Not everybody has a family, charity, or church to fall back on. Realize also, that most government programs are not pure entitlement programs and require some form of contribution.
Romney Fundraiser - Secret Taping
- Thread starter candrew
- Start date
Not everybody has a family, charity, or church to fall back on. Realize also, that most government programs are not pure entitlement programs and require some form of contribution.
How can you have a target if there is not even a universal measure? Are you saying that there is such as thing as too much potential for mobility?
Edit to add: I meant "is" as in something that actually exists, or at least seems close to existing, not some extreme hypothetical.
Last edited:
Aren't you indicating that greater mobility than we currently experience is a goal to work toward? What do you base this on & when do we go too far the other way?
We theoretically already have perfect potential for mobility. There aren't rules keeping you from going from the absolute bottom to the absolute top. Reality is different.
I base that on the idea that prosperity shoulde be based on merit, not inheritance. We'd be going too far the other way when mobility was so random that merit was no longer a factor, but I consider that too improbably. In fact, I consider even getting to the point of basing prosperity on merit alone wildly improbable. The wealthy will always be able to send their kids to better schools, give them better connections, be able to provide resources to work around the system, etc., and I would not expect them to do anything else. So, I don't see going too far the other way as a realisitic possibility.
Do you think countries like Canada and Sweden have gone too far? Has any country, ever, besides during/after a revolution?
The lack of rules is quite different from the existence of potential.
You don't suppose implementing a system that lowers barriers to mobility while also creating moral hazard can go too far? No middle ground here?
I've never looked at the reasons behind mobility in either country.
So you agree we already have achieved perfect potential or saying something else? I think you're concerned with realization of potential & policy that lowers hurdles.
What's a realistic possibility that goes too far, in your mind? I'm willing to be educated, but so far you're just playing devil's advocate. What would a system that goes too far look like, and has one ever been implemented?
For example, an estate tax of 100% would probably be going to far, but seems unrealistic, as well.
It's certainly possible they have unique circumstancdes behind their mobility, not applicable here.
We have not achieved perfect potential. It seems to me we are not even close to optimal potential for mobility.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
That would be a nice sentiment except for the reality that those who are the biggest economic drains on the economy live disproportionately in Red states and vote Republican.
So really, you, or others, don't have a problem with Romney saying that 47% of the population "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing?" Not only is this an incredibly demeaning claim, essentially saying that 47% of a nation of over 300 million are deadbeat losers (who for this reason won't vote for him), but it's also factually inaccurate. Regardless of anything Obama has said or done in the past (which is irrelevant--we can talk about those separately), you really have no problem with this claim and what it implies? Really?
Speaking only for me, YES, I do think that people in the richest country in the history of the world ARE entitled to basic needs of life, including food (who would really argue that), shelter (I mean, who really thinks that it's ok for people to be homeless), healthcare (yes, I really do think this, so does every other developed country in the world--the US is the outlier in this case, not the norm). It's a wonder Romney didn't add education to this list. Damned deadbeat entitlement losers, what with all the government subsidized education.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Oh so that's the newest conspiracy theory coming out of the right wing blogosphere, that Obama knew what was going down but chose to ignore it? File that one away with 911 as inside job, bigfoot, loch ness monster, and 47% of Americans deadbeat losers dependent on the government dole.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
A couple of things:
You speak of "dole" here as if you are imagining a population of people excepting something without the marking of an official debt to be repaid later. Free stuff. Not only is thinking about exchange a limited way of thinking about things, but the lion's share of the poor population didn't just take a deuce on what was otherwise a dandy situation for them (there are deep structural problems with our society) AND it's not as if they don't pay taxes when they are able to find work. It also seems like your message is authored from a utopian space where capitalism finally realizes a full employment, fully cared-for population. Well, that's utopian because it's never happened and it never will happen. Lastly, they are working 110% toward what end? Where are we going? Do they have a voice in deciding this, or do they get to show a voter ID card and then pick between Obama and Romney? Do you realize that the wage scale is so poor that for many at the bottom of the debt chain hard work just means debt peonage? That's the day and age. They may be able to make enough for bare existence (i.e. marginal to bad food, with pretty bad health coverage, and no dental coverage, etc.), but nothing goes toward the communalism and sharing that is really the basis of what it means to be human and have a quality life -- they'd have to go in debt for that (and for their medical/dental), and most don't have access to anything except for the world's worst rates of interest in human history.... so what's the point?
^ this isn't the message of a liberal bleeding heart. It just seems like you are responding to badly formed questions
I was born to a single mother (aged 20) and we scraped by until she married a fairly successful second-generation salesman whose official spoken doctrine was hard work, no excuses and think positively but strategically (i.e. always calculate). Punishment would be doled out upon deviation from this plan. I had to save money to buy my own bicycles, video game systems, etc. by mowing laws, shoveling driveways in the winter, and, like you, working for a local nursery/orchard for $2/hr. This message of hard work has helped me in some ways, but I was never taught the value of WHY WE WORK AS WE DO. That caused all kinds of confusion when I got old enough to see that my step-dad was, despite the official mottos, pretty depressed and getting **** on by his fading industry (no hard work or positive thinking could get him out of that). Basically, this is just my way of asking the same question as above: Why should we work? What is "work"?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I forgot friends, but no one is out of the reach of one of the things I mentioned, unless they are a complete hermit who wouldn't want/need help anyway.
Government pyramid schemes are another story.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Then you're not paying attention: https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/fact-check-mitt-romney-47-percent_n_1893537.html
To name just a few. Not only is it factually inaccurate, it's implications are condescending and offensive in the extreme. For those LDS on the board, please consider a statement of similar scope, stereotype, and offensiveness: "Mormons are all brain dead auto bots who can't think for themselves and there's nothing anyone can to do get them to think critically." (Statements like this are common in the anti-Mormon blogosphere)
If something like this bothers you, then what Romney said should bother you too.
Really, 47% of all Americans deadbeats dependent on Government dole and there's nothing that can be done to give them any ambition? Really?
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Hey Pearl, why the sock puppet? Just continue posting as Babe. Everyone knows it's you anyway.
To preface, black graduation rates are probably the largest contributing factor limiting income mobility in America. Any policy discussion should start there.
We could put in a reward system to get grad rates up, but this could be gamed and produce the opposite result. Putting policies in that lower the hurdle rate so potential can be realized but effect no change go too far.
It's also possible that greater mobility will be a short lived phenomenon. As far as I am concerned, American mobility begins and ends with education availability. Tax policy, safety nets, all the other rhetoric is a distraction to the economic changes underlying the allegedly widening wealth divide. We transitioned from an industrial society where our Lewis Turning Point demanded high wages & on the job training to a surplus of manual labor & more intellectually oriented workforce. That environment benefits the wealthy who have the insight to figure out what changes to make & have the means to fund higher education. Poor people often don't have the first clue about industry & fail to see the benefits of education.
This is my greatest criticism of Obama. He failed miserably at helping the jobless poor transition into modern professions in a time when they needed help the most. Why he and his democratically controlled legislature chose to cut higher education funding while bumping military spending enormously will forever be a mystery to me.
I could agreed we have not realized our existing perfect potential, but the potential is there. Agreed on the second sentence over the last few decades.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I like the emphasis on education here, but this parsimonious statement is only totally true (as you claim it to be) if the economy is rising at a rate of at least 5% annually -- always -- and that there are no other cultural barriers to getting loans, etc., etc. In other words, in this one statement you assume constant growth and a fully impersonal economy. <-- those could very well be the engines of serious problems themselves which are limiting the wealth and happiness of people.
You built way too much into my use of "dole". I didn't add the political connotations to it as you have. Dole, charity, whatever. I expect those receiving a handout to give it their best. Many already do.
Agreed. Working like a dog for the rich baron is ******** and will backfire on the owners anyway. Workers may not get the wages they deserve for destroying their bodies all to scrape buy, but they will get theirs one way or another. Doing right by your employees happens to be the cheaper thing to do.
The point I was making is I can't sympathize with the poor can't do it mantra. It's repulsive how the left drags out and dehumanizes the worst situation they can find in the most demoralizing, patronizing way possible. I don't need a sob story to put my support behind an initiative. In fact, they tend to push me away out of disgust.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
You and I probably have a lot more in common than not, and I hope you see I'm not repeating a Democrat mantra here, but I really do think the bootstraps ideology is just as broken. It's very easy to work hard and get nowhere.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
That's the best compliment I've ever had from a liberal.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
If I was making too much out of something, it wasn't out of "dole" specifically; I would have said the same thing about charity or other synonymous terms. I don't find the US to be an innately charitable place. Historical record backs me up pretty soundly. It could also be argued that it's becoming less charitable. I'm trying to stand in the way of the evaluation of "doing their best"... such a statement is pregnant with the values of what it means to work, and what kind of progress we are supposed to be making.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I like your sig. It proves you are either a troll (which you are) and/or you can't read (which is likely). I guess the only conclusion from my question you've quoted is that I was baiting everybody into a discussion about why we shouldn't work, rather than into a more nuanced discussion of the values of work, etc.
What about the idea (and fact) that there is a finite amount of money, and that not everyone can be rich? Or the idea that mechanisms in play for several decades clearly demonstrate rich getting richer with the middle-class getting gutted and the poor getting poorer? Understanding these things, how can a society (and government is a function of society, at least theoretically) be led to any other conclusion than that the gap needs to be closed and that means must be explored?