How often we hear the term " You are a racist " being used today , from the white house on down to the street house . Prosecutors , lawyers , talk show hosts , celebrities , its become the new "answer all " to any kind of argument over the lunch counter . Immigration , politics , school matters , any kind of major social argument in todays media eventually boils down to the use of "racism " as a sword . Funny isn't it, when we think about how its really one of the most controversial issues being blindly spewed from the mouths of what should be the most advanced society in the world ! "Racism" - the most common double edged sword used by todays culture ! Have you used this in defense of your debate , Have you been called a racist by someone else ?
If it continues at this rate, pretty soon we will be diversity blind and lose touch with the beauty in the differences between us.
Seems the three most common now are immigration, our president, and Islam. If you talk negatively about any of those issues then you are a a racist. Oh well.
Yes, it is totally being used as a tool today. Today, everything we say or just even expressing our beliefs is being turned around to call someone a racist when that is far from the truth. We are becoming too "politically" correct to the point of being ridiculous. If we happen to disagree, then we are called a racist. True racism is evil.
Ed, look what you have started : )
Hugs and blessings
When a liberal calls you a racist it usually means you are winning the argument.
We are in an era where nearly 75% of black children are born out of wedlock and may never know their father, let alone have him in the home as they grow up. As a result, fatherless young black males commit over 50% of all gun murders in the US although they make up less than 4% of the population.
Inner city black children are almost certainly doomed to poverty, drug use, crime, prison, and early death. it's a national tragedy, but say one word about it and you will be labeled a racist! I guess that's why those in Washington ignore it, including the first black president.
Prove that as a result of not knowing their fathers young black males commit over 50% of all gun murders!
Note, that's not asking you to prove the 50% but the fact that they commit murder because they don't know their fathers and not because of some other factor.
There are many factors beyond not knowing their father that may drive young blacks to murder, poverty is an obvious one.
I can see no obvious connection between not knowing their father and being a murderer. For that to make any sense you would have to demonstrate that a similar proportion of all murderers did not know their father.
Actually, statistics on those males in prison have shown, sadly, that pretty much 100% of males in prison today, either do not know their father, have never had a relationship with their father, or either if they did, it was an abusive relationship. Now, I am not sure what percentage were black. I found those statistics alarming and that is shows, at least to me, how important having a father figure in the home is for the future of a child.
We are getting off topic here of the forum ... but thought I would just share the alarming statistics about those without fathers winding up in jail.
Racism is evil. To hate someone because they are different from us is wrong period. However, it seems we are going so overboard in this country with trying to be politically correct that it is ridiculous.
After a quickish google search I can't find any agreement with "pretty much 100%" about the highest estimate that I could find was 55%.
One survey that I found showed that there was a higher percentage of prisoners brought up by both parents than by a single parent!
Page 8 on http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudsfp04.pdf is interesting.
The study I read was many years ago so ... It was very close to almost all males in prison. Thanks for the link.
There are so many factors involved, back ground, upbringing, social class, sentencing policy etc that to focus on only one aspect and claim that as the cause is, I think, at best misleading.
Might just as well survey how many prisoners had drunk a cup of coffee in the week before offending and blame that for the offence.
The charge of racism shouldn't be bandied about so carelessly, but you also can't ignore the legitimate concerns of people about racism. For example, it is a fact that 35% of black people live in poverty, compared to around 13% of white people. But am I quoting that statistic out of concern and a desire to help change it, or am I quoting it to support a racist belief that black people are inherently inferior to white people? Impossible to tell unless you know something more about me. Should I be surprised then if some people react cautiously, even defensively towards my use of those statistics?
You described the poverty, drug use, crime, prison, and early death of city black children as a national tragedy. That sounds like someone showing concern, rather than harbouring a racist agenda. But when a presidential candidate is asked a question about foreigners influencing the country (no mention of black people) and replies with: "I don't want to make black people's lives better with tax payer's money", can you see why a black person (or anyone) might suggest that comment is based on racist assumptions (that was Rick Santorum in Iowa where black people on foodstamps equates to 9%, compared to 84% who are white).
So it's not so much about the statistics, as it is about needing to know what the underlying assumptions are when explaining the statistics. I think the sensitivity around this is the result of hundreds of years of state-sanctioned racism and degradation that only formally ended in the middle of the last century (though racism continues in other ways today). That's a gaping wound that has not healed. So although issues of race need to be discussed, I think there needs to be some recognition and understanding that for some it's a very sensitive subject.
Just think what would happen if Washington stopped ignoring it and start again giving as many of the aid dollars to these supposed wretched as they do other thriving nationalities within its borders... But then, who would they house in all the "necessary" prisons built to house them???
Maybe Washington does not "ignore" them afterall... they are probably FIRST considered. It's just that the "powers" have OTHER plans for them.
Maybe it would be better this way:
http://www.heritage.org/events/2014/06/ … helping-us
"Jason L. Riley is an Editorial Board Member of The Wall Street Journal, where he has worked since 1994, and a Fox News contributor."
I'm sure he is very fair and balanced.
Well, since you like proof of everything, suppose you prove that Jason L. Riley is not 'fair and balanced'. After all, he is a black man himself and a very successful one.
Yes, a successful editorial board member for that favourite liberal rag, The Wall Street Journal and a contributor to that equally famous left wing TV Fox News!
Arguing that the minimum wage is keeping a lot of blacks out of the labour force is not arguing for black rights but arguing for the rights of employers to exploit them.
I think he is what you call an Uncle Tom.
So no proof at all?
Didn't think so.
And calling a black an "Uncle Tom' just because he's not a liberal is about as racist a comment as can be made. You have exposed yourself for all to see. You should apologize immediately.
I didn't hear, "because he's not a liberal, " I heard them three words...
No, not just because he is not a liberal but because by claiming that his fellow blacks aren't even worth the minimum wage he is doing more to oppress his own people than many more openly racist people.
OK, so now you're deliberately mischaracterizing what Riley said because you can't criticize him honestly. How typical of you, John!
If a black man or woman had conservative viewpoints, liberals instantly become racists, and demand that they return to the liberal plantation where they belong.
Oh! You mean Wall Street/Fox the "powers'" lair???
I am afraid of links. please, a brief summary?
This is INDEED a national malady. This is DYSFUNCTION to the multillionth degree. This is symptomatic of a complete moral breakdown in the lower socioeconomic strata of the Black community. The Black underclass has a pathology which is not found in the Black middle, upper middle, and upper class. The culture of this Black subculture glorifies the thug culture. It also glorifies underachievement and all the negative characteristics.
This is a culture which devalues education and achievement, believing those values to be white. This culture is a culture of poverty which values immediate needs and gratification over planning and strategizing for the future. It values indiscriminate and thoughtless actions without considering the negative, future ramifications of the actions therein. These are the people who are generationally on welfare, imbued with an infernal psychology and mindset that society should provide them with a middle class lifestyle without working for it. These are the people who refuse to take responsibility for their lives. These are the people who reproduce at will without considering how their children will fare. Yes, multigenerational poverty. One can say that the Black underclass is damned as they evidently do not wish to uplift themselves.
Wow, gmwilliams. You are like the mom I guess none of them ever had.
Well, guess what? I could be the mom some whites never had, as well!
Can I borrow some of your words?
"You people refuse to take responsibility for your own lives. You people reproduce at will without considering how your children will fare!"
But ultimately we Americans are all pretty much in the same boat!
We the People need to get through this school of hard knocks quickly. To all nationalities in what SHOULD BE the MELTING POT of America: Stop loving the one you're with and get some education!
We need to revive, restore, and fulfill the promise of EDUCATION in this country.
Spoken like a real substitute teacher.
Now we need a financier who will crunch some numbers into our pockets. We'll be good.
No matter HOW you yell at a blind man to see... he probably won't (i thought you knew). Now, if he can get that cataract surgery; maybe. But he cannot find a job... hmmmmmmmm...
It's a tragedy that America is still so starkly racially segregated. Don't your inner city white kids and black kids just play together oblivious to the colour of their friends skin? Hollywood promotes racial segregation too: you see white people married or dating white people and black people married or dating black people. When was the last time a film just happened to portray a white person married to a black person without making that some point of the main storyline?
"There are many factors beyond not knowing their father that may drive young blacks to murder, poverty is an obvious one."
And why do you suppose young mothers with no husband to support them and their children usually find themselves in poverty?
Study after study says that young males of all races who grow up in a fatherless home are far more likely to commit crimes, so I'm curious why you view that fact as offensive?
No, I didn't view it as offensive, I just asked for corroboration.
There are lots of these:
Father Factor in Child Abuse – Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect. The overall rate of child abuse and neglect in single-parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, whereas the rate of overall maltreatment in two-parent households is 15.5 per 1,000.
Daughters of single parents without a Father involved are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 711% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a pre-marital birth and 92% more likely to get divorced themselves.
Adolescent girls raised in a 2 parent home with involved Fathers are significantly less likely to be sexually active than girls raised without involved Fathers.
43% of US children live without their father [US Department of Census]
90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. [Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, pp. 403-26, 1978]
71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999]
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]
85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control]
90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. [Wray Herbert, “Dousing the Kindlers,” Psychology Today, January, 1985, p. 28]
71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]
75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. [Rainbows f for all God’s Children]
70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988]
85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992]
Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999]
Census Fatherhood Statistics
64.3 million: Estimated number of fathers across the nation
26.5 million: Number of fathers who are part of married-couple families with their own children under the age of 18.
Among these fathers -
22 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old (among married-couple family households only).
2 percent live in the home of a relative or a non-relative.
2.5 million: Number of single fathers, up from 400,000 in 1970. Currently, among single parents living with their children, 18 percent are men.
Among these fathers -
8 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old.
42 percent are divorced, 38 percent have never married, 16 percent are separated and 4 percent are widowed. (The percentages of those divorced and never married are not significantly different from one another.)
16 percent live in the home of a relative or a non-relative.
27 percent have an annual family income of $50,000 or more.
85 percent: Among the 30.2 million fathers living with children younger than 18, the percentage who lived with their biological children only.
11 percent lived with step-children
4 percent with adopted children
< 1 percent with foster children
Recent policies encourage the development of programs designed to improve the economic status of low-income nonresident fathers and the financial and emotional support provided to their children. This brief provides ten key lessons from several important early responsible fatherhood initiatives that were developed and implemented during the 1990s and early 2000s. Formal evaluations of these earlier fatherhood efforts have been completed making this an opportune time to step back and assess what has been learned and how to build on the early programs’ successes and challenges.While the following statistics are formidable, the Responsible Fatherhood research literature generally supports the claim that a loving and nurturing father improves outcomes for children, families and communities.
Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior, and avoid high-risk behaviors such as drug use, truancy, and criminal activity compared to children who have uninvolved fathers.
Studies on parent-child relationships and child wellbeing show that father love is an important factor in predicting the social, emotional, and cognitive development and functioning of children and young adults.
24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father.
Nearly 20 million children (27 percent) live in single-parent homes.
43 percent of first marriages dissolve within fifteen years; about 60 percent of divorcing couples have children; and approximately one million children each year experience the divorce of their parents.
Fathers who live with their children are more likely to have a close, enduring relationship with their children than those who do not.
Compared to children born within marriage, children born to cohabiting parents are three times as likely to experience father absence, and children born to unmarried, non-cohabiting parents are four times as likely to live in a father-absent home.
About 40 percent of children in father-absent homes have not seen their father at all during the past year; 26 percent of absent fathers live in a different state than their children; and 50 percent of children living absent their father have never set foot in their father’s home.
Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.
From 1995 to 2000, the proportion of children living in single-parent homes slightly declined, while the proportion of children living with two married parents remained stable.
Yes, Will, fathers certainly do play a great role in the development of their children and your statistics are eye-opening. Sadly, today, many children grow up without a father in the home or do not even know their father ... and the statistics (I read a study long ago) stated that they end up in prison more so than those whose father was present (in a good way) in their lives.
Fascinating (and that isn't sarcastic, I do find it fascinating) but nowhere does it mention the ethnicity of the children involved.
So where is your proof that over over 50% of all gun murders in the US are committed by black youths because they lack fathers.
Why doesn't the statistic apply to all youths with absent fathers?
I rather think you are looking for a simple solution to a complex problem.
"I rather think you are looking for a simple solution to a complex problem."
Think whatever pleases you. The statistics are there for anyone to see, and I am not your secretary.
"The charge of racism shouldn't be bandied about so carelessly, but you also can't ignore the legitimate concerns of people about racism."
True. But the definition of racism is a belief in racial superiority, and what is more racist than the long-standing belief that blacks in America are incapable of coping without the never-ending aid of Democrats?
There are numerous socio-economic and historical reasons why there is a greater representation of certain groups on welfare compared to others. That fact does not equate to the idea that those groups are "incapable of coping without the never-ending aid of Democrats".
I don't know anyone who's suggesting that. Your comment suggests that if someone is unable to support themselves without assistance, then that automatically reflects negatively on that individual or the group they are part of. That would only be the case if everyone started on a completely even keel, and had the same opportunities. Society is still far from achieving that.
Hello! To me, for possibly obvious reason, racism is alive and kicking (most often in the groin. Lol)
The term IS quite frankly over-used, however, but often true. There are people in our society who feel superior to certain others SIMPLY for having the palest complexion. But racism does not belong to only one culture. Everybody's doing it.
It makes for a poor defense of debate though.
I, personally, have never been called a racist (for some odd reason ) but i have thunk it of others during certain interactions/encounters.
Hopefully, this country will drop the stratification based upon ___. Hopefully they will realize the truth. But sameness is scary for the lofty. Who then will they see whilst looking down from their high-horse?
John Holden , doesn't like statistics .....from the real world anyway .
I struggle to understand your meaning but if we take out the comma and read it as John Holden doesn't like statistics. . .from the real world anyway, my statistics are from the real world.
The fact that they disagree with unreal statistics is no fault of mine.
I see. So a successful black man who does not toe the liberal line is not a 'real' black man?
It seems to me that what a successful black man has to say is far more important than what a success-hating liberal has to say.
It is important to note here that it is very important to know what one does to obtain their success.
It has been said that some successful Black men come to fortune and fame by speaking for powerful forces that hold him to a certain standard. Without the voice of puppetry, no moolah. No notariety.
It was the same hundreds of years ago on the shores of Africa. "Boss, I'll take you to whea deys hid'n!"
Are you saying that no black man can succeed on his own? Are you saying that Jason L. Riley is not an honorable man?
Are you sure?
"I do not know the man at all. Never heard of him. But Fox and Wall Street, I know. Of THAT, I'm sure."
Oh, I see! Who he is and what he had to say means nothing to you. You condemn him for merely having an association with Fox and Wall Street.
White liberals are the worst sort of racists. They truly believe that blacks need their support and guidance because they also truly believe that blacks cannot succeed on their own. In other words, white liberals see themselves as a loving but superior race and see blacks as an inferior race.
Why does John think blacks need a fixed minimum wage? Because he believes that they cannot negotiate a wage on their own, so whites need to do it for them.
Jason L. Riley is another black who has strayed off the liberal plantation, and he chooses to associate himself with conservatives and success, so he is vilified by the left. How dare he suggest that blacks would be better off if they threw off the velvet chains of benevolent liberal servitude and strike out on their own!
Liberals have zero tolerance for any black who does not toe the liberal line and refuses to stay on the liberal plantation. There is not one conservative black who has not been attacked by the liberal left. Not one!
I know white liberal people who do actually feel that they are no better than Blacks and are willing to stand for the cause of equality for they know it to be just the right thing to do.
Seems like Mr. Riley has chosen to associate with conservatives and success rather than liberal persons who ALSO feel superior to him???
Conservative Blacks also attack "plantation" liberals. Sounds like I just heard one
Thank you for reaffirming the opening post, when you have no argument resort to accusations of racism!
I don't believe anybody needs my support but on the other hand they don't need my obstruction either. Of course blacks can (and do) succeed on their own but they aren't playing on a level field, not when you get people saying that the minimum wage is too high for them.
I don't think specifically that blacks need a minimum wage, I think that all of what ever background need a minimum wage. Those at the bottom of the pile can only negotiate their wage in one direction-and that is down. That is all those who are on the bottom of the pile, blacks, whites, and any other colour you want.
Riley has chosen to associate with right wing capitalists who believe that all but the chosen few should spend their lives serving their masters and eschew "liberal benevolent servitude" and get back on the plantation and stop aspiring to anything better.
How many conservative blacks have been attacked by the left for being black and how many for being conservative?
"Of course blacks can (and do) succeed on their own but they aren't playing on a level field..."
In what way are they not 'playing on a level field'? Be very specific and provide evidence to back it up..
Wow!!! Are you American? If so, which State? See, in just about every state, there is a place where squalor, and poverty, and higher price tags for essentials, and degredation, and run-down and/or abandoned buildings (while people sleep in the sewers) run rampant. That is the playing field for many of those who depend on ANY wage to barely make essential daily living happen. Many reasons are responsible for this condition. However, during my explanation of the place I spoke about; could you imagine its inhabitants???
But you don't ever feel the need to be specific or provide backing evidence!
To repeat a comment you made to me when I asked you to back something up "I'm not your secretary", But answer me this,how many of the 1% are black compared with blacks in the wider community, how many black politicians,
The median income of whites in 2011 $55,412, of blacks same year $32,229/
How is the playing field for poor blacks any different from the playing field for poor whites or Hispanics?
BTW, despite your protests to the contrary, children of any race raised in fatherless homes have far higher rates of poverty, crime, and school dropout, so is it any surprise that with a black out-of-wedlock birthrate approaching 75% that the black community is teetering on disaster?
Here in the US, the race card is played almost exclusively by liberals, and it's intended to silence criticism coming from the right, because liberal policies toward blacks in America have resulted in the disaster we see today.
Explain the difference in median incomes then if the playing field is level. The median wage for Hispanics is higher than for blacks.
What about the official statistics I showed that there were more prisoners with two parents than one?
Except for this thread where you have been playing the race card!
"Among non-Hispanic blacks, the (out of wedlock birth rate) figure is highest, at 72.2 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, it’s 66.9 percent; 53.5 percent for Hispanics; 29.4 percent for non-Hispanic whites; and a mere 17.1 percent for Asians/Pacific Islanders."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/36 … oger-clegg
And it just so happens that poverty levels coincide neatly with those rates!
So how do we level that 'playing field"? Well first, we have to admit that it's even a problem, and as we see here, liberals are in full denial.
No, it's you and your ilk who are in denial. First you have to admit that it isn't a level playing field and then level it, not by legislation but by action and integration.
We did that in the US - the result was a whole raft of laws legalizing discrimination and racism by forcing employers, schools and such to hire/admit based on race.
While it DID do a lot to leveling the playing field, the necessity is long gone but the laws still exist and are enforced with a vengeance. Result today - increased racism in hiring practices to the point that a white male will nearly always be left behind when there is any minority around, including women.
I've given you the facts and figures, but you simply ignore them, so there's no point in continuing this conversation.
Have a great day.
I will never understand why liberals are so opposed to recognizing that simple things like having a loving father and mother in the home are so important to the welfare of children.
I will never understand why liberals are so opposed to recognizing the plight of the black inner city, and making it a national priority to break the cycle of welfare, poverty, absentee fathers, unmarried mothers, drugs, crime, early death,and hopelessness. That will never be accomplished by simply throwing them a welfare and food stamp bone and then demanding they vote for Democrats in gratitude.
The only way you will ever really end it is to force the issue by removing the welfare bone from the equation. And that costs all those nice liberal votes - something not to be tolerated.
Please tell them to raise the minimum wage and force corporations to pay Black men and women the same as they pay, say White men. Oh! And don't forget to tell them to give them back their men bogusly wasting away in lucrative prisons for drug trafficking (the only jobs some of them are allowed to have) and stop harassing them on the streets for driving a car.
Otherwise, they need them food stamps; not to mention healthcare. It's the way the system was set up. They knew what they were doing. They just did not plan for the inevitable backfire.
You may not have gone through the years of double digit inflation rates, but I did and do NOT want a return to them. We bought our first home from a man paying 20% interest (and on a VA loan!) - how many people would never own a home if we decided that was preferable to low wages?
It is illegal to base pay on skin color, you know. If (actually when, for there are evil SOB's everywhere), simply file a claim with the labor board. And, of course, be prepared to prove the claim...
Unfortunately Wilderness, I know nothing BUT double digit interest rates.
When you are the last one hired and the first one fired, it's kinda hard to keep a good credit rating. I have needed loans to help pay for living quarters of my own. Then paying loan fees and interest eat up next weeks money, so now you are a lil bit later with your payment for next month. and so on, and so on... interest still rising. Nice lil web...
Interest rates are not the inflation rate. They are what you are willing to pay to borrow money, not a measure of how much less value your money has each year.
If you are caught in the low paying jobs, I would suggest training for a different job. Take night school, pick up a second job to pay for it, whatever it takes. And before you take a "payday" loan or something similar like "title loans", stand on the streetcorner with hat in hand. You will do better than playing with those scammers.
Save the lesson. I am clear on interest vs inflation. You spoke of 20% interest on a house or something. And 20 is a double digit number (i learnt it way back. Lol...
But it is not so ridiculous in my neck of the woods. 20% is not totally unheard of when you swim in a debt sea already due to low paying/ no jobs.
Good loan advice. Not much of a credit stickler though. I gotta live today.
Oh and did I tell you about my bogus police record??? funny stuff...
No one today, in this country, is paying 20% interest for a secured mortgage.
Your bogus police record has nothing to do with the average pay for black people. Only for you, and if it is bogus you should have it erased.
my fault...it has been erased. I lived with it a long time though. I had no idea that misdemeanor offenses only stay for a number of years. But I put that sh@t on every job app. Cuz you lnow they alwsys ask. I feel tainted.
As for mortgage rates, I can count on one hand, the people I know with ratings enough to even obtain unsecured (what was that again??? ) bubbles in a crate.
A loving mother and father pair are best for raising children.
The welfare bone thrown way back when also threw the father out. (Hmmm...I wonder if they knew that people need two loving parents before they fixed welfare laws to basically bar any father from the home in order to obtain needed benefits in the 60's and 70's)
Anyhow, I think a raise in the minimum wage or a stern law to ensure equal pay for equal work might do a little to change the "plight" and "break the cycle" helping to propel them in a positive direction. What say you?
Raising the minimum wage enough to do any good simply causes inflation to promptly erase any gain. That is NOT a road we need to travel again. We also already have stern laws on equal pay for equal work - it is illegal to determine pay based on sex, race, religion, etc.
In any case, more pay for jobs isn't the answer - it won't coerce anyone to work if they don't have to. Reducing the welfare will, though. And getting rid of 10 million illegal aliens will open up a lot of jobs, too.
Why is it that a raise in minimum wage would shake the economy? Would they have to print more bills to ensure certain ones remain atop?
If everyone is paid well equal-like then everyone suffers??? So SOMEBODY has to take the short end??? Seems eerie.
But then I just read stats which stated that White people are paid more on an average. With the laws you mention, that should not be. So what happened?
If you own a business and suddenly the government forces your costs to double, what will be your reaction? Raise prices if you wish to stay in business. After everyone raises their prices, the "new" wage isn't so great any more and another increase is in order. There is also the problem of the person that is already making the new minimum; they are no longer satisfied with working for minimum wage and rightly so as their jobs are worth more. It's called inflation. And yes, there will always be people earning less than others; we are not "created equal" in abilities or willingness to work.
On the average, blacks do not hold the high paying jobs that whites do - the inevitable (and reasonable) result is that as a group they earn less. You DID say "equal pay for equal work", did you not?
Why don't blacks hold the high paying jobs that whites do??? Are you sure???
Two foremen in the railroad; one White, one Black. Are their paychecks equal? Before you answer, my ex husband is a forman for BNSF.
Same railroad, same locality, same work - they had better be. If not, and you can prove it instead of just make claims, a complaint is in order.
On average (average!) what is the education level of blacks vs whites? The skill level for various jobs? Mind you, I'm not saying that the answers are reasonable and acceptable, just that the answers will tell you why blacks do not, on average, hold the higher paying jobs that whites do.
We've all heard stories of the ways big businesses come up with to pay more/less. Skill level is assumed to be lower. Seems you just implied... nevermind.
I got plenty education and skill. But I met some crooked cops. 4 to be exact. They are still working. Crooked.
Indeed, we have all heard stories of lots of things. Some are even true.
Sounds like you need a new home. On the other side of the country or even a different country altogether.
Why do pay rises for minimum pay workers cause rampant inflation whereas much larger pay rises for the already rich do not?
Reducing welfare might encourage a few to take up minimum wage work, it will encourage many more to take up crime.
Facing facts. The minimum wage job is not worth the hassle. By the time you commute to work; eat lunch; commute home; pay the sitter; pay for clothing; pay for lodging; drink a glass of water (whose price is also rising) toilet paper, shampoo, toothpaste, soap, laundry detergent and on and on and on...there is a $25deficit and you must try to borrow it because you have to get to work. It is kinda funny, actually.
Yes, I have a friend who managed to find work at minimum wage after several years of unemployment.
Whereas when she was unemployed she could just about get by without falling into debt now she works she finds herself a little bit further in debt each month.
Aaaaaaaaaa-meeeeeen (key of C).
It is quite expensive to HAVE to get up and out these days. One bus ride here can run $6. Gas about the same. Then you gotta get home... expenses mount. But if you stay home. You just saved yourself 12 dollars per day! Lol...
Not strictly true John, at least not here in the UK. Crime has fallen and people in work has risen as the encouragement to work by limiting benefits has taken hold. Its taken years to get to the position where it was better to live on benefits than it is to work, do you think it can be reversed over night?
As more and more people find work and the unemployed pool reduces employers would have to pay more to recruit or keep workers. Unless the government decides to flood the market with workers from abroad!
Serious crime may have fallen but not so petty crime.
The number of people in work is based on the number claiming unemployment benefit. Those sanctioned, though now having to rely on crime to keep body and soul together are deemed to be employed.
For the vast majority of people in the UK it has never been better to live on benefits than it is to work. You fall into the conservative hate mongering that benefits in this country are really high.
If employers will have to start paying higher wages as unemployment falls, if you are correct and unemployment is falling, then why are wages still falling?
I am sorry John can you show me in the employment figures where those who have been refused benefits have now taken employment as criminals? In actual fact can you show me any report by a government or independent body to back up your claim?
And while you are at it can you give me the figures for people on long term benefits, not unemployment benefit because as you pointed out that only lasts a year.
John I think you have been listening to too much left wing media. not everybody on benefits are starving but some are, mainly because they haven't bothered to turn up for their appointments.
And I see your lady friend was better of on benefits then she is now with a job, case proven by your own admission.
They are not falling John they are staying the same. The NMW is still the same. Many jobs are still at NMW because they have so many people to chose from as this government the same as the last has decided to import cheap unskilled labour at ridiculous unsustainable numbers.
If a person has no income whatsoever how do you think they eat?
Like the number of deaths caused by housing policies, official petty crime figures are not easily come by.
We recently discussed long term unemployment, do I really have to go though it all again? Can't you just reread the relevant posts?
I have never pointed out that unemployment benefit only lasts a year because it doesn't.
People are sanctioned for many other reasons than not turning up for appointments although some aren't told that they have appointments and others tun up to find the time changed or the person they are to see, absent.
And what case have I proved? That the minimum wage is as bad as unemployment benefit?
Gross weekly earning up 2.2% price index up 2.8% and that mostly on food and none alcoholic drinks, but not transport costs.
Welcome to America (all but Americans...) we will take your hungry and your poor and give them the help they desperately need to show our lazy and criminally prone blacks how to make it in this country!!!
How many people have died John? Is it 100,1000, 1000000? You know like Africa famine standards?
Petty crime figures are in with the total crime figures and they are down.
As from yesterday and my dealings with the DWP I cant honestly say you know what you are on about.
You only get JSA for six months, you may get NI contribution based JSA for longer depending on qualification. Unemployment figures are based on this benefit and to some extent ESA after assessment.
Yes I have heard all the excuses about missing appointments but they cant all be mistakes by the public sector workers you love so much can they John?
You said john that she was worse off whilst working, that must mean she is better of on benefits.
So you agree earnings haven't fallen and I shall agree that inflation has risen.
It was over 10,000 when the government stopped collecting figure. DON'T pull that old "there are people worse off" ploy. It doesn''t work.
Petty crime figures are in with the total crime figures and they are down.
You only get JSA for six months after which you get JSA! Do you read what you write? As I said, unemployment figures are based on this benefit and those sanctioned and no longer receiving that benefit are classed as employed.
Then you will also have heard about the in-office competitions to see who can sanction the most claimants in the week and the inter office league for the office that sanctions the most!
Better off is subjective. If better off means never going out and most days not getting dressed, sleeping through the morning then I suppose she was better off.
If, what cost you £100 yesterday costs you £102 today then you are worse off, your earning are not what they were worth yesterday.
Having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another." Dictionary
"Higher in rank, status, or quality." Dictionary
'Immigration , politics , school matters , any kind of major social argument in todays media eventually boils down to the use of "racism " as a sword.' ahorseback
If you know you do not have the attitude of a racist you can tell them to put away their swords.
And in this case, "quality" is the most common and important attribute. The others follow along behind because of the one. Once some idiot has decided that the quality is lacking the others are inevitable results.
...distinguishing the degree of excellence of anything is perhaps politically incorrect! LOL!
If I don't agree with illegal immigration, it is not because I feel illegal immigrants are inferior in some way.
No, the issue is porous borders.
If I do not agree with same sex marriage it is not because I find the individuals wanting to marry inferior.
No, the issue is that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
If I do not want to hire someone, no matter what their race, because they do not hold the required qualifications, It is not because I find the person inferior.
No, the issue is the need to hire someone adequately qualified.
So whats the actual issue?
Stick to that.
Because the vast majority of white ignoracists seem to have no clue of the institutional racism which perpetuates our inherent/unbeknownst privilege.
1. No definition for Ignoracists.
2. Institutional Racism
Institutional racism is any system of inequality based on race. It can occur in institutions such as public government bodies, private business corporations (such as media outlets), and universities (public and private). The term was introduced by Black Power activists Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in the late 1960s. The definition given by William Macpherson within the report looking into the death of Stephen Lawrence was “the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin”.
the injustice seems to be: "appropriate and professional service" being somehow denied to certain individuals based on… race.
Ignoracist refers to a white person (for instance, given US social constructs) who would gladly hold open a door for an elderly (for instance...) black person, or who genuinely loves their (perhaps singular) black friend; yet would actively support public policy which would disproportionally and negatively effect black communities, ie new and special Voter-ID policies for certain groups, or supply-side trickle-down Reaganomics (and privatization of social insurance programs)...
Ignoracist is a Caucasian/ i.e. American who "would disproportionally and negatively effect black communities, ie Voter-ID, or supply-side trickle-down Reaganomics (and privatization of social insurance programs)" JE
So, anyone who is deemed somehow disadvantaged must be helped by the government and by the money of others through taxation.
That is not racism, that is an issue.
PS Racism is a non-issue in Modern America (except against whites, of course… )
They trickle money to the disadvantaged. The big dough goes to the ones who already got plenty money. Funny that...
They do not spend much on welfare, trust me.
Why are they disadvantaged?
Some would agree they have been forced to take government handouts due to to no father in the household.
It is a vicious cycle that the welfare system perpetuates.
Funny...some years ago, the were forced to not have a father in the home in order to obtain government hand-outs. Lol...
Could that be why they are disadvantaged?
The welfare system was put into place for a reason. But I believe that we should start with cutting foreign aid and not always start with the cuts of national aid.
This country seems to thrive on jumping on the backs of its citizens. I am not understanding the need for weakening in-house and strengthening abroad.
"Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid. In most developed countries welfare is largely provided by the government, and to a lesser extent, charities, informal social groups, religious groups, and inter-governmental organizations."
Thanks again for the clarification of what EXACTLY welfare is. I think I am familiar though. They slash even the minimum for its citizens who are not as "capable" as others for the high-paying slots in those really benevolent biggest business corporations y'all speak so highly of
...but, so many have been robbed of self esteem through welfare programs.
Have you checked the stats on education for black women? They give you education...for a handsome fee...
Is it any different for anyone????
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
In fact, it is harder for whites to get any kind of help. My own brother walked into a welfare office with his new bride. They both had their college degrees, but no jobs. The welfare workers took one look at them and said, "GET OUT!" So, they want back to school, got their teaching credentials and became teachers. They STILL have huge student loans to pay back.
They were robbed of self-esteem long before welfare programs.
Education is simple if a university will take you.
Then you must 'qualify" for a position that pays. Many college grads draw welfare. Sad, but true.
In California, tuition is very minimal for a community college. Once you get your AA or first two years, you can go on to a state university and fees there are very low, (not as low as they used to be.) If you go to the campus of Cal State University, Northridge, for example, you will see a very mixed population. They are the ones who are trying. Maybe you should move to California. There is great diversity here.
I would say that the vast majority of blacks know well. But there is data. Many white men are clueless.
Not a fan of porous borders either. Security, equilibrium, disease, staggering economy, security and security are all good reasons to secure the borders.
And sometimes the black person is more adequately qualified in every area, so he may win out. But it will not happen often that he wins out in those circumstances. American corporations are strictly biased. The "face" of the company will remain, for the most part, white.
Q. American corporations don't want me either... cuz I do not have the qualifications, (usually a master's degree.) Should we also say corporations are racist against white unqualified American women?
A. No. The issue is hiring those with master's degrees. They have the right to hire the most qualified.
I would never suggest that anyone be chosen over one more qualified for any reason. But when two qualified persons apply (one black one white) the choice is much easier. Though I would not put it past anyone in corporate America to hire a less qualified white person over a black one who is more qualified.
Helplessness? I shouldn't need to tell you how we've treated black folks for generations. How do you make something from nothing? http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc … ns/361631/
Seems as though LOTS of people in this country love the circles. They want to keep the wealth where it "rightfully" belongs... lol
Where does it rightfully belong????? It Rightfully belongs to those who
Or inherited it, or stole it, or peeled it out of the budget, or stepped on enough heads, or won it in the stock market lottery...
"Funny...some years ago, they were forced to not have a father in the home in order to obtain government hand-outs. Lol... "
Precisely, and it was the so-called 'War on Poverty'. Prior to that, blacks were the race most likely to have a father in a stable home. Democrats, with their welfare rules, made it hard on married couples, so they simply stopped marrying, and started having babies out of wedlock.
So . . . nothing constructive to say, just the usual mudslinging!
Perpetuation of the "plight" in a purposefully woven tapestry of on-going red tape. Targeted poor families made that way because of bigotry and hate. They got White people too...just not to their detriment. Many more of them had/were given a numerous amount of resources. Blacks are hit hardest because they have no family, no bloodline, nobody to call upon, no law to protest, no friends able to bail them out, no one to hire them etc. They make up only a small percentage of the population.
"Funny...some years ago, they were forced to not have a father in the home in order to obtain government hand-outs. Lol... "
Who said that?
Right!!! Don't throw money at poor people! Wall street is much better. Call it bail out!!! Not aid!!! Wouldn't wanna give the people the wrong impression.
Has throwing money at poor people, unwilling to work, ever made them self-sufficient and able to support themselves?
No. But most poor people I know would love to work. So what do we do with them? Ignore???
Teach them a trade. Teach them to have a work ethic. Teach them a basic general education. And above all, teach them that they are responsible for supporting themselves. Teach, teach, teach and teach some more.
There are very few chronic poor that aren't doing it to themselves, and most of those are handicapped in such a way they simply can't support themselves (although Steven Hawkins should be a great role model there).
Hey! Great idea!!! Who's gonna do all this teaching to POOR people?
Some simply cannot support themselves. The system is set up so that after they get all that teaching, they still have to find suitable employment that allows for: casual dress wear, transportation to and from work, childcare, food, toothpaste, soap, shampoo, deodorant, healthcare, rent/mortgage (good luck with THAT one) and I feel as if I have left out a thing or two.
You're ignoring the bottom line question - why can't they support themselves? Answer that one and you will have the answer to what to do about it. And the answer isn't because the whole world is against their race, whatever it is.
You claim they simply cannot support themselves; if they are able bodied people, why not? Did they make the choice to skip out of school? Did they have so many children they can't support themselves AND their kids? I worked with a man that lost his license; he walked and eventually rode a bike as much as 10 miles to work each day, so transportation isn't the answer. Neither is clothing; there are too many places where a decent set of clothes is under $5. Section 8 will take care of most of their housing, and ER's will take care of their health care (I know - I haven't had insurance for a decade).
So what IS the problem?
Ok Sir, you know a man who walks twenty miles a day??? Please give me his phone number. I need THE SECRET!
Well, in my neck of the woods; seems like the nearest job actually hiring is about 10 miles away. And with transportation costs up high (cuz don't nobody walk no 20 miles a day...) it sucks up a good portion of your wage. Then there are those OTHER necessities for people who work.
As for kids? Many people really can't help it. Birth control is not 100. Abortion rates are alarming. Rape gone rampant. TWINS. Unexpected all the time... that's life. New life comes forth to perpetuate mankind. I thought you knew. I'll save that lesson for later.
However, again, it is hard to manage $315 dollars per week when your expenses always reach $350 per week.
And don't have an emergency... or theft...
Truth is...people are not given the opportunity that others are given... it was thought out long ago.
The name was Kip Yearton - as far as I know he never had a phone as most of his income went to AA meetings and court costs. He's moved on, though - straightened out his life and supporting himself. Possibly because he had no choice in the matter.
But what's the big deal with walking 20 miles? That's only a couple of hours each way if you hustle. I ride a bicycle, a $25 wreck, that far on some days for recreation! That "no one" walks that far does not mean it is impossible; it means that people today don't want to do it. My grandmother rode a horse nearly that far to school as a child because she was crippled; her siblings walked. Even I walked 4 miles to school as a child, by choice because I had a job after school so couldn't take the bus.
But that's the problem as I see it; a little hardship and people crumple today. It's just too easy to get someone else to pick up the costs, and that's exactly what they do. Instead of putting out the effort to stand on their own two feet, they just have to walk into the local welfare office with their hand out.
Yep. That is the way we think here.
We have more than enough for all to be employed. But the systems in place... don't allow for that. "We give them just enough; pass them along in school (thus not being able to read a ruler; or add 1/2+3/4); close off all the good jobs; put them in a big building to live; give them drugs and fill their world with sex and violence via poverty; then throw them rascals in jail. Plenty of NEW JOBS for all of us left qualified enough folks."
After reading many of your posts, and seeing multiple references to; "...casual dress wear, transportation to and from work, childcare, food, toothpaste, soap, shampoo, deodorant, healthcare, rent/mortgage"
I come away with one conclusion... you are speaking of real world conditions and the reality that the "small" things you speak of can become very important things in a struggling life.
On one hand Wilderness is right, just settling for a minimum wage job won't get it done. It is a struggle many have to leap hurdles to get to begin with, but from that point it must be am individual's responsibility to try to get more. Hours, training, etc.
But on the other hand, how hard is it when; 1) no extra hours are available, 2) no non-job hours daycare is available, etc. etc. And what about sick kids? You might have arranged daycare, even state-paid daycare, but does the employer understand when you can't send a sick kid to daycare?
My point is your responses represent the reality of too many low-income segments of the population. Wilderness's solutions, while correct, only apply to 30% or 40%, (a guess), of that segment - what are the other 60%-70% supposed to do? I see my state agencies, and private ones too, like Goodwill Industries, offering free job training programs with dozens and dozens of participants for each class - and dozens and dozens of graduates now competing for a single dozen jobs.
The solution might be easy to see - but getting there is a different story.
Yes! not to mention when you have this great idea for a new factory but the local "mafia" money is blocking the ability to create the new factory that offers not only great jobs but also green power concepts that can compete and bring down ridiculous electricity prices!
You're dreaming, Tammy. There is no "mafia" money involved; power companies are regulated by law. And the so-called "green" power is nearly always more expensive than more common coal, gas and oil power - I know as our power company is forced to keep buying wind power and our cost keeps going up because it is far more expensive than the hydro and gas that the power company owns.
I don't want to get shot so let me be vague...but if you don't yet understand that big money and power are indeed mafias then I'm afraid you are dreaming. Yes these big monies have the power to block these big ideas...Believe me the wealthy are in no way interested in the population becoming smarter and wealthier. Let's just say I have personal experience and leave it there.
Thank you for your input. Yes, little things become mountainous when there's only a small amount to go around. Wilderness called poor, "having to eat dishrags to maintain rent AS WELL AS a mortgage???"
That's some amazing stuff to me (with the two incomes) to be able to do. I meant poverty. Ya know...dishrags to keep your belly from caving in and hoping they don't evict you TONIGHT because you have only half your rent poverty.
Actually the poorest in the UK are those who do work.
Let me also add that many other poor people that I know DO work...
Then why are they poor? Are the working only beginning level, minimum wage jobs and won't put out the effort to move up to something better? Have they made too many poor choices (too many kids, too much house, too many cars, too many luxuries of any kind)? Why are they poor if working hard?
Well, the way our country's bank account is set-up... lol
These people have many things to do with minimum wages. And I know that this will be a shocker, but people (poor people) are not given many opportunities to climb the ladder of success. It becomes enough to feed and clothe you and yours. (Not you, of course)
It would be great for you to immerse yourself in the ghettos of poor people for a month. You may probably see things more clearly.
You been watching Fox...I just know it.
You are wanting something from the outside. But outside is so far away. What you really need is on the inside. Each person has an inner life which they must tap into. When you do that, amazing luck will come your way. And this is absolutely true for every single person.
+1. Successful people make their own opportunities, not sit back and wait for the world to supply them with it.
People like you....make their own opportunity on a large scale. Few of "the others" get the chance.
Come, come - either you make your own opportunity or it is a given. You can't have it both ways.
I do think we all have a deck of cards at birth. I know an African American girl whose mother is a Doctor at Kaiser. Her step-father is a public school administrator. He tutored his daughter all through high school and gave her the discipline she needed to be a good student and the money she needed to complete her education. Now, their daughter has a Masters in Psychology and is counseling drug-addicted women. She got married after she had a job, car and apartment.
My daughter, on the other hand, did not go to vet school because she choose not to get into $200,000 dollars of debt. So, today she is a vet tech. If she had just stayed home, she could have continued her college education at a local State U in Biology, her field. She could have become a biology teacher, etc. But, room and board was all I could offer. No money. She chose to get married, instead. Now she is stuck being a vet tech instead of a veterinarian or teacher. My fault? I wish I could have helped her financially, but I just couldn't.
I'm sorry, but few people are given an opportunity to work. Instead they make that opportunity, and this seems to be a major problem for an awful lot of people. They don't want the long hours, they don't want the hard work or work outside in the rain, sleet and heat, they don't want a demeaning job. Welfare is much easier.
I've been poor - try supporting your family of 4 while paying rent plus a mortgage on a house that renters stay in for a month or two, trash it and leave. All while going to night school to learn a new trade and working as much as 126 hours per week at near minimum wage and not taking a dime of welfare. Been there, done that and came out of 2 years of it with a much different outlook on what it means to be self-supporting as well as an ending paycheck probably in the top 30% for my area. You needn't try to tell me how hard it is to find work or to get training. Or to move; my family simply packed it up and moved across the country without a job prospect 1 in the new area. Both my wife and I had jobs (entry level) within a month and both moved to different ones or advanced rapidly within a couple of years. Those two years, though - well, they were rough. No cell phone, no cable TV, no eating out and no movies. Dishrag soup some nights and the car didn't move but to go to work.
It can be done by someone willing to take on the challenge and work.
...and have faith in our fellow man. You will find some bad guys once in a while... like when I substitute teach. But, in every single class room, the majority of the students are helpful, positive, kind and cooperative.
BTW "Race" is NEVER an issue with the youth here in California where I work. One time my daughter participated in an AME choir. Her friend invited her to join the choir. They are best buds to this day.
Isn't it such a sad statement that those kids are not racist...until the parent makes them that way? White (or dark, or brown, or yellow or red) skin may be of great interest and quite fascinating, but it never seems to occur to a child that it means the person is inferior. It takes an adult to teach them that.
I have a black friend too!
Kids today don't really have the race thing to contend with. It is more of an ingrained idea that ensures the perpetual preservation of the "dominant" species. Lololololol...
However, you had your wife. When your a single parent working and doing everything for your children and home the ballgame changes dramatically.
Is it so hard to establish a committed relationship where an upward momentum is taking place toward definite survival? Before bringing in new souls?
Sometimes its marriage and death of a spouse...or divorce from an ex whose lost interest...there are long lists of reasons in which people of all races find themselves in desperate situations.
I wonder if poverty is the more result of reckless actions than bad luck?
We all have bad luck, even the rich. It's what happens after that bad luck that counts; do you get up and try again or sit back and demand charity?
So yes, it is far more poor choices than bad luck.
That is not surprising. A lot of people who have not had the same struggle (some blacks included) wonder too.
People lose jobs...companies move...people die...nobody knows the future
Fine. Sue the other half for child support.
Actually, I do understand that, but can sympathize only to a limited degree. So the single parent made (several) very poor decisions and choices - is it now up to society to support them for the rest of their lives? I don't see it that way.
And there ARE options - many jobs will allow splitting the task between two people - one can babysit while the other works. Or it can be done with full time work on different shifts.
Spoken like someone who has never had to actually deal with this particular hardship...no there's no jobs you can split up hours with a co-worker in a minimum wage position...And pardon me but have you always made the right choices, whatever that means...And what fault is it of a widow whose trying to raise her children the best she can but needs help with food expenses.
Of course there are jobs like that - my daughter-in-law worked one such for a short time. And why do you insist that they can only do entry level, teen age, work?
Indeed there are widows and such (as well as widowers with kids) and indeed they need help for a time. But if they haven't figured out how to survive without charity after a year or two there is something wrong. Too many people do just that.
Had I made all right choices I would be a multi-millionaire instead of scraping by.
Is it MY fault the widow can't care for her kids? That she and her husband never saved enough to put her through school, or did not have life insurance sufficient to support the family? If not, why am I expected to pay for their bad decisions?
The same reason we are expected to pay for you if God forbid you slip and break your back and become a vegetable and your wife is left to take care of everything on her own...nobody sees anything that isn't happening to them. Holy cow man what has happened to this country I used to treasure...If anyone is down on there luck that's just what they get for all there bad choices right...wow...Judgement day is gonna be a LONG day...
Sorry, but I don't expect you to pay a cent of my costs. I know and understand that is a common complaint - "But I have to pay your medical costs if you can't" - but you don't have to do anything of the kind. That our society is set up that way is by choice, not by any kind of necessity.
Now it would be nice if you did help my spouse/widow, but you are not required to do so and I do not expect you to. You have the choice, not I, and I cannot and will not force you to pay one single penny.
I thought you had a friend on disability and you actually understood that need I am sorry I was mistaken. But it is the people who vote and think the way I vote and think that would gladly do so, no need to twist our arms..hell we're trying to save trees and whales how much more is human life.
The thing is...we have a difference of opinion about the ability to rise above and take your place in the world with bars and antiquated mindsets to contend with because your tan is natural.
You are ignoring the bottom-line question... what about when your skin is blackened? You got twice the troubles...
If you have trouble in you area, move. Extreme racism like that exists but it is rare - find a location where it doesn't happen.
Then start a home business. Run a daycare. Write on HP for goodness sake. Having kids is not a reason to expect some stranger to support you.
You made a valid point earlier about education and that is the answer to poverty and many other ailments of Americas broken system... as many of you who preach on and on about food assistance you do recognize that disability is also a welfare check correct...Free Education would quickly negate the need for food stamps and maybe those on disability could work from those home jobs?
Somewhere back along this thread, I did recognize disability and will reiterate it again - there are people that need help in surviving. They literally cannot hold a decent job due to disabilities either mental or physical. My brother-in-law is one - he had a car engine fall on him and can no longer perform any meaningful work or even find his way home from a job.
It happens and I have no problem with helping those people but they are relatively few compared to the millions upon millions that feed at the public trough. Nor do I have a problem with helping the newly unemployed, or those that have for other reasons been temporarily out of work. I would go so far as to say we owe them more than we give; it isn't right that they lose homes, cars, everything because of a temporary illness, accident or job loss.
But when it goes on for years, it is too far. Somebody isn't trying. Somebody has found out it is easier to sit home and draw welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc. and I draw the line there.
Free education - we require every person to receive that. If one wants college, trade school or other forms, well, there are scholarships, grants, loans and if you don't like those (everyone can get help somewhere) there is always the army.
I understand all your points..I also know, as i have spoken to you many times, you are a very kind and warm person. What I wish I had the eloquence to convey, is all of those answers, the talking points, are easier said than done and most people have no idea. I would say that there are millions of users of help but only a fraction of these people actually make this a lifestyle...that's just a talking point. There is far more corruption in the top of the food chain and starving the poor will not fix this country. Education and health care should be for all, that is the great equalizer.
No, it's not easy. It's very hard, sometimes, to support ourselves, to learn what is necessary to make a good living, to become independent. It is probably the hardest task, except maybe for raising children, we will ever do.
But that "fraction" you speak of is not a small one. It is huge, and it is destroying our country. It is turning us all into a nation of dependents; forever dependent on our politicians and other people that have supported themselves, to support us too. It is not what made this country great - rather it is weakening the country horrifically. When only half the people pay for the operations of the country we ALL depend on there is something very, very wrong and it cannot endure that way.
Actually that is backwards. The top 1% of this country have 80% of the money and are using this money to shape policy and that is what is destroying this country.It's pure and simple Greed...We should as a country teach people how to fish from day one...Being able to go to high school for free is a joke...High school teaches nothing to help a person in the real work world...now we have learned our frontal lobes aren't even formed till we are 25 yrs of age so that answers a lot of those bad choices questions. If we as a country actually shared real Christian love for one another and for our country then we would want to help one another...we would want everyone to have the same opportunities..Most people have very little opportunity and many have lost all hope and hopelessness is enslavement.
I disagree. There is nothing "backwards" about half the country contributing no support to the country as a whole.
High school DOES cost some, but it really is minimal. Only when special classes or sports are optioned does the cost balloon. And without that high school education we have people that can't read a ruler (seen on my job site), can't add 1/2 + 3/4 and can't understand the directions on a prescription bottle. It is absolutely necessary for nearly any job in the country.
If complete brain function was necessary those millions of people, married as teens and totally responsible for their families in the 1800's/early 1900's were not have survived. A poor choice is just that - a poor choice and trying to write it off as immaturity at the age of 20 is ridiculous and no more than an excuse. Which we're getting really good at as a people - no one will take responsibility for their own actions anymore. Always someone else's fault.
If we as a people understood real Christian love for one another we wouldn't be legally stealing from them to benefit a third party we feel bad for. The Golden Rule is well recognized in scripture, yet Christians everywhere seem to feel they have the right to take whatever they wish from other people rather than using their OWN resources. They don't, and the obvious conclusion is that there isn't really much of that vaunted "christian" love.
Opportunity - for the most part we make our own. Don't depend on the world to provide it FOR you - make it yourself. Force the issue (work or starve) and you will suddenly find that that "enslavement" has turned into self support, entrepreneurship and other great attributes. Gone will be the lack of responsibility, the dependency on politicians for food and the lack of productivity/support for our country. Lives will again be meaningful and have a purpose outside of being a couch potato.
It's called "tough love" and it is just as necessary for a population that won't work as it is for a child on drugs. You simply do NOT help people by throwing money at them.
I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you said. High school should start teaching kids actual work skills...College should be free for all who have ability and tech or trade to the rest and then we have full employment opportunity. People living in low standards are only concerned with survival they are not robbing you or anyone else when they eat...that's just a sad statement...Christ would not let people starve Wilderness...Christ said take care of the widows and children...Christ said love one another...Christ said judge not lest ye be judged. Education and healthcare are basic human needs in this day and age in this country. In the 1800's many died...many babies died...people were dead by 40..that's not being noble that was just life. Now we are a super power country and one of the only countries that does not provide free education and healthcare...so I guess our super power status is built on the backs of the poor that you and most conservatives would like to stop caring for...We have left God's will in this country and the stink of this sin has risen to heaven..We are a greedy top heavy country much like Rome and we will crumble from within just like Rome
I'm not sure high school can teach a trade and still teach the three R's that are absolutely necessary for living today. My own trade schooling took 4 years of night school - it could not have been added to a high school curriculum without deleting a good bit of what is necessary. It would be nice, but I'm not sure it is feasible.
And who pays the teachers in your free college? The people that chose not to attend? Who picks up the cost if it is not the recipient of what is offered? What gives you the right to force others to pay for that education?
Christ never intended that there be a sub-class of people, supported and fed by others. Forever dependent on others for their lives. But that is exactly what you are proposing - a sub-class of citizens that simply live off of other people without producing anything of value. Thanks, but that is not a country I would choose to live in.
And finally, bringing religious convictions into the equation, forcing others to follow those convictions, is expressly forbidden in this country. As it should be - every time Christianity or any other religion has been the determining factor of politics that country has failed miserably. Religion must never be allowed to control the people for experience shows it has always led to disaster. But that's another matter entirely and if you wish to debate it we can do so in another thread. This is not an appropriate place to debate whether religion, Christian or other, should be the ruling factor in our political decisions.
Do you know the movie "It's a wonderful life,"..it's my all time favorite Christmas movie and I cry every time I watch. Good ole Jimmy Stewart has some good lines in that movie...such as when he tells off Potter and says he will keep that poor ole savings and loan just to keep people from having to crawl to him and live in his slums...when the run on the bank happens and people flock in for their money he explains how that money isn't in the bank it's in their neighbors homes...Our taxes pay for the education and healthcare just like the rest of the world. Our taxes which build the infrastructure we all share can build the education and health we all share and our country grows stronger because our weakest links grow stronger.
As to My love for God, I am actually a supporter of separation of Church and State, which is why I support choices made by people in their freewill and do not believe in building a Pharisee government like the Republican Party is trying so hard to build.
But, you see, you miss the point. Stewart had the choice to put the money there; you will take it willy nilly, whether the people want to give it or not. You would take Stewarts bank and distribute the funds where YOU think best, instead of where Stewart thinks would yield the best results and do the most good. And you can see this when you think it best to just give the money away instead of requiring something in return. Free this, free that - a life of dependency on you and those that think that way instead of forcing people to stand on their own two feet.
And, IMHO, that way lies disaster, just as feeding money to a drug addicted child does. A country simply cannot survive long term when half it's citizenry lives off the other half (and no, the rich do not live off your work any more than you live off their capital investment).
Actually as a democracy we would all have the opportunities to vote where and how are taxes are spent. All votes should actually count by majority so none of this ridiculous gerrymandering tricks can sway the vote. My point is we are all in this together. Paying taxes that actually improve quality of life in this country takes away all such arguments of welfare because every person has actual equal opportunity so it's sink or swim.
That's the problem with this country,,,"some stranger"...we are all about ourselves and screw everyone else! That stinks and makes me want to move to another country where they actually think as a group, a community, a family...instead of all this "don't touch my stuff...don't ask for my help...don't expect me to care...! Ugh! it repulses me!
Sounds like instead of considering that what is your is yours, you consider that what someone else has worked for is yours. Otherwise you have exactly zero reason to decide that because they don't do with the fruits of their labor what you think they should you are disgusted with them and repulsed.
So be it. What I have earned I, not you or anyone else, has the right to dispose/use or give away and I will continue to fight for that right. You shall not, if I can help it, take it away from me any more than you will give your home to the homeless because I say you should. If you want community goods, start a commune or find a communist nation - don't try to turn this one into such a monstrosity.
Each and every one of us has that right - to give charity or keep it all to ourselves - and you do not have the ethical right to take it to do with as you think should be done. It is rationalized immorality at its worst.
I had higher hopes for you than thinking you would pull the communist card LOL...Did Jesus share? Did Jesus tell his disciples to share? Honey none of that "stuff" is yours..it's all Gods'!
This is where the love of families and churches step in. People who actually care and are WILLING to help due to familial and community connection. That is the real problem. We have become so impersonal in regards to our families and communities. If any of my family members needed help I would help them in a heart beat to the best of my ability. I know a girl who got pregnant and her mother insisted she keep the child and furthermore would help raise it. Well, she is. She is 63 and retired. Her husband is disabled. She took a bus job and is earning the extra money the family now needs. That is the American spirit. Their daughter was NOT encouraged to go on welfare and she works without having gotten a college education. Her love and devotion is amazing to behold in a very trying situation. Amazing.
I agree that is partially the problem...but in a country of this size the churches can't keep up with the hungry. I live in a state with high numbers of food stamp recipients yet the churches and shelters are overrun. There are so many suffering and many are children. Summer is really hard on poor families.
But you can't have everyone help everyone. It is not just. Justice is giving a man what is owed. Why do we owe complete utter strangers OUR hard earned money??
I was trained as a lifeguard. A lifeguard can save no one unless the lifeguard is in a position to do so.
If the government takes my money, I will not be able to help even my own family members.
In fact, due to the current ecomomic situation, I can no longer even donate to the charities I gladly donated to in the past.
For many reasons we need to keep taxes low. Incentive to give to our loved ones and the people in our community is one VALID reason.
Incentive to work is another.
But Kathryn when taxes are shared by all as they should be, a flat tax for all with no refunds, then everyone pays the same percentage and why? Because it is the right thing to do it's just that simple and the right thing to do is always the just thing to do.
Good luck with a flat tax.
Maybe it would be good as long as it is not 50% or more of what we earn.
Good grief no way! I think 10% should be sufficient. Then those who make more pay more and those who make less pay less but everyone pays the same percentage...fair and just.
The numbers I've seen are closer to 20%, if they are true, for a flat tax. And that's with no deductions; the poor will pay the same 20% of anything earned as the rich do.
But why do you consider it fair for one person to pay $100,000 per year in taxes and another to pay $1,000? Both get identical returns (roads, military, police, fire, etc.) so why is it "fair" that one pay 10 times as much for the same result?
We don't require the rich to pay $100 for a loaf of bread just because they're rich; how can we require them to pay extra for the same military protection? All while calling it "fair"?
Easy...it's fair..the same percentage. And 10% would be all that's needed according the statistics I have seen.
Same percentage. Nice words, but rather meaningless to the person actually putting out a hundred or thousand times what their neighbor is for the same services. You and I both know there is nothing "fair" about charging one person more $$ than another for the same thing, whether you like to admit it or not. Again, we don't do it for a loaf of bread or a new lawn mower; why is it suddenly "fair" when it's to pay the tax man instead of the local grocer?
Not that I think we can do any different, mind you - I even support a graduated tax though I don't like it. I just don't try to cover up the crime by declaring it "fair" when it obviously is not. It is necessary to maintain our country, but fair it is not.
Yes it is completely fair! Please your neighbor lol the people making billions of dollars aren't my neighbors are they your? They also get much more use of the infrastructure provided to us all but most of us aren't flying around in private jets are we? Yes wilderness, it's fair
Well must sleep now. Have a great night my friend it's great to see you again:)
Yes, it is bedtime for me, too. Enjoyed the discussion - it's always stimulating and interesting to hear other viewpoints. Good night, Tammy.
How do you figure the rich make billions? No one does that. How do you figure they get more use of the infrastructure? Because they have a jet, which they pay dearly for the use of the airport? Or an expensive car on the road, which they also pay dearly for when it comes time to license it?
What infrastructure do you figure the govt. pays for from taxes but the rich get more use out of?
Your story is exactly right. The girl got help (her mother) but it was help by choice and not by force. Which is what I'm saying is necessary as we do not have the moral right to play Robin Hood.
You guys and your pretty stories...Lord have mercy you will never open your eyes and see the world isn't packaged in these neat little boxes. Everyone that gets knocked up don't have the mom to save the day.Every mom that works her tail off for her kids has no guarantee they won't get knocked up or become drug addicts. Some peoples parents are dead. I mean come on there's so many scenarios here in reality that I could never conceive them all.
Of course there are different circumstances, about as many as there are people. And most of them are being given as excuses for not being self sufficient, but that's all they are. Excuses.
Your wrong about that wilderness..you have no idea
Explain that to the welfare mama, popping out babies every year or two. Or the "disabled" man on the basketball court. Or the illegal alien (yes, they get food stamps, albeit it often illegally). Explain it to the executive out of work for 2 years because McDonalds is demeaning and he won't learn a new skill set. Explain it to the seasonal worker that simply lives on welfare 6 months out of the year instead of switching jobs.
You'll get a great reception because they already think it isn't an excuse.
Do these things happen..yes..does it happen on every level? Corporate welfare for oil companies making profits while the rest of us were losing our 401ks..Agriculural farm subsidies...I mean which do you think is using more money..paying for the poor to eat or for the rich to fly
I don't believe I've ever heard of the govt. sending a check to an oil company as charity. That's a popular myth without foundation.
Farm subsidies are an absolute farce and have no business in our world. If a farmer can't make it growing crops, then let him go bankrupt and someone else take over the task. Just like every other business; subsidies should never be given.
I also don't know of any government checks issued for flying by private citizens. Govt. employees (of which we have far too many) yes, but not private citizens. Even if true, though, we spend far more of our tax money feeding the "poor" than flying people around.
valid point in my opinion: "Which is what I'm saying is necessary as we do not have the moral right to play Robin Hood." wilderness.
I like the idea of Tammy's suggestion: ten percent flat tax.
Tax receipts for the US in 2013 were 2.4 trillion. GNP was 16 trillion and 10% of that is 1.6 T. That's .8T added to an already unmanageable deficit.
You need much more than 10%. I like the idea of a flat tax - send in a postcard with a check each year - but it will mean more than 10%. Which is OK - my federal tax, even at my low level, is more than that.
Wars on credit cards and digging out of holes has hurt us...but we can learn as a country to spend more responsibly and if our voices actually count by majority then this is possible
I'm not sure that is possible with the ever increasing welfare budget. It is an enormous portion of our outgo, and grows every year - we cannot continue to do that and keep our standard of living. A few simply cannot support the many.
The welfare budget will no longer be needed...everyone will be educated and healthy...they will not be loaded down in debts from college or sickness...real growth will be possible and the band aids of welfare no longer needed.
A wonderful dream, but only a dream. You cannot educate everyone (they will refuse), you cannot make everyone lead a healthy life (at least I HOPE govt. can never do that) and you will never convince everyone to work to their potential as long as you feed and house them.
One day we may have the technology to support everyone in luxury on the efforts of only a few, but that day isn't here yet - at our level of ability nearly everyone must be a producer if we wish to maintain our standard of living.
You will not be feeding and housing them anymore Wilderness...with equal opportunity comes equal responsibility. If people refuse education then they choose to be hungry and homeless and the churches can take care of pity or charity then, but the state would have no need to feed and house people who are working in actual living wage jobs
But that's what we have now, that you hate so much. Everyone has the responsibility to care for themselves (and their children); it's just that half of us won't do it. They have the same opportunity in nearly every case, but won't put out the work to take advantage of it, or the risk, and so we cave in and feed, clothe and house them. We'll even provide TV's, cell phones and other luxuries, all because they won't improve themselves and we feel sorry for them.
We do have only ourselves to blame; the tough love concept is a tough one to implement. Necessary, IMO, but very, very hard to do.
You are delusional if you think we all have the same opportunities...and I don't even believe you think that...your far to smart.
So? Which child, at 2 years of age, will never be able to go to school? Which able bodied adult will never be able to land a job no matter how hard they try? Sure, there are some rich folks out there that can do anything they want, but on the whole we all have pretty much the same opportunities; we just don't take advantage of them.
The 2 year old won't finish high school because she got pregnant and threw away her opportunity. The adult that won't come out of the slums won't get a job; he'd rather be in a gang somewhere than work. Opportunities abound, but they must be taken advantage of or they go to someone else that makes better decisions.
We have a tremendous ability to assess the blame for poor choices onto someone else, or onto society or to the neighborhood, but at the bottom it IS a choice. One that could have been made the other way. The girl could have kept her pants on, the adult could have finished high school and gotten out of the slums, by walking if necessary and begging on street corners. Opportunities turned down by making the wrong choices.
THANK YOU, people are poor in the United States because they ELECT/WANT to be, no more, no less. They simply refuse to take responsibility and to be accountable for their lives. They would rather live of others and expect for others to take care of them, providing an affluent life for them. This is the attitude of a lot of the poor in the United States.
I don't know about the "want" part (don't we all want to be rich?), but certainly a lot (not all) is because of an election to be poor. To not work the long days, to not learn a more valuable skill, to live where there are no jobs.
You started on my page! then...
Skills take money. Don't yell government assistance cuz not all minds can do it. No matter how hard they try. And the assistance shrinks daily. The red tape grows daily. I know people right now who haven't the ability to get a $20 id that takes paperwork, that they just don't have, to get... sad but true. And here, it is illegal to NOT carry id. One bump into a cop who swarm his streets...
Only so much you can create, without money, I also know a few people who have fantastic inventive ideas with no MONEY to obtain the expensive patent process which requires a lawyer, who also costs big.
To have/operate a business, you need a license, permit, certifications, blood...or you are once AGAIN illegal. Money, money, money, MONEY (In my best O'jays).
And THAT os JUST the beginning...
Sounds ridiculous to me. All the poor people I know WANT to be rich. Where were you when you took this poll? Watts or Malibu?
None of them feel like a few hundred dollars a month for food amply feeds a family of 3. They hardly feel, "taken CARE of".
All the benevolence is gone. Rich people say, "Let them fend for themselves!" Then they create a system that is often federally regulated to ensure they can't. Men who cannot even dream of a "good" job, becauseof cicircumstances beyond his control, are forced into the Army (if they can pass the tests)??? Or jail?. EVERYTHING (including job searches and interviews) costs MONEY. Many have a problem there...
I'm always surprised by the number of people with good jobs and who lose them during a recession that then go on not to want to work and instead to live in poverty!
What changes them? What turns them from good upright working citizens into leaches? Could it be joy at losing their jobs? Can it be the absolute pleasure of having their mortgage foreclosed?
It is obvious that those who pontificate on the lazy shiftless unemployed have never actually met any, forget having spoken to them in depth and actually got through the defence mechanism that makes a man say he doesn't want to work rather than admit that he just can't find work. After all if he can't find work then it must be nobodies fault but his own. Isn't that so Grace?
Sounds more like greed to me.
The people think that when the disbanding of "help for the people" occurs that they will see more in their own pockets. Lol... they live in America.
We always have other good uses for the citizen's money.
THANK YOU, Wilderness, PREACH, PREACH, PREACH! Tough love NEEDS to be IMPLEMENTED. If people starve, they will LEARN to shape up and do for self. Preach and THANK YOU!
Then it's not yours to take, either. Leave it alone and God will do with it what He wants.
But communism IS what you're advocating; everything in a pot and take what you need. What you earn, or produce or make, belongs to the community and not the individual.
I didn't say that all..I said equal opportunity which is what I believe our Fore Fathers envisioned.
Equal opportunity does not include driving tax rates far over what is necessary to operate the country, just to give it away as charity to people that COULD support themselves if they had to.
If it isn't the recipient paying the cost then it is charity by definition. There is no other way as teachers, doctors and nurses don't work for free, schools and hospitals don't simply spring from the ground at no cost and book and drug companies don't supply products for free. Someone pays for them, and if it isn't the one using the service then it is charity.
Yes, we provide (nearly) free high school as a requirement for the nation to survive. But we already have enough college grads and there is no national reason to supply more than pay for it themselves.
Other countries do this everyday and it works beautifully. I know this country spent its billions in campaign funds and lobbyist money from big drug companies for years now to indoctrinate us that this doesn't work but it does. People get excellent care, doctors make great money, in France they even send you a state paid nanny twice a week after having a baby that will help with cooking and cleaning or just let you sleep. I mean we are brainwashed in this country.
Not on a 10% tax rate, they don't. They are very socialist leaning countries, all of those that demand huge tax rates to pay for the "free" medicine, day care and all the other things the citizens want. If you really want to pay 50% in taxes, or more, then that is quite doable.
Of course, that goes right back to what I said before - to do that you have to demand that I give up half my earnings to support someone else. That I am not competent to decide what to do with those earnings - only the politicians are competent to make that call.
Does Wall Street have any kids? How about foreign aid? Do we care? Or are we just mad about dollars to better our people?
In this state, lottery funds are supposedly going to education. But many Chicago public schools have been closed, and the others are barely scraping by...people still buy lottery tickets daily.
Maybe schools are closing because we support the citizens instead of requiring work (and taxes) from them? What else can you expect when people either don't work or work minimum skill jobs and draw welfare to make up the costs of being alive? No taxes, no schools.
Come again... sorry! You lost me at the ability to pay rent and mortgage.
I left behind a house with a mortgage that I rented out to try and make the payments until I could get it sold. In the meantime I also had rent to pay in the new location.
Back in my liberal days, I worked for a federal welfare agency and visited a lot of the 'poor'. What I discovered was that most were actually just lazy louts who knew how to milk the system. A few were actually needy and could not cope for themselves, but most were folks who would rather sit home and live off the rest of us.
Things are changing though Will, People are made to prove work or volunteer in order to get the help...people are finally being made to take drug tests...regulations are finally starting to work in favor for all...yes I am sure their will still be corruption on the bottom as well as the top.
So how does the single parent volunteer any real amount of time if they don't have the time to work?
Exactly it's a hard thing for them but if there job refuses to give them at least a 30 hour week then they must volunteer the difference.
But you're telling me that single parents can't work at all! Seems to me that if they can leave their kids for 30 hours, they can do it for 40. And that means they can work (learn) their way into a better job over time, too.
I never said they can't work? Some have hard time finding jobs that fit into school and daycare hours and usually end up working min wage jobs...but I never said the couldn't work..only they can't afford to eat.
Tammy, it's primarily because they don't want to. They don't have to earn enough to eat because we'll provide for them so no need to train for new skills, no need to work long hours with a friend baby sitting. No need to change locations and no need to work in undesirable conditions because they will always be fed.
There are very few people that can't move, can't learn new tricks, can't work in the rain. So do it! Do whatever you have to to survive and build a better life instead of sitting back with the perpetual cry of "I can't do it!". Make the hard decisions, do the hard work and make the sacrifices - it will pay off but only if you do it. As long as we allow freeloaders to sit back and refuse to support themselves and their children they will never do anything else.
I think if people have the choices and opportunities most will follow that path and the others will suffer in their excuses, but without having equal opportunity they have nothing to aspire too. If you aren't born into money you will have a hard road to hoe, if your a minority it's even worse, but many such people drag in tired and stinky every night and still can not afford to feed their families.
You speak like the availability of employment is plentiful and people are sitting at home while all these jobs sway in the wind.
If you build it...they will come.
Ok, so you have experience with the people who collect all of the extra monies that we have worked so hard for, and live-it-up off of the sweet carousel that is government aid!!!
Is there ever a check for the family history? Or a probe for depression/hopelessness? Do they try to find out a "good" way to motivate or instruct the individual they serve (keyword)? Or do they stand in the corner shaking their heads with a tsk look of disgust on their faces; at the confirmation of all they thought (in the first place) from watching the news reporters???
Let's say we ban rich people from buying private jets or tax those jets heavily. That mean those who build those jets are out of a job. That also goes for those who build yachts, mansions, etc.
Rich people supply jobs, which is a big part of what makes a capitalistic system so successful. The only time we work for poor people is when the state takes our money in taxation and then pays us to take care of the poor.
And when you complain about big corporations, don't do it on a corporate built high-tech computer using the corporate built internet!
He stands in the burning wreckage surrounded by the starving and declares that capitalism is successful!
Our current poor economy isn't the result of capitalism. It's the result of socialism, brought to us by socialist Democrats and administered by Barack Obama.
The idea that anything in the USA is socialist is laughable and the suggestion that your president is a socialist is hysterical/
No, capitalism is running out of other people money as too much of it is in the hands of too few who sit on it rather than letting it circulate.
Things will continue to get worse.
Socialists never admit failure, so I hardly expected you to agree.
The economic collapse of 2008 was brought on by the failure of the socialist Democrat plot to get poor people into homes they could not afford in exchange for their vote. That was done by guaranteeing bad loans to high risk borrowers (people who had bad credit and no money) and selling them to Fannie and Freddie. When the bubble burst and the bad risk borrowers defaulted, Freddie and Fannie failed, bringing down the whole socialist scheme and throwing the world into a recession.
Socialist Democrats tried to cover up what they had done by pointing to Wall Street, but nothing Wall Street did could have happened without Freddie, Fannie, and the 'Fair' housing programs, all of which were created by the socialist Democrats.
Look it up.
I wish socialism had had all the chances to succeed or fail that capitalism has had, but it hasn't.
All that is left is speculation, mostly by those who have bought the capitalist lie.
Workers owning their own homes is anathema to socialism. The whole idea that banks lending money to those who couldn't afford it was a socialist idea is, frankly,silly.
As I've said umpteen times, the fact that you do not like something does not make that idea socialist. The idea of lending to those who couldn't afford it, rolling those mortgages in with sounder ones was purely a capitalist bank idea. It worked OK as well until the economy started to crash and too many mortgagees defaulted then the whole thing collapsed.
So sorry, no, however much you would like to lay the worlds economic problems at the door of socialism it doesn't work. The blame lies entirely with capitalism.
Where have YOU been for the past 20 years???
This is a LOOONNG time coming. Probably started at that agreement to perpetually borrow paper from them people on the promise that it would be backed by "workers" and then kill to protect it...
Or maybe, it started with the declaration that, "YOU are not fit to sit at my table and eat!!! Nor use a clean toilet with paper supplies!!! Nor use my fountain!!! Or be taught with books like my kids you foul smelling little 5yr old monkey!!! Now go git yo daddy, I needs ma boots licked."
Or maybe it was... I guess that's enough to disillusion anyone! Then teach my kids. And have them teach their kids. Then drop them in a system where it takes education to compete. "They" STILL severely lack in that system. Now, they sit you in a classroom to stare at the clock because teachers now only care if you care, at 8 yrs old. So if you don't learn it, not HER fault. She puts a smiley face on your misrepresented facts, or slaps a big red X, and passes you once you get "too old" for 2nd grade. They call it, No child left behind...
...where does this come from in your life?
I really think the blame needs to be put on your parents.
They will have their jets and mansions at whatever cost. They have an image to uphold. They are not phased by a measly tax hike... or inflation. That stuff hurts the middleman. The worker...
not with capitalism. with the abuse of capitalism… those wearing rosy colored glasses. John looks cool in his but...
Well stop denying that things are capitalist when they clearly are!
Otherwise, explain to me how buying a house with a mortgage fits into socialism.
From MY understanding, they were sold houses that they COULD afford...at first.
Then the prices of whatever balloned and tripled mortgages. I don't think the Democrats have balloon power...
Yes, that was my understanding as well but lets not bog the discussion down with too many facts. They can't deal with them!
I guess we wear the same "cool" glasses. B-)
We get the picture, Cgenaea. Alcohol of some type, rose colored glasses, looking off at the horizon… and yet you complain...
Obamacare is the largest wealth-redistribution, socialist scheme the world have ever seen, and Obama himself is all about wealth redistribution, which is a superb two word description of socialism.
Yet they deny, deny, deny because they will never admit that socialism is always a failed parasitic system that depends on capitalism for its survival. But eventually, socialism always kills the host, and then it too dies.
How is a system that channels even more money into the pockets of capitalists even vaguely socialist?
Socialism does not depend on capitalism for its survival, capitalism kills socialism ever time.
Er, no I've finally got nothing. I've know for at least half a century that the forces of capitalism will do everything in their power to suppress socialism.
And thats a good thing! Yay, you get it!
Why on earth do you think that's a good thing?
Do you think it good that so many should be without work and the means to support themselves?
Capitalism offers the freedom to choose any kind of work you want. Freedom is what facilitates a percolating economy. But freedom needs boundaries. The abuses of freedom is what happened in '08.
Bailing out: another no no. Printing money with nothing to back it: another abuse.
I bet you really believe that as well!
It gives too many the freedom to be left on the scrap heap, and that is not freedom at all.
The scrap heap is where they themselves climbed. I guess they wanted to be there because any kind of climbing takes effort.
What you mean they climbed up there voluntarily when they were discarded by their employers?
Sounds more than a little unlikely to me.
"Discarded". Why would any employer "discard" a good employee unless his customer base fell, making it imperative to cut production and costs?
Maybe he found he could get the job done cheaper by using Asian children?
The whys and wherefores aren't so important to the man on the scrapheap though/
that is an abuse of capitalism. it's not capitalism which is the problem. it's doing unethical things: lack of morality.
But I'm afraid it does have to be. There is no room for morality in capitalism.
Do you buy imports? Then you are guilty of just that action, for it is ultimately the consumer, not the business, that causes such action.
So the consumer forces the corporations to shift their production over seas!
I find that hard to swallow.
Really? Moving overseas is a great imposition and a lot of work. Simply adjusting to a new culture is enormous, let alone the capital costs involved. There is absolutely no reason to do so (and suffer the negative consequences) outside of competitive pressure. Meaning the consumer demands the lower prices; prices that are not available with double and triple the labor costs of the competition.
So, the business moves - because the consumer demands it. You buy imports at a cheaper price than home made and that makes you a part of the problem.
You know, I've never gone into a shop and demanded that they stock Kenyan beans because they can make more profit on them.
On a broader base, I've never demanded that more important purchases should be imported to save me a few bob.
Strange that the costs would be lowered with all that moving and culture shock... seems if SUCH an imposition, people would have to pay more for importation. Then we could all buy at home. For much cheaper without the xanax.
Consumers buy what is available. They don't stock the shelves.
it was your analogy. maybe you meant they fell into a gutter. (for the above reasons mentioned by wilderness)
...take it away, wilderness.
No, you said "The scrap heap is where they themselves climbed." not I.
Oh, you are right, You said they were LEFT on the scrap heap... in other words dropped on top of one. My badness.
Once dropped, they can swiftly end up tumbling to the bottom. We're clear.
who is not standing up? - stop with the smiley faces already!
There you go again... I have smiled throughout this conversation. I cannot help it... it's funny to me sorry if jovial bothers you "cocktails and beer..."
Ha Ha! "stop with the smiley faces already!" Ha Ha!
And this from the definition lady...
ps. Chill Kathryn, it was a joke, a good natured rib... I hope you take as friendly as it was tendered. "
...of course, especially considering the amount of enhancement you are consuming.
This country pumped more into Wall Street and a couple of wars that never should have happened than they would even consider for "bailing out" the school system and boosting jobs.
"Sounds ridiculous to me. All the poor people I know WANT to be rich."
Wanting is not enough. Becoming wealthy requires learning a skill, taking risks, and lots of hard work.
Wanting to be wealthy without working for it is why most lottery tickets are sold to the lower middle class.
When I was running big construction crews, I used to offer the 'Will work for food' guys standing on the street corner a good paying job (from $15 to $20 an hour), but not one of them ever took me up on it, because they could make $10 an hour begging and not have to work.
That must've been about 5-7 guys? What were their homes like? Were they sane? Any illnesses? Any disabilities? Clean clothes? ID? From this state, city, country?
Seems it not right to assume anything. Like they make most of the money so they're happy. But maybe they are. A better question though is, do they collect government assistance? That's what we're discussing.
- we are discussing racism as a tool. You have brought it to a black and white issue, which in these days is archaic.
- not to mention very detrimental.
ANYONE can find themselves down on their luck. We are are all given a deck of cards and NO ONE one is born with all aces.
Some people are born with all middle cards. Which works well in NO game.
No one is equal in circumstances or outcome. But in this country with our Constitution we are given the opportunity to make something of ourselves. You just have to believe that
and Stand Up.
A kid with poor nutrition, an untreated illness like glue ear making them effectively deaf, and a terrible local school is arguably not given that opportunity at all.
Your country has much less social mobility than most European countries.
The Constitution was built for the equally created. Not the yardworkers (my crew).
oh, Brother! You create your own reality. Not a good one at all. But, have at it, if you insist!. Just remember, in the end you'll have only yourself to blame.
I have a remarkably beautiful outlook Kathryn; you remember me. $mle.
That thing I have is unbuyable. My daily needs are met!!! (simile)
Still don't make the systems of things not WHACK for others. God taught me to (milee) in spite of every circumstance. The joy is not in what man can see. I'm grateful! I just gotta let it out
Dahhhhh! I almost made it...
I swear a solem oath, that if you post a sign saying, "Guaranteed job making minimum wage @ least 30 hrs per wk." In Chicago South side suburbs... the line would wrap around you so many times, you'd have to cut traffic. THAT is how desperate people have become. The jobs say no. They don't even call... you know the crap is on-line now.
"You started on my page! smile then...
Skills take money. Don't yell government assistance cuz not all minds can do it. No matter how hard they try. And the assistance shrinks daily. The red tape grows daily. I know people right now who haven't the ability to get a $20 id that takes paperwork, that they just don't have, to get... sad but true. And here, it is illegal to NOT carry id. One bump into a cop who swarm his streets...
Only so much you can create, without money, I also know a few people who have fantastic inventive ideas with no MONEY to obtain the expensive patent process which requires a lawyer, who also costs big.
To have/operate a business, you need a license, permit, certifications, blood...or you are once AGAIN illegal. Money, money, money, MONEY (In my best O'jays). smile
And THAT os JUST the beginning..."
In the UK the government actually prevent the unemployed from retraining!
There are many cases of men retraining and then losing their benefits because by retraining they are deemed to be unavailable for work.
You couldn't make it up.
Same here... while monies are available for training (for the right individuals), you are not eligible for government benefits like unemployment or welfare (technically), as a student.
True, at least to a point. You can't double dip, getting training funds PLUS eating money, but you can go to night school while drawing unemployment. As long as you are available for work you won't lose that insurance plan you've already paid for. And if you join a union the union will often pay the training costs (or supply the training itself) while you draw unemployment.
"How is a system that channels even more money into the pockets of capitalists even vaguely socialist?"
Because it's massive wealth redistribution. It works by making the middle and wealth pay more for their premiums and far more in taxes in order to redistribute money to the dependent classes to pay their premiums for them.
We also just learned that Obama is secretly funneling vast amounts of taxpayer money to bail out insurance companies, to prevent soaring insurance rates occurring just before the elections.
But capitalism is predicated on wealth redistribution! Without wealth redistribution there would be no capitalism.
And how is funnelling vast sums into insurance companies, overtly or covertly, socialism? Again, it is capitalism. Socialism would nationalise your health service and your insurance companies, it would not plough more and more money into the shareholders pockets.
You do understand that a mutually agreed trade, with a mutually agreed equal value on both sides, is not a redistribution of anything? It's called capitalism, not socialism where pricing is set by committee and has nothing to do with value.
But where is the mutuality?
And as for price setting by committee, why do you think that prices are so similar over the capitalist system?
Presumably our consumers are smart enough not to consistently trade for something of far lesser value. They either agree with the value or don't trade. Not always true, I know - there are both con artists and really stupid people out there, but in general that's how it works.
Umm - because of competition? The cost of a product is somewhat variable by company and efficiencies, but only somewhat. Of course, that "somewhat" is what competition is all about and why several companies will compete to make and sell the same product.
At least in the US it is highly illegal to collaborate on setting prices (for any but the sellers of labor, anyway) and companies face stiff fines when it is discovered. No committees setting prices, in other words.
I think most consumers thought processes are more like "do I want it" and "can I afford it" and don't think too much about the value.
Cartels are illegal in most countries, they still happen though.
If the consumer wants it bad enough they will set a higher value on it. That's how value is set, after all - how much do you want it - by the consumer. The seller, of course, must factor in how much it cost them, and how little they want it. For the manufacturer, they don't want it at all but must consider the cost they paid. For the consumer selling an item, they consider the cost they paid plus their desire to retain it.
This is all very simple, and does not need a government to tell the consumer the value that that consumer places on an item. For example, I don't need a dress and will put a value low enough that I could make a good profit by finding another consumer that will assign a much higher value - I've done similar things on eBay. I DO need a car, though, and have paid over the accepted KBB value (standard in the US) because I really liked the car and wanted it bad. A fair trade - the seller assigned a value I agreed with and we made the trade, all without some government official telling me I can't buy it because the price is too high.
Of course cartels happen; it's a part of why we have law enforcement and jails. Doesn't change the basics of capitalism, though.
"Of course cartels happen; it's a part of why we have law enforcement and jails. Doesn't change the basics of capitalism, though" and who controls law enforcement and jails? Oh, its the government! Which you claim we don't need because nice capitalists would never set up cartels and oligarchies.
Look at the new "must haves" launched at high prices to take advantage of those who must be first only to come plummeting in price once demand slows down. That isn't consumer lead.
"They will have their jets and mansions at whatever cost."
They earned them. Rather than envy them and hate them you should remember your own words:
"All the poor people I know WANT to be rich."
So you wouldn't hate it if YOU were rich. You just hate those who worked for what they have because you don't have it.
Who are the greedy persons here? Those who worked hard for their money or those who did nothing but think they should have a share of it anyway?
Now you're plain wrong. I hate no one. I envy no one. Let them have their jets (though half of jet owners "earned" nothing). The idea is, jobs for all people. No jobs? Help for all people. That's it. I have no idea how it sounds logical that people would rather stack their cash while people across the street (from the White House even) starve, or climb every mountain for a sandwich.
We come here to learn to use our will, our concentration, our powers... not to sit about drinking cocktails or beers watching the horizon without a care in the world.
We all have different reasons for being here. Cocktails and beer aint so bad... lol...
Neither are Stolis Martinis - my favorite forum accompaniment.
Mr. Anderson.......now the forums aren't that bad. I go into the forums full throttle.......I SAY BRING IT ON! Yeah, BRING IT OOOONNNNNN......I'M READY, I'M SO PRIMED.........
Bad? They are great! That's why I reserve my martini time for them. As an enhancement - not an anti-depressant!
Those who find themselves to be without money for whatever reason need to find ways help themselves so others don't have to. Why should strangers look out for them when they can't even get their own family members to help them? If the government did not help them, family and community would. And why should I work for those who care not for ME in the slightest????
And if the family and community are all in the same boat, who helps then?
If the country is failing because of excessive socialism, then it's just tough luck for you. Happens every time people decide that others OWE them a living, just for being alive. Eventually that society fails - you can see that in several of the EU.
No, it is not excessive socialism that is causing failure but excessive capitalism. You can't have an excess of something that does not exist and socialism does not exist in either of our countries.
Welfare for the unemployed is strictly a capitalist tool, keep them fed just enough to keep them quiet.
That's really odd from someone promoting government health care. And government control of prices, government jobs, government this and government that. Just look around at the EU; Greece is in trouble because citizenry demand money for nothing. So are several more - all socialist concepts and all causing the country to fail.
True, it is tempered with capitalism, just as the US is tempered with socialism. The only real difference is how far towards the respective sides the countries are, and Europe tips far towards socialism compared to the US. The people WANT a nanny government, get it and are surprised when it doesn't work. It doesn't take very much of "Give me your earnings to redistribute as I wish" to ruin a country, both financially and socially. It can work, and work very well, in small populations, but will inevitably ruin whatever it touches in larger populations, mostly due to the stifling of innovation and work ethic.
"...mostly due to the stifling of innovation and work ethic," which can only thrive in liberty.
...of course liberty requires the boundaries of common respect and the decent treatment of all. One cannot just do as one likes. One must consider the effects of one's actions upon others: both individuals and as society as a whole.
Morals and ethics must come into play and do come into play in the business world.
30 days in the hood! Meet at least one who could show around. Open the mind (I mean brain). Be free to see what it is you speak of more clearly. Spend some time at the churches. There are plenty. Take notes.
I spent some time in the churches... the 'enlightenment" I came away with? Black folks go to church on Sunday - all day long!
I went because a black employee invited me, (I know they never thought I would accept), and I loved their service... for the first two or three hours... then, well, I am not that religious anyway.
ps. no, some of my best friends aren't black.
Tell me about it. That doggone church service will drive you to drink. Lol... "Laaaawd this anna Lawwwwd that" for 27 hours... I meant go BEFORE service. Save yourself... lol
A lot of them are trying. A lot of them have the same struggle. They know...
Greece in trouble for many reasons including none payment of taxes, high interest rates charged by banks, banks doing dodgy deals, not because citizenry demanded money for nothing. That all smacks more of capitalism than socialism.
In what respect is the US tempered with socialism?
Cuz deys standin ova me, Ma'am! Whips and guns in their hands; cotton in mine. Threats o'killins all ma days.
"How did the proletariat originate?
The Proletariat originated in the industrial revolution, which took place in England in the last half of the last (18th) century, and which has since then been repeated in all the civilized countries of the world."
Thank the industrial revolution, John. Yer people started it.
Parents cannot just hand their children over to the public school system with total faith that all is fine. They knew all was not fine. Did you complain then, Cgenaea? If not, why not? All parents need to be responsible for their children's upbringing.
In my neck of the woods, people HAD to hand their children over to something. They have long commutes and hours at work slaving to provide. In the 70's it was ok. Teachers cared. And I was a great student innately. My older brother wasnt so lucky. We have much different school stories. Me learning all I could because I could; he outside in the mobile homes (LD classes) with videos and puzzles.
I have education that surpasses yours though. Do we "blame" your parents???
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. My dad should have helped me more because he could have. But, I needed moral support more than financial, ultimately.
No thing for BC. He don't care, remember? He never gave me much. I started working at 15. At which time I was required to pay rent if it meant half my pay. And buy my own car and clothes. Uh...which of us is the pitifulest again??? I just can't tell anymore. only difference is education and skin color. Though the tables seem out of line. (Smile) lol...
Parents are responsible for their own children. To make taxpayers responsible will not help the situation going on in this family. Give me a break!
Succinct and very spot on, Kathryn. So many parents unthinkingly have children without the F.E.P. plan. The F.E.P. plan(my acronym) is having children only when parents are financially, emotionally, and psychologically prepared to raise them. There are parents who have children willy nilly without concerns regarding as to how the children will be taken care of.
I staunchly believe that if one cannot afford to have children, then DON'T have them, pure and simple. You are correct Kathryn in that parents should be responsible for their children, not the government, not the relatives but THEIR parents. If one cannot socioeconomically provide a good life for his/her children, then don't have them. So many parents have children irresponsibly and it is the taxpayer who ultimately pays for them.
Besides that, people should not have children until they are established educationally and careerwise. Children should also be wanted and planned. There are so many ways that if parents planned, organized, and strategize, children would not be born into problematic environments.
Also( I am Black so I am qualified in stating this) there are Black people who have a victimology consciousness and mindset. It goes particularly for Blacks in the lower socioeconomic strata. They contend that they are modern day slaves who cannot succeed because of THE MAN. They are of the school that success is beyond their purview. That is why President Obama, Reverends Jackson, and Sharpton appeal to them. They contend that Obama, Jackson, and Sharpton miraculously will lift them up out of poverty. They feel that they are impoverished because they are "held down" and "held back" by THE MAN and not themselves.
Truth for the manner, many lower socioeconomic strata Blacks hold themselves back by their victimology mindset. They see poverty as a normative way of life. Although there is opportunity, they do not wish to improve themselves because that will involve work. They would rather take the easy way out. Also many lower socioeconomic class Blacks have more children than they can adequately support and educate. They unthinkingly have children without considering the ramifications of their actions.
They inculcate their children negatively regarding social mobility and the importance of education. They contend that education is a waste of time and that to be street is far more important than being smart. Any teacher who teaches in the inner city schools have to contend with children who hate education. These are the children who beat other children who want to learn and improve themselves. These are the children who see being real as being ignorant and being intelligent as being white. Many of the problems in the lower socioeconomic class Black community is now mostly of their own doing. It is time for lower socioeconomic class Blacks to leave their negative inculcation behind. The game has been played out.
Many Black Americans are still in psychological chains resulting from slavery. It is time for Black Americans to stop using the slavery card. Black Caribbeans and Black Africans also endured slavery but many Black Caribbeans and Black Africans in America have surpassed Black Americans educationally and socioeconomically. While the former have a victimology psychology, mindset, and consciousness, the latter don't, oftentimes seeing America as a land of opportunity and promise which the latter groups imbue to their children.
Yes! You are (half) right!!! Psychological chains. Nothing + nothing = nothing.
If we have nothing inside, we can get nothing outside. Let's think about that for a moment. My heart cries out to them as we speak. Nothing inside. Blame does absolutely no good. Solution does. If we leave them (us) to themselves; what happens??? To them... to society...
Cut the welfare programs, without first providing work...this town aint seen the destruction... they would need them martial law tru... uh-oh!!!...maybe, just maybe we have found the point for all of this...
And that is what I have said time and time again to deaf ears. Most welfare is capitalist social engineering designed to keep the proles in their place and not disturb the money too much
I hate "kudoes" responses. But that is one damn succinct statement! I can't wait to see the "defenders" attack the reality of that observation.
...repeating with huge agreement: "It is time for lower socioeconomic class Blacks to leave their negative inculcation behind. The game has been played out."
The job pool is small. People are divided. There are no resources. There is red tape that people do not know how to navigate to tap into learning how to create one's own wealth legally without sanctions and fines and tough regulatory practices. There are no resources.
People have become catatonic by constant restriction. Constant let down. No after no...
Some people are not able to come to the mindset that you have because of their own worldviews. Hopelessness runs rampant.
It was set up this way...
Sure it was set up that way. Tell that to the young white man that sees affirmative action happening when he is turned down for a minority (very often less qualified) simply because the law requires a certain percentage. Explain it to him that it is set up so blacks will always fail as he pounds the pavement, turned down time after time for jobs, college admittance, etc. but keeps looking.
"The idea is, jobs for all people."
Then support getting government off the backs of business, lowering taxes, and putting a halt to onerous regulations.
American corporations pay the highest tax rate in the world, so they have to move offshore in order to compete. Democrats whine about that, but they know very well that they are to blame.
But capitalism depends on a large pool of unemployed to keep wages low.
...guess the country feels like if you are savvy and smart enough to make lots of money from its people; you should be first to give back. Sounds fair to me. But no. Most would rather move, keep all their dimes and sell to us from abroad to keep from being "robbed" of your money you got from the people. (Not you, of course.)
Who do you want to lower taxes for?
And yes, there are a lot of "onerous" and silly "social engineering regulations," (and taxes), but you should be a little more specific because that are a lot of regulations, (especially in the financial sector), that need to be a little more onerous.
As for American corps paying the highest taxes in the world - you should a little deeper into that subject - because it is not true.
"No, it is not excessive socialism that is causing failure but excessive capitalism."
Show us your evidence for that claim.
There is no classic socialism, because the means of production are still in private hands...so far. But socialism is also defined as taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole, despite income, contribution, or ability, AKA: wealth redistribution.
You know very well what we mean by socialism, so you can stop your childish little games.
Liberty to you is being forced to work for a low wage that does not provide for the minimum needs.
"But capitalism depends on a large pool of unemployed to keep wages low."
Utter nonsense. Capitalism depends on entrepreneurism, investments and growth. Wages are a direct reflection of that growth in the form of supply and demand. Create a booming economy with a demand for labor and watch wages soar.
Barack Obama has created an atmosphere that severely limits growth, and the resulting drastic lowering of the average income of Americans is the result of his business unfriendly, 'social and economic justice' ideology.
If government lowered tax rates on business and investment and simply got out of their way, the economy would come roaring back.
What is so hard to understand about that? To get out of the way for the purpose of more FREEDOM! (Within appropriate boundaries)
WillStarr, you really should look a little deeper into this business taxes and regulations issue. For all the EPA-type snail darter regs., and other silly business regs. that make the news - looking silly of course - there are many much more important areas where the regulations are written by the businesses themselves. Or are non-existent.
As an official Curmudgeon, the financial market(s) are one of my favorite targets - and guess who the loudest complainers are about excessive taxes and "onerous" regulations - business in or involved with the financial sector.
There are a lot of good books written by both insiders and oversight analysts that will, (I think), really offer you a different perspective. Or at least pose the right questions for you to consider in your pro-business perspective. I would be glad to recommend one book in particular, (as it deals with sub-primes and the housing bubble, a topic you appear to have interest in) - Chasing Goldman Sachs - by Suzanne McGee
ps. I too am a pro-business capitalist kinda guy - just not one that swallows sound bites as gospel.
The solution is, as the familiar phrase goes... "follow the money!"
Forget rants about manufacturing regulations or permit hurdles, or even OSHA standards - most of those are probably justified. Look to the big money market regulations. Of course my first finger is pointed to the financial sector, but the next couple are pointed to the pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors.
Would you believe how surprised people would be that a simple piece of legislation related to corn or soy bean seeds could affect people and entire communities, and... entire states... just because some genetics-modifying company had the political clout to shape regulations on their activities? $100 million for lobbyists is peanuts compared to the tens of billions in payoffs to the industry.
That is just one "under the radar" example. I would venture that in almost any industry, government endeavor, or "innovative technology" - if you want to get the real truth - follow the money!
"… a simple peice of legislation which some genetics modifying company had the political clout to shape…" Where did the genetics modifying company get this so called "political clout?"
We can't have freedom without boundaries. Capitalism works just fine… within boundaries of common sense, common decency, morals and ethics and everyone holding everyone accountable.
vote 'em out.
It's okay to be "racist" (very bad word) against corrupt politicians.
In the 1970s the then socialist labour government of the UK realised that wages were a contribution to inflation and gave up their aim for full employment as an easy means of controlling inflation. Needless to say it didn't work, it had absolutely no effect on inflation. What it did do was drive wages down and prices up.
Although statistically business tax rates in the US are the highest in the world, few actually pay them either in full or in some cases, at all.
If government lowered the tax rates on business and investment the economy would not come roaring back, you would end up as a very large Greece where tax evasion was rampant.
Whomever does not value helping, just because, loves themselves alone. And what type of society is that?
It says in the bible to make enough money to help the poor... those temporarily in need. Not give it to the govt. to distribute (or not) as they see fit.
But can you differentiate being forced to "help" according to someone else's idea of what should be done and doing it yourself, as YOU think should be done? Does the hidden politician buying votes know better who needs help and how much, or do you?
People are forced to pay for war; own a home; buy jets for Senators. Why is there a problem with giving people basic food assistance and heathcare?
So, if I find work for you and you do not like it, then what?
I can get you trained to be a corporation guy… masters, technical know how… it 'll take about six years. I'll give you the corporate job… okay? You wanna get up every morning for that? You'll be making the big bucks! Why not?
Sorry, I forgot. "Find appropriate work"
Okay, so this person (or force) who will find us appropriate work… who (or what) the heck is it?
When the establishment fails to provide let the government provide.
But, then you will have that master you mentioned.
is exactly the point, by the way.
(we usually say "for Pete's sake." what is a pitie's sake? for the sake of pity? sympathy?)
The balance is to have to call a man master for the least time.
Interests is exactly what point?
Yes, for the sake of pity. I suspect Pete's sake is a corruption
So, you now understand that, ideally, what the individual decides becomes the establishment and then upon collective agreement becomes the government! The INDIVIDUALS that make up a society have the power.
To give them the freedom to *act of their own accord* allows them to find the work of their choice and be happy. If ANYONE else (or force) finds them their work they are not free and THEREFORE not happy!
Yay! now you've definitely got it! Right? How could you not? Now that you understand, I never have to come onto HubPages Forums again!
YAY for me!!!
- all you have to do is agree with me and I shall never return to the forums!
You will be rid of me forever!
That means NEVER speaking/keyboarding of the need for America,(or any other country... since I also love the world,) becoming socialistic again!
Socialism does not guarantee happiness.
And capitalism does not guarantee happiness
Socialism doesn't actively prevent it though.
Oh, good grief! and no one is paying me for this exhausting
and time-consuming vigil.
What is wrong with capitalism?
"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." Dictionary
The only thing wrong with it,
are bad men and women breaking of the boundary
of the universal principle
What is wrong with capitalism?
How about because it is "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
Private interests are not our interests.
...uh, only if you agree that capitalism is good and socialism is bad.
Good for what? Happiness.
Bad for what? Happiness.
Who decides what makes us happy?
Only we ourselves.
we as INDIVIDUALS...not the establishment or the government.
Liberty allows us to choose work to help ourselves by helping others in any way we so CHOOSE!
Liberty offers freedom of choice.
- okay, I'll go first: By allowing to individual to choose his own work.
How does socialism offer freedom of choice?
Over the years I have known hundreds of talented artists, musicians, writers, engineers, horticulturists and more who would strongly dispute your statement.
By only requiring enough work to cover your need and not the needs of none productive leeches workers would have a lot more time to follow their desires.
A capitalistic society offers freedom? I maintain that the capitalistic the nation the less actual freedom people have. No one actually has the freedom to pick any job they want, that's silly. I don't decide to become a surgeon today and I don't have the necessary skill set or money to be able to afford the education as the school that supplies the education are not funded by taxes and therefor are way to expensive from someone working a minimum wage job without supporting parents. One would also not have the freedom to quit the job because one would lose the medical insurance.
Now, when a government jumps in and regulates corporations and supplies a few necessities suddenly we have more freedom, freedom to perhaps get that education or quit that job and start a business without the fear of losing medical insurance.
Minimum wage jobs provide MEDICAL insurance??? Well I'll be... oh! Canada.
Here is something interesting. The province supplies medical insurance but that doesn't include dental, prescriptions or eye care, but my kid who works part time at the local grocery store is given additional insurance that covers those things.
Do grocery store jobs do that here? I wonder. I really don't know, but it sounds dreamy.
Canada is calling with all its dreamy, (probably very low paying,) grocery store jobs. And just think! Anyone who moves to Canada can drink all the alcohol they want, wear their rose colored glasses and have as much "fun" as they possibly can! No consequences! YaY! Just freedom… just... oh good grief… I just wanted to take a peek… good bye... I'm going…
oh, my gosh...
You are starting to sound like a preJudge. Ass-u-mer-like...
Is it the education thing??? I take it back... my education is just as measly...
Well lets see. I'm willing to bet that that same minimum wage job pays about $3 more per hour and supplies benefits, because it has to.
My people may "choose" to see a doctor if somethin's ailing them.
They may also "choose" to stand in line hours long, to apply for food. And hope they crossed their T. Some just would not have it otherwise... What happened to all the llove for the starving children that God turned his back on??? Oh...we were talking about the ones way over there that we'd like to help. "The ones here can just kiss my... call their damn daddy if they can find him... if not...not my problem... starve right where you stand... I gots ta go ta wurrrk...
NOTHING'S wrong with capitalism, it is indeed BEAUTIFUL.
Yup. If government would just get out of the way, capitalism would restore America to the greatest country on Earth, and it would do it in an amazingly short time.
As it is, we have an 'income redistribution/social justice' far left nincompoop in charge and he wants to 'fundamentally transform' America into a third rate banana republic. Only the dependent class still supports him.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! See Will, there are people who believe that the WORLD or SOCIETY owes them. Well, NO ONE owes ANYONE anything. How sad that some people refuse to realize this. No one is entitled to what another person works hard for, it is HIS/HERS.
Curious, is that just an emotional statement or can you prove that factually?
America came to be the greatest country on Earth because we all were free to pursue our own self interests in a capitalistic economy. That is simply undeniable, so the only way the far-left can dispute it is by revising history.
Of course they can also attack the notion of pursuing 'self interests', but do they really think socialists have no self interests to pursue? Do they think Putin has no self interest?
Wait you are listing Putin as a socialist now... You do realize he is right wing right?
This is the party Putin leads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Russia
Notice core ideology: Conservatism
Of course socialists have THEIR self-interest, they want everyone to be as socialist as THEY ARE. They want so-called equality i.e. the cult of non-achievement and anti-success for everyone as they are anti-achievement and anti-success. The inverse logic of socialists, LIEberals, and the left is completing astounding to say the least.
America was the greatest nation on Earth when it was the most progressive nation on Earth ie. under the new deal under which the USA became the most productive nation in the world at one point outproducing the whole planet, then it was slowly overtaken by more progressive nations.
Greatest country on earth? Just how is that measured. Are you number one in education, healthcare and standard of living?
Right, lets get rid of taxes, have no police, no roads and no schools. It's all your money, no need to share. BTW, when it's stolen who will you call?
Owe seems like such a strong term there.
No one (that I have heard) said anything about owe. Now, think about this for a moment...where does the money from sales tax go to? Can't be poor people, the country makes "free" money off of each and every sale. And speaking of feeling entitled...them so and so's will freeze up ALL yo hard-earned dollar flow AND put you in jail...
The food stamp recipient, will only run with your purse... lol...
Speaking of sales tax...who is "helped" by those dollars? They tax the shit out of cigarettes and liquor here... Guess the poor man probably DOES pay his own way... lol
Just kidding about the stereotypical illustrations. Black (the poorest) people are beautiful and talented. They just po' here... well not gm. But most of the others.
To admit that they are poor in spirit (get your mind off of Jesus Wilderness) and realize the mindsets passed down; then cry aloud that they should DO SOMETHING with their not only broke, but BROKEN selves, is -100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! To the nth power.
Indeed like that totally free market economy Somalia no government interference at all... but it's the poorest country on earth...
If you grew up in America then you either benefited off that system or grew up incredibly privileged. It's oh so easy for those born into privilege to argue they deserve that they have is it not?
That's right, corporations are looking out for our best interests. LOL.
Virtually everything you own, including the computer you used to attack corporations, was supplied by the very corporations you just attacked!. Hatred of corporations was fostered by the idiotic progressives who would take us back to the stone ages. Use your head, man! Think!
Yeah man don't you know that progressives would have you back in the stone ages! Progressives like Bill Gates presumably.
Progressives are on average much wealthier and better educated than conservatives so you tell me who is more stone age.
You didn't answer my question. Are corporations looking out for your best interest? Wait, where was this Apple Mac built and where were the parts built?
As I already said, we all look out for our OWN self interests, which is what makes capitalism thrive.
I love that line, it's not what you believe at all it doesn't extend to you, if say Eminem and his posse (to use a random ridiculous example) came round and took your house and everything you own you would absolutely expect someone to protect you and others to pay for that police force, but for things that you don't need like free education because you were too privileged or are past school age well those are just evil.
It's hypocrisy made into a political viewpoint.
Also it doesn't work.
It was built by a bald eagle that weeps the constitution whenever it sees Obama because corporations are good, it definitely isn't built in sweat shops in China (probably the US's biggest global rival) where they had to install nets to catch people jumping off the roof because the suicide rate was so high.
or here is a novel idea: everyone find their own work based on... ROLL THE DRUMS… their own
i n t e r e s t s
! ! !
SNIP < "When the establishment fails to provide let the government provide."> SNIP
we will need neither when …ROLL THE DRUMS…
Decides For Himself!
by feenix24 months ago
I am a black man and I have been living for nearly seven decades. Thus, I am well aware that a considerable number of white law-enforcement officers are racists. However, racist white cops are not the ones making...
by ahorseback2 years ago
First , I do ask this honestly ! ....... Will we as Americans , black , yellow , white or blue , ever be able to look at truths , real statistics , and hard facts , and ever be able to...
by SPomposello3 years ago
My wife and I are an interracial couple, I'm italian and she's black/spanish mixed, and we live in NY. So I pretty much have no issues when it comes to different races and people. I work at a job that involves dealing...
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … s_sub.htmlBeck once called Obama a racist and I disagreed. Beck later apologized for his remarks but now I wonder was he right? If Obama isn't a racist he sure likes to...
by Ronnie wrenchBiscuit9 months ago
The United States government, and the media, are filled with professional liars. This is not surprising, especially in government. Many elected officials, like Hillary Clinton, are former lawyers, and American lawyers...
by GA Anderson11 months ago
In a conversation about racism in America today, a young relative, made this statement'"It is worse than it was six years ago!"It took me a moment to catch his drift. He is a young, (many times naive),...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.