There are several threads on the board about gay marriages, politics and money that seem to have a common thread. People respond with “the answer is simple ….” and that always amazes me.
The answer is really simple? Really? You mean we can clearly identify the problem and all of it’s ramifications? There’s a clear cut answer that can be explained to the voters and none (or only a very few) would object? Woweee! If only they would listen to YOU!
Fact is … problems .. especially political ones …. are like a pond drying in the African sun. Every year the politicians solve a few … usually the easier ones .. leaving the pool of remaining problems a harder and harder layer of muck. And it seems to be like this everywhere. Take for instance the Abortion issue. Now, I don’t want to start an argument about it. I agree with you on this issue. In fact, not only am I with you on this issue, I don’t see how any rational person could disagree with US! Same with gun control. We have the moral high ground. But there are people that disagree with us … and guess what? They’re NOT morons! They have deeply felt and well thought out reasons for why they feel the way they feel (as misguided as WE know they are) and … they live here too!
No .. the answers are not simple. Not at all. Take money as an example dear to most people’s hearts:
I don’t want to see a 2 class society any more than the next pig. But here’s the thing: The overwhelming majority of employed people in this country work for small businesses. That is, businesses with less than 200 employees that are owned outright by one or two people. When you talk about “the rich” we all think of the billionaires and trillionares we hear about … but what you may not know is that, statistically, there are so FEW of them … that if we downright CONFISCATED all their wealth … it wouldn’t run this country for more than a few months The VAST majority of “the rich” make more than we do, but probably not as much as you think. AND … they gamble every day (and I don’t mean when they order Chinese take-out, either). They put second mortgages on their houses to expand their businesses … so that they can make MORE money than they have … and guess what? They hire people like you and me along the way. On the other hand … when we raise their taxes, they don’t give pay raises….. or when a gamble doesn’t pay off … they lose their houses .. while we simply move on to another job. All of the jobs I’ve gotten, I’ve gotten from people richer than me who want to PAY ME MONEY so that I can make them richer.
I’m bored with hearing how the Republicans are ‘for the rich’ They aren’t really. They’re for free enterprise and getting people to realize that the government can’t solve all of everyone’s problems. In a free market .. the rich DO get richer, but that’s not because “George and his Oil friends have rigged the game” it’s because smart people who manage to amass their own resources tend to STAY smart and tend to amass MORE resources. ( I’d bet that if you confiscated ALL the wealth of the top 10 people in this country and gave it to the 10 poorest … in 5 years the original rich people would be rich again and the former poor people would be poor again.)
There are people who truly believe in their deepest heart that this country is just one more law, one more program, one more tax and one more government intervention away from a perfect world. What they don’t realize is that you can’t PASS enough laws, raise enough taxes or redistribute enough money to make life fair. No .. the rich get richer because they’re smart and they’re willing to take risks that most people are afraid to take. And every time it pays off and they expand their ventures …. another slack-assed work-a-day Joe Six-pack gets a job he didn’t have before and a boss he can bitch about. But when the gamble fails (AND ALMOST 80% of them DO FAIL) the Boss loses his house, lays off his employees and doesn’t look to the Government to make it “fair.” He dusts himself off and starts at the bottom again. And he makes it even bigger the second time around.
"When you talk about 'the rich' we all think of the billionaires and trillionares we hear about … but what you may not know is that, statistically, there are so FEW of them … that if we downright CONFISCATED all their wealth … it wouldn’t run this country for more than a few months" -- Megapig
WRONG ... (on this point at least) ... i suggest you (and anyone who believes you on this issue) take a gander at this article (it's chock full of fun "charts & graphs" so it should make for phun reading for all, young and old, rich and poor):
if you're too impatient (or your browser doesn't work) here's an excerpt "take-home-message":
"If we divided the INCOME of the U.S. into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third. If we divide the WEALTH of the U.S. into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest. (Actually, these percentages, true a decade ago, are now out of date. The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.)"
From: Wealth Distribution in the U.S. by R. Hicks • Saturday July 26, 2003 at 10:13 PM
The tax policy institute would disagree with some of those numbers as, I'm sure, are 10,000 other sites that take raw data and interpolate as desired ..... but that wasn't the point.
The point was ... "the rich" are the same people who hire us, give us raises when times are good (oh and .. yeah ... if we deserve it) and have to lay us off when times are bad. They aren't any more or less evil than the rest of us.
the tax policy institute has ulterior motives in their analysis of the raw data on INCOME ... as for the distribution of WEALTH, it's somewhat out of their purview, no?
i'm afraid there are NOT tens of thousands of *credible* websites who could re-interpret this data to their liking (or that of Republicans). even a wannabe statistician (like myself) would inevitably come to the SAME conclusion. it's NOT a matter of interpretation (like "fuzzy" party rhetoric) it's statistical fact!
and when you said that "statistically" such-n-such is the case, i simply couldn't let such an egregiously FALSE statement go uncorrected ... that's all
--
so don't mistake my post as a knee-jerk ATTACK from the left
i politically habitate a comfortable zone adequately left of center (enough to distance myself from the Right) but still close enough to the midline of moderation so as to no be adversely affected by the rabid Democratic camp
and now you want me to console you!? F O R G E T I T !
[gulp] i thought you LIKED me! [sniff] you women are all the same. you just want money, power and fame! [sniff] who needs you! i got me what i need right here [sip] plus, you don't know me [sniff] you don't know what you're missing sistah [sniff] i could've been a contender [gulp] i couldn've been somebody [BURP] not this [sip] i mean look at me [sniff] i'm a drunken loser, i'll never be a [burp] Bill Maher [sip] i'm just a poor drunk-ass squirrel with a one-way ticket to Palookaville!
I usually say if you don't want to read it don't click on it.
In this case, politics are a very passionate subject with most people and it was nice to see what some of the folks here thought about Bush's latest blunder.
I just hope this issue doesn't overtake our main objective here on TER.
The overwhelming majority of people work for small businesses?
HMMMMM with all the people working for government and all the people working for little companies owned by bigger companies.. I don't have any statistics to stand by but I have a hard time swallowing that blanket statement. (and I live in a fair sized city, so maybe what I see around me skews my vision) People driving for UPS, People working for supermarkets, People working at the post office, People working at Carl's Jr, chains stores here, chain restaurants there. Yeah the mom&pop places are abundant too, but by and large, big business is represented well.
The other point (or non point, as the case may be) is that in college statistics the first ~and probably last thing I learned in that class~ is that all one needs to do is twist the numbers around the way one wishes to in order to make people think the sky is falling, or whatever it is they want them to think. The numbers can be torqued any which way but loose, basically... Just ask the tobacco companies.
The top five employers are all government agencies, at least in LA County, based on what I read published from the Statistics in the 2000 US Census Bureau.
This presents a problem from my point of veiw.
If the top five employers in a demographic (Such as LA County) are indeed all government agencies, it means that they are drawing tax monies rather than producing revenue themselves.
It also means that the top five employers are not producing a product or providing services that are adding to the local economy, and by extension to the overall revenue base of the cities, counties or State.
Rather, they are consuming the taxes and fees paid by the local constituency, and in turn raising taxes/fees paid by the citizens in that area in order to fund their annual operating budget, cost of living and merit increases, etc.
Locally and recently we have seen the grab for easy cash by the City and County of LA manifested in such things as seat belt law fines, cameras at intersections to send you a citation for speeding/running a red light, crackdowns on prostitution, etc. Why is that? Because these types of citations are mostly uncontested and very low risk acquisition of monies for the local public safety organizations.
Having worked extensivly with Law Enforcement in serveral different states and demographics, I can say that they are a "growth industry" rather than a simple "protect and serve" agency, and are quite willing to screw "Joe Citizen" in order to fund their benefits and pay raises.
So many "safety and community protection oriented" measures are usually quick revenue verticals for local government agencies faced with budget shortfalls. They are not for the benefit of the local constituency, but, they're a way to bring in quick and largely uncontested revenue in order to fund their "pet" programs.
The top five employers in most demographics should not be government agencies, but private industry.
i have; lots of them. for instance, there's a homeless shelter in my small town that helps mostly what they call "transitional families" - not chronic street people, druggies, psych patients between admissions, etc, but families who were living close to the edge and then had something happen, like a fire, death of the breadwinner, etc. i've gotten lots of work from both the shelter and some of the inhabitants.
my favorite job was for a family a few years back, mom, dad, six kids. dad lost his housekeeping job when GE pulled out of my town leaving only a bunch of PCB stained land and water. he couldn't get a job for more than half what GE paid, and though his wife did some cooking, sewing, and cleaning for people, she could not increase her workload much with six young kids and arthritis in her hands. anyway, they fell behind on mortgage, could not pay the taxes, lost the house. they were difficult people to help as they were so fiercely proud they would not accept any "charity". i tutored the two older children when they were unable to go to school for a while. mom baked me pies in return; strawberry/rhubarb mostly, i suspect the older boy stole the berries from a nearby "pick-your-own" farm anyway, it was the best pie i ever tasted.
hokey story, 100% true.
"as through this world i ramble, i've seen some funny men some are gonna rob you with a six gun some will do it with a fountain pen
as through this world i ramble as through this world i roam i ain't never seen an outlaw drive a family from their home"
simply worn out from all that happened here lately and really not in the position to present an intelligent counter argument to those by singleton and Elise.
Most people who are visibly helping others are idealists. Quite often, they looked at the immediate problem and wanted to make a difference right away. They concentrate on the tree in front but often neglect the forest. They create artificial conditions and want to enforce their solution wholesale.
Unfortunately, human nature are like weather. Good and bad co-exist to maintain a balance. Inequities are like hurricanes. They create havoc on the people they impacted immediately. However, they served a greater purpose of distributing water from the ocean to a continent. The elimination of them would stymie the vibrant eco-system.
Similarly, the wealthy and powerful can be ruthless and harsh on other people's lives. However, they are the necessary component of a healthy and vibrant society.
Sorry I are not articulate enough to full demonstrate my points. Just to let you know that there are members in this board who shared your POV.
politics but enjoyed the other person's charm and wit.
One can like a person and admire what he/she had done without agreeing with some of his/her viewpoints.
It is actually quite boring to discuss issues with someone who has the same POV. As long as the discourse is civil and with the understanding that the other parties are also intelligent and sincere, new insights can be gained and long held views modified.
I've never gotten a job from a poor man, but I don't think jobs make the world go round.
The republican "right" is generally the side that takes the stance of holding "moral high ground," the democratic "left" generally pretends they're the "pluralist" live-and-let-live types. The "right" claims they prefer free markets (while boosting corporate perks), the "left" claims they prefer social programs (while increasing poorly-spent taxes).
Each side has its advantages and disadvantages. Taking "moral high ground" is, as well, a valid rhetorical tactic to take, in certain discursive contexts. What stuns me is, generally, that people who take it don't take it in the proper contexts. They just say, "It's the right thing to do" and believe that this will convince the people who thought it was the wrong thing to do. LOL ...
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
