the kids get two meals a day year-round at school"
Kids go to school year-round in NY? In my kids elementary school alone, there are 20 homeless families (Dateline or 60 min recently did two stories).
I spoke with the social worker right before the holidays and she told me about the kids from these families - not sure if they were going to eat much over the holiday and when school is in, if they will eat over the weekends.
I could give two f**ks about what their parents did or did not do to get into those situations, but many in my area are one paycheck away (as are many nationwide) from homelessness or malnutrition.
I do give two f**ks about the kids though. You would have to be a pretty cold-hearted individual to not care about their plight, they never asked for their lot in life.
Also Kasha and Norman, please let me know how the guy with a wife and two kids who just lost a decent construction job, got evicted, and is now living weekly in a motel is ever going to get out of that situation?
The motel will cost roughly $800 a month. He has no or limited income and can feed his family using only foodstamps. Sure you can find an apt for $800.00 a month, but you will need first month and security deposit. Also, you cannot relate to a person who does not know how they are going to eat tomorrow as the brain functions differently when basic needs are in question. Let's add in that one kids gets a severe case of the flu and must stay home from school. Mom or dad cannot go to their basic labor job and the kid does not get his lunch and breakfast that day at school and everything slips one level lower for the family.
I find it fascinating how one can condemn so easily without ever having walked a mile. The world is not as black and white as you would like it to be.
Do a little research on Maslow's hierarchy of needs and then maybe learn a bit about empathy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Whether they go to summer school or not, in a lot of districts they serve two meals a day your round. Is this news to you? If it is, you should question some of your other "facts."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaJan 9, 2012
Is what news? the fact that kids get two meals a day in school if they qualify? Not news to me, summer school is not always an option but some parks extend the program. Not sure what your point is and if they do extend the program, it is still only 5 days a week.
Are you saying that 2 meals a day 5 days a week is sufficient?
I would guess that you do not have kids and have not spent any time around disadvantaged kids, it you did "empathy" may be part of your day.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Obamacare would "give Americans the guaranteed care" ?
Guaranteed? No one ever said that. If they don't deem you too old. If you can wait for an appointment. If they don't deem the treatment too new (there are lots of drugs and treatments standard here now that are deemed "experimental" by the NHS in the UK).
If they don't decide the resources are better spent on someone younger. Or more diverse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
"give Americans the guaranteed care" means no it's no longer legal to reject people with pre-existing conditions.
[Seriously, are you high or did you forget your adderall this morning?]
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Yes, it's not legal to deny putting their name on a list. That doesn't mean you get drugs, or MRIs or treatment or an operation. It means you get a card. Period.
Again, in Canada and the UK thousands take pain pills waiting for months for treatments, MRIs or operations. You can keep pretending that's not true if you want.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
I didn't deny that sometimes patients have to wait! I said, "Perpetually untreated does not equal waiting a few weeks for treatment."
There is no similarity whatsoever between waiting a few days or weeks for treatment and waiting INDEFINITELY.
And try waiting indefinitely WITHOUT pain medications!
tribbledotJan 10, 2012
I think I need to continue on this actually. My problem with you modern conservatives is that you often cite a rational debate and then offer no fix. Sure more people in a waiting room equals more wait but you aren't solving the problem by railing against healthcare for all. People still die in the street. People still wait longer to get help because they aren't covered. We still pay more as a nation. The real question isn't could this idea have negative consequence but DO YOU HAVE A PLAN THAT FIXES THE PROBLEMS? and you don't which is what's scary. The whole conservative stage is full of this rhetoric and no solutions.
tribbledotJan 10, 2012
There are hundreds more deemed experimental by the for profit insurance companies in America. We also do already have this type of discrimination in medicine. They often will not give a kidney transplant to a 80 year old before someone younger. Is that wrong? maybe it is but you aren't advocating fixing anything, you are advocating ignoring both these people and see what happens which is a horrible policy. You seem like a horrible person.
kasha34Jan 10, 2012
You libs pitched this for fifty years and we're STILL not buying it. The majority of voters want Obamacare repealed.
Plus, it's obviously a job killer. You realize that half a million union members have exemptions, right? Because their union said it would cost too much.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Obamacare is NOT what liberals want. We want universal healthcare aka "the public option."
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
"vastly less likely to go to a top-tier school"
Awww. Well, unless they get a Saudi sheik to pull strings and get them in even though their marks don't qualify them.
And then the Saudi sheik could pay for them too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Whatever drugs you're on, you need to either increase or lower the dosage. See your doctor or pharmacist for more details.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
You don't know about this issue? Or are you pretending?
crymtyphonJan 9, 2012
I know about it! (Waves hand in the air excitedly).
There was this sixties radical guy on the radio
and he said that he had heard a saudi prince
say that the Califate chose a kenyan sheep herder kid
to put through Harvard and into the white house!
Naturaly, the 'maim-dream' media hid this TRUE fact,
allowing America to think that people like Kasha
were denied the degrees and awards and presidency
because Obama worked harder.
Really, it is very insulting to Kasha and I hope
everyone takes it exactly as serious as it is.
Exactly.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Well, sorta.
It was Percy Sutton, lawyer, businessman, politician.
He was in the NY State Assembly. He was Manhattan borough president. He was Malcolm X's lawyer. He revived the Apollo.
A couple of years ago he was being interviewed on NY 1.
When the subject of Obama came up, he volunteered that he'd been contacted years ago by this representative of a Saudi billionaire and asked to write a recommendation to help get this young man he'd never met into Harvard. The young man was Barack Obama.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crymtyphonJan 9, 2012
My goodness!
Percy Sutton; lawyer; businessman; politician;
What about playboy philanthropist engineer?
You display that silly urban legend of a leprosy
mark upon you soul as a warning to others.
The warning says:
what you tell us about serious subjects
comes from the same process of
analysis that leads you to cognitively dissonate
on one Mr. Percy Sutton;
who is said to have said that he once heard
someone say that a saudi prince said that he
pointed at a Chicago street kid and said
'get that boy to Harvard!'
Make sure you bring the story up at
every discussion of taxes, school systems
or war!
Really, it's as good as those warning labels on
cigarettes that show rotted lungs.
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Duuude...!
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Pretending? No, I just spent a year working as a pharmacy tech.
I started a new job two days ago, but I think I still remember some of it (ha ha) if you have questions.
asfinktersezwutJan 10, 2012
Like the Saudis that funded Bush's first oil company.... what was their family name again... Oh, right Bin Laden... and I believe they had a son... what was his name ... oh, yeah right, Osama... now, .... oh damn what was your point there?
nygenxerJan 10, 2012
Wasn't that guy's dad...what was his name...? George HW Bush...also in business with another guy...also named bin Laden? And weren't they having a business meeting together on 9/11? And didn't value of their defense company go through roof when his son started an unnecessary war in Iraq and gave lots o' contracts to his dad...and his VP's company...the one who shot that guy in the face...his retirement package was based on his company's performance and they got "emergency" no-bid contracts...and the 20-year military vet who questioned the contract got shown the door...and the general who told them that they needed more troops got canned...and the FBI agent who specialized in al Qaeda was forced to retire after being told to "back off the bin Ladens" in the spring of 2001? He took a job as head of security of the World Trade Center...
/Not a conspiracy nut but Goddamn, that s**t stinks to heaven.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Instead of trying to raise people up, why don't we just attenuate the advantages of those who were born lucky.
In my case, I was born with extreme good looks, high IQ and below-the-belt blessings. The govt could simply force me to wear an ugly mask to cover my handsome face and could force me to wear headphones that made distracting loud noises to counteract my high level thinking processes.
(thank you Kurt Vonnegut)
Regarding my blessings below-the-belt....hands off.
A brother has got to have something, don't he?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Sounds great but we'd also need to put a ball-gag in your mouth so we don't have to listen to your bulls**t and we can make you attend college to cure your ignorance.
To address the problem of your ego, WWJD...?
Leprosy: that'd take care of both your handsome face and your alleged below-the-belt endowment.
kasha34Jan 9, 2012
Ball-gag? How come leftists are always the first to go for the anti-gay jokes? Remember "tea-BAGGING" ?
ps If you were a little more literate you'd have gotten the literary reference. I even gave hint. Oh well.
pps "Alleged "below-the-belt endowment" ?
Hey, size doesn't matter, right?
Keep telling yourself that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJan 9, 2012
Teabagger is the name they gave themselves. Why is a ball-gag automatically gay?
publiclurkerJan 9, 2012
It's what his boyfriend always makes him wear. Unfortunately, kasha thinks it erotic. the truth is, his top just hates listening to him as much as everyone else.
tribbledotJan 10, 2012
Your personality already makes you destined to never find love or success, I don't think we have to make your life any worse.