Good point about corporate welfare. Here’s a novel idea why not have a free enterprise system where corporations are expected to live or die on their own? Many of the corporate giants get fat sucking on the tit of the big government that they love to bash at the same time.
The stats came from HHS Administration for Children and Families. The most recent I found online was 2002. But the trend has been steadily downward from the peak of 14 million recipients in 1993 to under 5 million for a good bit of 2002. Minimum wage jobs at McDonald’s and Wal-mart and the like have replaced public welfare.
Yes I do. Anyone who has talked to me online knows I have very poor control over the English language.
That would ruin the reasoning behind my post. I had no intention of obfuscating anything.
Take the time? The original post is a little to the top. One would assume that the reader has already read your original post.
I did wish to insult your depressing view of life and if that constitute a “real problem” than it appears it was a success. Would it not be “twisting” your words if I would have done something like this…
I don’t see much difference from what I did. My way saved room. Either way these are things you yourself said.
This is as good advice as any and with time maybe I will. Though I doubt that I will ever abandon my “hamhanded schoolyard efforts” they seem characteristic of myself and my general demeanor.
Indeed this is sound advice- as were my suggestions for you. But with all this said I still feel like you have reflected or disregarded my main point.
Your main point is based upon cutting and editing to suit what you want. It has no basis upon what I wrote. You wrote what was in that quote, not I. You commented on your quote that you tried to attribute to me. Sorry it don’t wash.
Comment on what the person actually said not what you try to twist and mangle.
I did not say what you quoted , period. ROFL good try though.
I deny the quote as you wrote it. The context is not mine nor is the quote.
The words you just put down I did say those. but, they are not in context, they bear a different meaning by themselves. A sentence twisted out of a paragraph can bear a different meaning by itself. This is a tactic that is used to mislead, enflame and create smokescreens from true intent. Old tactic, it is handled much better by lawyers and newspeople. I do hope niether is your profession for you need much more practice.
You are responsible for your every utterance. The words you use and do not use say volumes. The same, of course, can be said for me or anyone else.
Combine what I (miss)quoted of you with your fanaticism regarding this topic and it becomes clear, to me at least, that the outlook to which you subscribe is both sad and pathetic. Now in justification of my, perhaps inflammatory, claim of fanaticism I direct you to one of the things you said in response to Xunzian…
WTF. Where did that come from? Not once did I remotely get the impression that Xunzian suggested any of the things you claim. If you responded this way in public I would definitely think you a loon. I could have addressed this instead of just quoting and then attacking you I but choose not to- my reasons were three fold:
It was obvious you are such an ideological zealot that you wouldn’t be able to respond in any meaningful manner.
I assumed Xunzian would respond appropriately to you. Which he did by ignoring your inflammatory nonsense.
I thought creating a quote featuring your “Best Of” would get to the point faster, which it did. Once again the point is… Your outlook is sad and pathetic.
Now before I am finished discussing this with you I would like to say that you haven’t really said anything of importance in this topic. Most everyone who has replied has posted some sort of statistical or theoretical evidence to further our understanding. You may have added some “common sense” or whatever you want to call it but to me it just seems like the rantings of a very isolated person. Did you even bother to read any of the links Xunzian was so generous to provide? In case you missed them they were…
In this instance what applies to your family does not necessarily apply to everyone in the country. I am sure there are many variables that account for your families success beyond a simple work ethic or whatever it is you are claiming. Please look at the research supplied by the various responders and then come back or to further the discussion please provide research which counter points the assertion that mobility between generations is improving in America.
Through personal anecdotal evidence? Hardly. I make more money than my parents did at the same age in terms of absolute numbers, but in real terms I can afford less. In my grandmother’s time one solid income was enough to pay a mortgage and support a small family. These days you need two people working full time in decent jobs to afford a mortgage because the housing market is so inflated. That’s one of the results of feminism…
Unless you’re born into the elite to begin with and given a cushy job that you won’t be fired from regardless of how useless you are.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the actual availability of job, the wage offered for them, the overall culture values in which they are immersed. It’s just got to do with the parent.
Yeah, right…
Yes, they have.
I thought it was the parents, not the banal entertainment. You are confused.
Why do lotteries publish the names and the photos of the winners, when the losers remain anonymous?
The ‘dream’ of upward mobility, the American Dream, is what keeps the capital flowing and productivity, the cornerstone of western capitalism, high; it is the carrot in lieu of a stick.
It is what makes the jailed his own jailer and the poor the most fervent defenders of the rich man’s privileges.
Well I would say that depends upon where you choose to live and what type of house you think you need. One pay check here pays for everything. Of course we chose to move out of the city and we chose to purchase land and a small decrepit house and we chose not to have credit cards or certain expensive luxury items such as Central Air. We buy Vehicles that are cheap enough so that we are not stuck making payments, We barter for things, we save, we live quite comfortable within our means and Oh my goodness the only debt we have is the mortgage. we make more than our parents and we have more.
Why worry about the elite? why dwell on them? Oh boo hooh they have it so easy. well thats a wonderful way to waste your life. Screw thinking about what they have and get your own. They do not have any more brains or personality or will or drive or hands or feet.
So maybe a handful are born into luxury. so what. if you want to make a real difference for the poor start educating the poor help them to learn how to get out of it. Teach them to fish not just give them someone elses catch. you can make all the laws you want but, if you don’t change a persons attitude then you are not helping you are hurting. You handicap them.
The women I mentioned in Argetina are poor farmer women that kicked themselves in the butt, they educated themselves on how to fix their lives and are succeeding. No laws have been changed to assist them up out of poverty. They are making it on their own. Now that is worthy of respect. They I will help. but folks sitting around not fighting just accepting their situation i can’t. There are neighbor hoods that once were filled with crime and poverty here in the US. the residents stood up and fought for better lives. they I help.
Help the poor by helping them see that they don’t have to accept defeat and poverty. But if you give them laws that take from me just to even out. you and I will butt heads. I can’t even let you make laws that would take from just the wealthiest. I would fight to protect them too.
Educate not compensate if you want real lasting change.
On your note that I am confused; It is the parents I was talking about specifically. If they don’t get their butts out of that chair and stop the entertainment, they are educating their kids to fail.
The Gov’t should only interfere so much in lives. When it begins to overstep then you weaken the people. The Gov’t does the thinking and controlling, which is what is happening. The powerful would love to make compenstating laws. It means more control. That is what is happening with all the statistics laid out in those links. Yet people want more laws.
More compensation for the poor. More control. I would rather see people free to succeed or fail on their own. It makes for a better society.
Xunzian is right and wrong. Those links just tell a part.
The United States Government has shown repeatedly that Educating the poor in America is a low if not non-existent priority. For an understanding of this pathology I would point you to Underground History of American Education. A wonderful book on just this subject. If you don’t have time or would rather see hard numbers please see below…
Simply by re-distrubiting the way in which our tax dollars are spent, by reducing the graft in Military and Medical spending, we could easily solve the education crisis here in America. Yet doing this would have a distinct impact on the wealth of the elites you are apparently interested in defending. Taking away their government hand outs is the same as taking money from their pockets. So then would you be opposed to seeing change in our Tax system for the benefit of education?
Just eliminate wasteful spending on all Gov’t programs including education. Then you don’t have to cut budgets back. Why cut the allotted money? Just spend it more wisely.
Also people can volunteer to assist. Go into the slums of your city and start educating people, why wait for the gov’t to create laws and change? Start the change by going and doing it yourself. Why must the gov’t change first? It can’t unless people start the change. And it won’t because people don’t care enough to start the change. Go get your hands dirty and educate. It is rather satisfying.
Well most of the waste in American tax allocation is related to graft of some sort. Spending the 5% of the total budget Education gets from taxes more wisely isn’t going to help matters (much). With the advancements in information technology and science the costs of education are getting greater yet the money being given to educations keeps getting smaller. Fiscal responsibility can only take you so far- when you’re in the red you’re in the red- and education is desperately in the red. Couple this with the problem within education of fair distribution of funds. Wealthier districts get an unfair large share of the Education budget which furthers the gap and disparity between rich and poor.
If we lived in an industrial economy pulling yourself out of poverty without an education would be possible. However we are living in a information driven consumer economy which relies on the global south for all of it’s industrial production. Making just moving to where there is a job difficult because now jobs require credentials where before they did not. Education is KEY for succeeding (whatever that may mean) in this new economy.
So the question I asked earlier is still one that interests me. Assuming for a moment that it is true, the Rich sustain their level of income partially if not primarily through graft in the tax system, do you think it is fair to reorganize the tax appropriation with knowledge that it will hurt the rich by re-distributing that tax wealth to the poor of America?
It is rather satisfying. However I doubt you would find the education programs I am involved in to be of any value. I go around with Cop Watch and help teach the teenagers of Chicago their rights when dealing with the police- among other things.
Great stats, and support. However, the implications of the research found: “International comparisons of intergenerational mobility show that Britain, like the United States is at the lower end of international comparisons of mobility. Also intergenerational mobility has declined in Britain at a time of rising income inequality. The strength of the relationship between educational attainment and family income, especially for access to high education, is at the heart of Britain’s low mobility culture. . . . Britain needs to adopt a strategy of equalize opportunities. This should apply at all stages of the education process, including support during the early years, for both parents and children; policies to improve the performance of deprived children in schools; and steps to promote participation at the post-compulsory level.”
The focus appears to be on British fathers and sons, more than other countries. That said, it is mysogynistic, as most women have had to work outside of the home during the 70’s - present day.
Also, it does not address family size, and generally the poor in the West often have large families, the middle-class - rich, often do not. This, along with education are key factors as parents often draft their older children to help with childcare, yardwork, and housework. Often, these children must work after school to help pay bills, provide food, and purchase clothing for themselves.
Regardless, thanks for providing valid, insightful information.
LMFAO, how about helping crime victims, or volunteering at a home for battered children, a hospital, etc. Rights, rights. Know what Rodney King did with his millions in settlement — he is flat broke, and has been arrested numerous times. Sure there are bad cops, but I support cops as are doing a very dangerous job. Too many are allowed to go free on legal technicalities. IMHO, this is bs.
No society is free from the expressions of power, although sometimes that isn’t acknowledged. You are also speaking quite “factually” about the societal mindset of a period of time when we have nothing but hindsight, and assuming that the mentality you prefer was prevalent enough in that society to be available.
To my point:
Humans are habitual, what one is given to, is what one is predisposed to continuing. Change, especially societal level changes, are adversarial.
This is a wholesale assumption that cannot be supported by observation in the modern context. Nothing is determined to the point that one social individual feels compelled to edify another. Most often what is observable is that one social individual will, in a manner of utility, use another to edify themself, even if doing so is to the detriment of the latter.
Again, humans are habitual in behaviors both individually and socially, and change is adversarial to the status quo of knowing what to expect.
Overwhelming influence of the hyper-reality created by technological advancement and the “promise of a better tomorrow” from such. As was noted by Zhuangzi, PtahHotep, Machiavelli and many others, idleness is a favorite human habituation. I believe in the Daoist tenet, you are asking “people to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps” … bordering, essentially, on the implausible or impossible.
This requires active citizenry, which is in direct opposition to what I just stated above, humans cherish idleness, even to their detriment and destruction.
We both are only telling a part, because that is all we have to offer, especially considering the context of your post.
Are you sure?? Talk to your folks regarding how they could only afford one car, had to mix regular milk with dried milk, etc. People could not afford to hire contractors to build garages, so they did it themselves: urban.org/publications/1001049.html
I remember the nasty dinette set, you know the metal and laminatte table top. My parents first home was tiny compared to mom’s home today. How about the happiness regarding the first color television, Disney in color. Nope, what we take for granted was very hard to come by in the 50’s. Sure, homes were cheap, but life was not so cheap. At the moment, if you go by earnings and gas prices, we pay less than we did in the 80’s.
Still threatened boy. Again, no! In order to provide the luxuries we had, mom had to work a minimum of part time, when I was older, it was full time. Sure, Dad made a good wage, thanks to the union, but every nickel Mom made, was put in the bank. Car repairs, plumbing, fences, garages, brick wall (later) were done by Dad. You did not live through this time period, I did. House was 4,000, payments were 32.00, and Dad made 91.00 every two weeks. Now do the math. Consider food, water, electricity, etc.
That is right, RIGHT.
Perhaps in the UK, but not so much in the US.
I doubt it. You on one hand support socialism, then argue against it. WTF??
This is, to a certain extent, still true in this country. But even those who are happy to live cheaply and work hard (and believe me, I’m with you, I’m one of those people, I don’t need a load of expensive shit lying around to make me happy) are finding property (in a country where we’ve apparently only built on 6% of the land, though there are a LOT of hills) very expensive. This directly contributes to a drop in social mobility.
Sure, but you’re smart and resourceful and sensible. And probably 30 years older than me. You are my parents’ generation, no?
I don’t worry about them in that sense. I don’t care too much about them having it easy financially, but that is a symptom of them having so much more power, the power to define how long/hard people work for what lifestyle they can afford. They can define other people’s lives, and all too easily. That, I find abhorrent.
I never advocated big state socialism. I agree, the liberal recovery industry/socialist state has all the same problems of capitalism but cripples entrepreneurship and people digging themselves out of holes.
Sure, no quibbles about that from me.
This seems, at least in a flip and superficial way, to be counter-productive. If they are capable of ‘helping themselves’ then why do you help them? They don’t need it. The ones who need it (if we’re talking sheer keeping numbers of people alive) are the ones who cannot (or at least, don’t) help themselves.
Don’t get me wrong - you cannot legislate away poverty. Well, you probably can, but that’s a really stupid way of doing it.
Not just educate - illustrate. Show people examples of others in similar situations to their own who’ve found imaginative and practical means of changing their situation.
Alright, that was a bit of a cheap shot. I knew what you meant.
So would I, I just think that neither state socialism nor corporate capitalism are a means to making a world where people are free to succeed or fail on their own.
There are different types of socialism, aspacia. I do not support state socialism (e.g. the Democratic party in the US, the SWP in this country). There’s a lot more to the history of communism/socialism than the USSR and Cuba, as I’m sure you are aware.
