asmodeus wrote:

BNA! wrote:

The US has never been a purely capitalist country. There has always been labour unions, social security and likewise support.

Look I understand what you are trying to say here, however it is exceedingly difficult to take you seriously when you are getting your historical facts wrong. There have not always been labor unions. There has not always been social security or any form of social support. The fact of the matter is that many people fought and died to achieve the right to organize, the right to decent working conditions, the right to social support, and you are doing those people's memories a dis-service by saying it has always been such.

You're nitpicking, have fun doing so. I know the native Americans did not have labour unions (but social support).

The USA as we know it today is just as interwoven with state interventions as any other country, just the percentages of money coming from the sate varies greatly. Getting historical facts wrong or not is silly since this is not a school test where a specific period of time is given.

As usual there is a given annoyance to hear that no matter what happens in the US it always is a dis-service to the memories of people who fought and died. I'm slowly loosing respect for US citizens still alive since they obviously did not fight and die for something.

socialism at work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqU ... re=related

Transcript:
"It was the most memorable time of my life. It was a touching moment because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he's gonna help me."

She's not alone. How many more think like this about what an Obama run government will do for them? Probably millions. Why would anyone think that being dependent on the government for daily sustenance is a good thing?

The sad thing is that Obama cannot promise any of this. I hope she's not too depressed when she realizes that she'll still have to pay $3/per gallon after Obama is elected.

pbmax wrote:

I hope she's not too depressed when she realizes that she'll still have to pay $3/per gallon after Obama is elected.

Well, there are other cars than SUVs - just ask GM, Chrysler and Ford if they would feel better today if they would have taken energy efficiency more into consideration.

Reminds me of the way Canadians think since many believe health care here is free. Guess they don't really look at their pay cheques, and see the nice 40% or so that gets skimmed off the top by our beloved and benevolent savior government. Never mind all the other user fees, licensing costs, sales taxes, gas tax on tax, recycling taxes, etc, etc, etc, etc that they pay with their after tax income. Guess they think some bureaucrat is better able to provide for their families than they themselves are.

Whatever, Obama is probably the lesser of two evils, and any aspiring president who talks about drawing down American military/industrial conquest can't be all bad. But still the public is so gullible. These guys crawl out of the woodwork when they want your vote and lie readily. Sad thing is people lap it up like pablum. Someone must have done some research and planned elections every four years based on the human brain's capacity to forget things in four years. Things never change.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Someone must have done some research and planned elections every four years based on the human brain's capacity to forget things in four years. Things never change.

Actually disaster half-life prediction time is 5/10.

Anything you forecast to scare the hell out of people must be at least 5 years away but no longer than 10 years.

If it's shorter than 5 years most people will remember it and go after you, if it's longer than 10 years everyone thinks a solution will be found by then and forget about it.

2005 data from IRS:
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2523 ... topmw1.jpg

- The richest 01% paid about 39% of all income taxes
- The richest 05% paid about 60% of all income taxes
- The richest 10% paid about 70% of all income taxes

These tax shares of the wealthy are all up substantially since 1990, and even since 2000 when Bush took office. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median (half of all households) paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005! The richest 1.3 million tax payers (incomes of more than $365,000) paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax payers below the median in income. Ten times more.

Its worth mentioning again. The lower half of all households paid only 3% of all income taxes. Stunning, isn't it? Yet people think that the rich still don't pay their fair share.

Now, Obama says that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut under his plan. The problem is that millions of people will get a tax cut even though they owe NO INCOME TAX! Read this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455061443852529.html

Its just another thinly veiled but direct transfer of wealth.

Your calculations are correct (in Germany the upper 1% shoulder 20% and the upper 10% shoulder 50%) but there is a specific flaw. I should reveal I belong to the upper 1% tax class and there is plenty (much much more than in the US) of my wealth which is getting transferred.

However, unlike Germany the US heavily relies on consumer spending (70%+) to the keep the economy going. Tax cuts for the middle class and lower paid people greatly helps with consumer spending (that's why they send out stimulus packages). Increased consumer spending (usually achieved via credit in the US which is currently out of fashion) in return helps the super rich who actually happen to own the corporations selling the goods to the consumer.

So a tax cut for the middle class will lead to an income increase of the rich which will lead to even higher taxes paid by them.

It's zero sum accounting, basically the rich finance their own businesses by collecting their tax money and employee payments back from consumers.

I personally don't like the whole moral aspect of taxes, this mindless babble of who "should" pay a specific rate or who "should feel responsible" and so on. It doesn't make sense. I live by the numbers and if I own a business or shares of a business like a D&Y market I welcome tax cuts for the middle and lower class since I know they'll spend money there to fix their houses in economic contraction times (rather than calling a craftsman) or pay the bills for an energy provider and I'll get it back via dividends and share price appreciation.

The poor always loose in this game, no matter how high or low the taxes for them are. A redistribution or transfer of wealth would only happen if you disallow the rich, or "ownership class" to earn it back from those who received it.

However, 100 USD + in your wallet via tax cuts wont make a rich more rich, but for a poor guy it makes the difference between missing crucial payments or not, which in return lowers the default rate on payments in the businesses of the wealthy fellows.

A fair tax system would probably still be a moderatly low flat tax for everyone on income above minimum living standard with no tax deferral and escape systems. The bible says 10% iirc.

Whatever crusade you're on, so may be it, but tax cuts for the middle and lower class actually affects the income of the rich more positively via economy stabilization than the other way around.

Put a large < in my opinion > tag around my post.

Oh, I should add paying taxes to me always feels like an amputation without narcotics and afterwards seeing some unemployed people sitting in the sun with a beer at 10 am which I financed to some degree is rubbing salt into the wound.

But on the other hand I very much welcome social stability since it helps me to recover my losses via taxes fast due to hard work, diligent investing and not being forced to walk around with a gun to protect my home and myself against rallied up starving people.

At some point years back I received some "wealth transfers" too when I was unemployed. I used them as help to help myself, just as everyone should do it if he lives of the wallet of tax payers.

with the way things are, i doubt a tax cut for the non-major tax payers will have them create more consumer spending. Mostly because many of the taxes that obama (and others) can't control are going up anyway. IE the taxes on my ~$140,000 home+barn+land = ~$8000 (5 miles north it's ~$45000) a year in taxes to school+town. That's only going up. So if I got a drop in state/fed taxes in my paycheck, it is easily offset by raise on local taxes. Only difference is the state/fed taxes are taken out before I get my check, the others arrive in a nice bill that gives me 30 days to pay. In fact, I purposely keep my fed/state taxes higher. I treat it like a 0% interest savings: every year I get the $$ I shouldn't of put in back. I'm smart enough to know if I had an extra $50 a check I'd find a way to spend it, but if I save that all up for tax time it can be used for something important.

Not putting to much time and doing a quick search, you would also find that the top 10% in 2005 also collected 48.5% of all reported income. Also in 2005, The bottom 90% actually dipped by 0.6% in total income, even though there was a total income growth of 9% overall.

So even though the rich are paying more in taxes, they are actually getting an increase of income. The rich get richer and the mid/poor class get poorer, all the while saying the mid/poor aren't holding up their end of the tax burden.

Let me repeat, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent

If there is a transfer of wealth its actually from the lower 90% to the upper 10%.

Also to quote the article and give the reason to your chart:

Quote:

Because the incomes of those at the top have grown so much more than those below them, their share of total income tax revenue has risen despite the reduced rates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

my income went up. My wife's went up ~2x. Guess we're poor people with the monetary smarts of rich people.

Here's more scary, racist talk from Obama in 1995 on his views of wealthy white people not giving the government enough money so it can be transfered to poor African Americans- all for his own personal "salvation". This guy is a leftist radical and no where near mainstream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF_RAe9HQi4

Obama WAS a member of the Soclialist New Party:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veo_jc2VoZQ

The following is in stark contrast to Obama's class envy views:

"Egalitarianism rests on the principle that people are not responsible for themselves. It is
not a poor person’s fault that he is poor; nor do the rich deserve their wealth. The
opposing view need not hold that everything is in a person’s control. Luck can play a
part in wealth and poverty. Nevertheless, no two people react the same way in the
same circumstances. A person’s perceptiveness, judgment, and ambition play a large
part in his fortunes.

The welfare statist will cry out that we have responsibility to those less fortunate. We do,
but in a sense other than the egalitarian imagines. We have a responsibility to create
and maintain a free society so that all may go as far as their abilities and determination
will take them."

Sheldon L. Richman
http://bearingasset.com/pdf/egalitarianism.pdf

It would have been nice if the second video finished someone of his statements. It honestly felt like they were breaking 5 second clips where he says black or white and writing a bunch of text around it to lead people on possibly an incorrect path of what was actually being discussed.

Regardless, your original post was not about race, but a tax plan and you stated facts about how much the rich pay while ignored the facts that I helped fill in about how much the rich make.......48.5% of all total income in 2005 and that the rich to poor gap was actually increasing.

Deadite4 wrote:

and that the rich to poor gap was actually increasing.

Which is what I was writing above.

By the way - the McCain tax plans, when viewed isolated, for the middle class and stripped off other side effects (how to handle health care and so on) could potentially be more beneficial. It shall remain a secret forever why he, respectively his campaign people, do not ride this horse instead of his disgraceful negativity campaign to cater to the ultra right wing, religious fundamentalists and potential racists.

But to transport taxation issues, which even in the US are pretty much complex, is one of the hardest tasks in an election.

If it wouldn't be for Sarah Palin and McCain's unpredictable military views I'd be pretty much undecided. For us in Europe a president Obama may be less beneficial as there is a realistic chance he may favour protectionism, but another Gulf war would be more diastrous (not that McCain could afford one).

In any case, the future president will be extremely limited in what to achieve and how by state financials.

Call me crazy but you're actions aren't very in line with your ideals.

Obama this. Obama that.

Tell me why are you voting third party again?

As for the first vid:

pbmax wrote:

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M A RACIST ASS UNABLE TO REALIZE HOW SYSTEMS OF OPPRESSION WORK.

This is a new low for even you, pbmax.

And the other vid... heh. Do you really think Obama is Karl Marx incarnate with economic advisers that adore Wal-Mart and other big businesses? You peddle fear-mongering rubbish, sir. That is all you do.

Please, for once, try to formulate a worthwhile argument for something rather than posting and wildly misinterpreting information so you can twist it up beyond recognition to fuel your self-fulfilling quests of fear and ignorance.

If you want help on putting together a for more convincing argument detailing Obama's shortcomings, you might want to take a look at what I've written about the guy. There's no need to latch on to fear-mongering bullshit. You could make a strong case against Obama by talking about his blind defense and affection for Israel, his talk about Latin America that is reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine, or as I mentioned above, that is economic advisers are in bed with businesses like Wal-Mart. Things like that are far more likely to dissuade Democrats from his camp because they are areas where he diverges from liberal ideals. In fact, those views of his are far more in line with Reaganite tenets than anything else, which I would imagine you would favor.

Please try offering a real argument instead of this Youtube fanatical bullshit.

And please try to educate yourself about the institutions in U.S. American society that keep racism alive and well. You don't have to live the experience to be able to understand it, and you'd look much less of a fool if you gave it a try.

goliathvt wrote:

And please try to educate yourself about the institutions in U.S. American society that keep racism alive and well. You don't have to live the experience to be able to understand it, and you'd look much less of a fool if you gave it a try.

Like affirmative action.

Good point. Most blacks will tell you that they wish Affirmative Action didn't exist. However, it isn't a racist institution... it's a bandaid put into place by society to half-heartedly acknowledge the racism that exists in the job market. It's a bad solution with all kinds of problems, but it's still better than nothing.

I don't think my language about "institutions" was clear, so let me try to make it so.

When I say "institutions" that keep racism alive and well, I mean the social mindset that permeates the U.S. American conscious where you have things like:

- The assumption that you just made about affirmative action... the greatest benefactor of Affirmative Action isn't black people but white women.

- Black men earning only 2/3s of the same wage as white men for the same work.

- The assumption that blacks are the highest recipients of welfare even though, in fact, it's white women.

- Parents still telling their children the "worst thing" a young white woman can do is bring a black boyfriend home. For example, I have a friend who has been told flat-out by her mother that she will disown her daughter and her grandchild if she ever has a baby that is black. Yet both mother and daughter don't think this view is racist.

- That most white women are taught or assume that rapists are tall burly black strangers lurking in the shadows when, in reality, it's usually someone of their own race and usually someone they know... i.e. date rape.

- That our school systems are disproportionately geared and funded to provide more solid educations to whites than others.

- That the history and education that children get from their schools and from home often depicts whites superior to blacks. For example, I remember studying famous scientists and inventors in high school... after a sea of white guys, we talked about 2 black guys and then quickly started talking about how white guys took the 2 black guy's inventions and improved them. The list of the greatest non-white inventors is, of course, not limited to 2 people. Yet that's all that was covered.

- That our entire language is based on the idea that "white" is good and "black" is bad.

Quote:

A short play on "black" and "white" words:

Some may blackly (angrily) accuse me of trying to blacken (defame) the English language, to give it
a black eye (a mark of shame) by writing such black words (hostile). They may denigrate (to cast
asperations, to darken) me by accusing me of being blackhearted (malevolent), of having a black
outlook (pessimistic, dismal) on life, of being a blackguard (scoundrel)-which would certainly be a
black mark (detrimental fact) against me. Some may black-brow ( scowl at) me and hope that a black
cat crosses in front of me because of this black deed . I may become a clack sheep (one who causes
shame or embarrassment because of deviation from the accepted standard.), who will be blackballed
(ostracized) by being placed on a blacklist (list of undersiables) in an attempt to blackmail (to force
or coerce into a threat) me to retract my words. But attempts to blackjack (to compel by threat)
me will have a Chinaman's chance of success, for I am not a yellow-bellied Indian-giver of words, who
will whitewash (cover up or gloss over vices or crimes) a black lie (harmful, inexcusable). I challenge
the purity and innocence (white) of the English language. I don't see things in black and white
(entirely bad or entirely good) terms, for I am a white man (marked by upright firmness) if there
ever was one. However, it would be a black day when I would not "call a spade a spade," even though
some will suggest a white man calling the English language racist is like the pot calling the kettle
black. While many may be niggardly (grudging, scanty) in their support, others will be honest and
decent-and to them say, that's very white of you (honest, decent)!

http://www.unh.edu/residential-life/div ... icle14.pdf

This is just the tip of the ice burg. I can go into further detail if you'd like.

"Institutions" refers to the unconscious, hidden assumptions we make in our language, our cultural traditions, our businesses, our educational system, our daily interactions, our fears and assumptions, etc. etc. etc.

Overt racism, like calling an African American the "n"-word, has largely been challenged and silenced. Institutionalized racism, however, is still very alive and well in U.S. American society. The YouTube video that pbmax posted is a perfect example.

I don't want to argue about the pros and cons of affirmative action, but i will say that it is an institution that actively promotes the idea of different races in general and more specifically that some of these "races" need help while others do not.

I've been affected directly by affirmative action. I'm not talking about a perceived effect but a bold, "black and white" (lol) effect. It's probably also had an effect on my views I guess.

Back to the topic at hand though...

pbmax wrote:

Here's more scary, racist talk from Obama in 1995 on his views of wealthy white people not giving the government enough money so it can be transfered to poor African Americans- all for his own personal "salvation". This guy is a leftist radical and no where near mainstream.

LOL

goliathvt wrote:

That our entire language is based on the idea that "white" is good and "black" is bad.

I'd be careful not to get too carried away here. I'd guess that the language thing comes from day being good and night being bad (cold, dangerous and hard to see/work).

But that's exactly my point, wal... the label "black" was chosen by white folks even though most would agree black people are more of a brownish color. Similarly, "white" was chosen by white folks because it already had positive connotations with it even though whites are more of a pinkish hue. Over time, the vocabulary was expanded to reinforce this contrast.

My point, though, is that it is this "under the surface" type of racism that is so completely pervasive in our society... language, traditions, professional life, food and drink, music, sports, behavioral expectations, etc. Hell, even the number of positive role models and heroes that children have to look up to is skewed. When was the last time you saw a black super-hero on Saturday morning cartoons or prime-time TV?

It isn't obvious to most people, but that allows it to work so well... we become convinced that black folks just can't seem to pull themselves out of some social or economic quagmire or, worse, believe they're lazy or not as smart or less ambitious. None of that is true, of course... these aren't qualities that are defined by a man-made label... but if you take into account the systematic oppression that blacks face regarding aspirations and dreams, their educational opportunities, the job opportunities that whites have deemed socially "acceptable" for blacks (consider that blacks weren't even allowed to have high quality jobs just a few decades ago and the barriers to getting into them even now are extremely difficult to circumvent), the huge disparity of wealth between the races, etc. then the reality of our society begins to make sense, as troubling as it is.

Oh okay, but I still think you're reading too much into it. It was coloured not so long ago, but it changed probably because coloured implies that non-coloured is normal (we're people and you're coloured people). Brown usually means half-cast. They're not all not accurate colour descriptions but I don't think that makes it racist. The African-American phrase makes me laugh. Not all black people are African for one thing, and it's worse than coloured (I'm a real American and you're an African-American).

I think the main reason people think black people are lazy, violent or whatever is because of class which then gets transferred to race. It's just that there are a disproportionate number of lower class black people, mainly because people think that they're lazy, violent or whatever.

Storm from X-men is African American. Then I remember the Green lantern in the JLA being an African American as well (one of them anyway).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... turner.jpg
This image got two more African Americans whom I don't really recognize.

Now I'm gonna go into the closet and whisper "black" a few times into a jar to shake off some of the PC of this post.

Quote:

This image got two more African Americans whom I don't really recognize.

one is cyborg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Stone

Yes, and which ones have had long-running TV shows featuring just themselves?

Superman, Wonderwoman, Batman.

Think about it... in our current generation that seems to adore re-making movies of older childhood heroes, how many star a black actor or actress? A Native American? A person from China? Etc.

This is a very, very small facet of the issue, of course, but I think it's indicative.

Quote:

It's just that there are a disproportionate number of lower class black people, mainly because people think that they're lazy, violent or whatever.

Please clarify: There are a disproportionate number of lower class black people ... because people think they're lazy, violent, etc.?

People aren't held in a lower class bracket by the thoughts of others... there are very real systems in place and very real assumptions made by people that ensure the status quo of oppression.

I thought 50cent, PDiddy and so on are the cartoon and iconic super heroes nowadays?

You cannot draw comparisons of old success cartoons drawn during segregation times in my opinion. The world was white at that time and I don't see any reason why Batman should be black, or Superman or Spiderman... At least Hellboy is red!

People of all races still can watch Heroes.

goliathvt wrote:

This is just the tip of the ice burg. I can go into further detail if you'd like.

Please do. Your posts are quite entertaining.

To get back on topic, Obama is going to let the "Bush tax cut" lapse in a few years so even though he claims he will cut taxes to 95% of Americans (to those that don't pay income tax, you'll get a check from Uncle Sam), your taxes still may go up after the Bush tax cut goes away...

Obama. This guy is not the right man for President.

White privilege is a half-truth. You can practically take any sentence where the phrase "white privilege" is used and substitute it with "wealthy privilege" and it will hold true. The only thing that gives white privilege any merit is the fact that slavery has created a parallel between class and race.

The money and power acquired from slavery didn't go away with the 14th amendment. As a result it's only logical to conclude that those who gained, stayed rich and powerful. That said ...

Who stands a better chance of going to a good school? The wealthy or the poor?

Who stands a better chance of getting good job? The wealthy or the poor?

Who stands a better chance of hailing a cab? The wealthy or the poor?

Who stands a better chance of landing a spot on TV? The wealthy or the poor?

Unfortunately race does occasionally play a role and it's worth pointing out legitimate grievances when they exist. But looking for evidence of racism where class is just as plausible an explanation, that's an incomplete examination of the facts. It's an omission that could quite easily be misinterpreted to be intentional and I don't think your going to win a lot of support with that approach.

Obviously people who clearly exhibit racist behavior need to be called out and ostracized so they know it's not tolerated. But there are no more rights to grant and reparations are out of the question simply because too much time has passed to make an amicable solution possible. The only divide that remains is cultural and you can't legislate that away.

The good news is that this economic divide where 1% of the population controls 50% of the wealth is that people of all colors and backgrounds will endure hardships together. And that's an opportune time for you to demonstrate good will indiscriminately. Feeling privileged today? Help someone who isn't.

rich_is_bored wrote:

Feeling privileged today? Help someone who isn't.

According to pbmax this Christian thought is something which needs to get rejected as evil since it's socialism and as unamerican as it can be.

rich_is_bored wrote:

White privilege is a half-truth. You can practically take any sentence where the phrase "white privilege" is used and substitute it with "wealthy privilege" and it will hold true. The only thing that gives white privilege any merit is the fact that slavery has created a parallel between class and race.

The money and power acquired from slavery didn't go away with the 14th amendment. As a result it's only logical to conclude that those who gained, stayed rich and powerful.

Great point. And I agree very much with what you have to say. To me, the issues of race, class, sexuality or gender oppression are interlocking. However, it's often very difficult for those who haven't experienced oppression (or believe they haven't) to see how they all overlap, so it's sometimes useful to focus on one that is obvious and recognized. The "easy" ones to see are gender and race, and, given pbmax's stance on class, wealth and economics, I have doubts he'd connect with an argument about wealth and classism.

That doesn't diminish your point, though, and I'm very glad you made it because you are exactly right... these days class may be more poignant than than any other form of oppression. Sadly, not only have the wealthy have furthered the divide but they've also convinced the poor that the wealthiest people who haven't done anything special to earn a pay raise other than decide they want more money--i.e. stealing our tax dollars and lobbying legislation to keep wages down while CEO pay rises exponentially--is not only appropriate but somehow necessary for the "smooth running" of our economy... even though the results are in on how smooth the economy will run with their ideas at the helm. Hello economic disaster.

Quote:

Obviously people who clearly exhibit racist behavior need to be called out and ostracized so they know it's not tolerated.

Kinda like Ashley Todd who tried to spark a racial divide two weeks before potentially electing our first African American president... and worse, the McCain spokespeople and people like senior vice president John Moody of FOX News jumped on the story as an opportunity to, if it were true, play on the racist fears of the populace for their own political gains.

Moody wrote:

Quote:

Moment of Truth

It had to happen.

Less than two weeks before we vote for a new president, a white woman says a black man attacked her, then scarred her face, and says there was a political motive for it.

...

[While Obama has done well to garner support from whites] That does not mean that he has erased the mutual distrust between black and white Americans, and this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election.

If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama... because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

Okay, so here's the translation: Obama has done well courting white folks... but this attack by a black man that whites would fear and distrust should somehow be linked to an intrinsic feeling of distrust for Obama, who had nothing to do with the attack, and only commonality between the two men happens to be the color of their skin.

That is racism at its core. There is no other motivation and no other way to link the attacker and the presidential nominee other than race. The fact that Moody acknowledges that the racist fears of whites could swing an entire election where most of the public has doubts about the other guy running speaks volumes about how deep and ingrained racism remains in our society. Think about it: If a white McCain supporter had attacked a volunteer and carved an "M" into someone's cheek, would anyone trust McCain less? Of course not... they would see that the attacker had nothing to do with McCain or whether or not he should be more or less trusted. But therein lies the double-standard. Therein lies racism that Moody and the McCain camp tried to exploit.

Quote:

But there are no more rights to grant and reparations are out of the question simply because too much time has passed to make an amicable solution possible. The only divide that remains is cultural and you can't legislate that away.

Right, which is why most blacks aren't interested in reparations but instead seek some sort of acknowledgment of the institutional racism and barriers that remain... which is exactly what Obama was trying to say in the early part of this decade. Blacks don't want hand-outs... they simply see more clearly how the playing field is still plainly tilted in favor of whites.

Quote:

The good news is that this economic divide where 1% of the population controls 50% of the wealth is that people of all colors and backgrounds will endure hardships together. And that's an opportune time for you to demonstrate good will indiscriminately.

Very true... there is a uniting force behind the nondiscriminatory touch of poverty and unearned wealth and privilege that may one day galvanize people to make changes. We'll see.

goliathvt wrote:

Quote:

It's just that there are a disproportionate number of lower class black people, mainly because people think that they're lazy, violent or whatever.

Please clarify: There are a disproportionate number of lower class black people ... because people think they're lazy, violent, etc.?

Basically what Rich said. An undercurrent of racism means that more black people are lower class than white. This makes other people think that they're lower class because they're more lazy etc. Obviously it's not as simple as that. For example: Some black people don't want anything to change because they've been brought up by racist parents who have taught them how to live in that environment, so you end up with a kind of cultural ghetto, which leads to racial tension etc etc. One of those vicious circle things. It's still early days really, it's going to take a while for that crap to work its way out of the system.

goliathvt wrote:

When was the last time you saw a black super-hero on Saturday morning cartoons or prime-time TV?

Took me a while, but then the most iconic black super-hero popped up right in front of me:

Attachment:

darthvader.jpg [ 153.21 KB | Viewed 185 times ]

Ok, we know he's white below his suit, but so is Michael Jackson.

…there are some good things about it though. It's not just created a society of crime and violence. Although that aspect is very much part of the whole thing, it's also created a culture of it's own with values of loyalty and brother/sisterhood as well as a massive music scene that would definitely loose it's edge without all that, to name a few. I'm sure some relatively poor people from rough areas wouldn't change their past for anything, and the music would definitely loose it's edge without all that.

Now that it's either mandatory or encouraged to have a certain percentage of ethnic minorities in big companies but not so much small businesses it should lead to a level playing field. No wait hold on, apart from doing sod all to the percentage of minorities on low income, it should lead to ethnic minorities who are qualified finding it easier to get a job than whites leading to racial animosity in higher class whites because they're not getting a completely fair chance, and ethnic minorities who aren't qualified finding it harder to get a decent job than whites leading to racial animosity in lower class not whites because they're not getting a fair chance. I'm very cynical lately aint I?

BNA! wrote:

rich_is_bored wrote:

Feeling privileged today? Help someone who isn't.

According to pbmax this Christian thought is something which needs to get rejected as evil since it's socialism and as unamerican as it can be.

Are you serious? Where did I ever say that helping someone in need was evil?

Helping someone out of your own free will is the ANTITHESIS of socialized government.

pbmax wrote:

BNA! wrote:

rich_is_bored wrote:

Feeling privileged today? Help someone who isn't.

According to pbmax this Christian thought is something which needs to get rejected as evil since it's socialism and as unamerican as it can be.

Are you serious? Where did I ever say that helping someone in need was evil?

Helping someone out of your own free will is the ANTITHESIS of socialized government.

So helping someone is only good if it is your free will. If voters in a democracy elect a government which will be more focused on helping others it is free will.

BNA! wrote:

pbmax wrote:

BNA! wrote:

rich_is_bored wrote:

Feeling privileged today? Help someone who isn't.

According to pbmax this Christian thought is something which needs to get rejected as evil since it's socialism and as unamerican as it can be.

Are you serious? Where did I ever say that helping someone in need was evil?

Helping someone out of your own free will is the ANTITHESIS of socialized government.

So helping someone is only good if it is your free will. If voters in a democracy elect a government which will be more focused on helping others it is free will.

No, not necessarily.

If the government uses redistribution of wealth- tax the risk takers & producers, give it to the nonproducers- then the people voted to help themselves at the expense of others.

So only the wealthy are the producers in society?

BNA should change the name of this website to PoliticianWorld.org

pbmax wrote:

No, not necessarily.

If the government uses redistribution of wealth- tax the risk takers & producers, give it to the nonproducers- then the people voted to help themselves at the expense of others.

This is a common "rally the crowds and simple minded" way of picturing it.

The safest path to wealth is work. The safest path to become more wealthy is social stability. The safest path to become rich is to work in a stable society. The safest path to become super rich is increase the income layer wrapped around a stable society with people working to get rich and increased consumption of all type of goods.

Text book socialism and communism is what you are talking about. That of course is proven to have failed. Social stabilization is actually what both presidential candidates talk about, well knowing that pure textbook capitalism is the sure path to chaos as much as socialism and communism. The US has never been a purely capitalist country. There has always been labour unions, social security and likewise support.

To help people to help themselves is more than tax cuts. It is, and I have held various speeches about the topic, the financial support of work rather than sit at home paychecks. People will have a much higher perception of themselves, their values and their lives if they have a job. If a job doesn't pay enough to make a living, it's still better to put some government money on top of these jobs and get people into work rather than letting them sit at home doing nothing but de-evolutionizing into a vegetable state while flipping TV channels and hating the rich, the white, the black, the Mexicans, the poor, the Wall Street, the Main Street...

Let's just play simple numbers:

A guy sits at home because he can't make a living with a 500 USD job and can't finder another one for whatever reason we shall not discuss now to avoid further ideology and reality detachment distortion.
Now the government send him money, rent, food stamps and health care worth total 1.000 USD per month. This way any government breeds sit-at-home-pets who solely rely on transfer payments. Not good, for no one involved.
Now assume the secret world government concludes 1000 USD per month keeps you alive and happy as opposed to a starving kid in Afghanistan. Getting such a person to accept a 500 USD per month job by putting 600 USD on top would lead to a productive citizen making 10% more than someone sitting at home. The government would save 400 USD per month and have GDP growth at the same time - win-win. Also there is the realistic chance a certain percentage of 500 USD jobs will turn into full time jobs, totally removing X % of the government payroll.

All you have to overcome is a) the laziness of a transfer payment receiver to go to work for a 10% surplus and b) the greed of corporations who will instantly price in 600 USD in government payments when regular job creation.

I know in your view this is Socialism, therefore I'm a happy Socialist from your point of view.

Deadite4 wrote:

So only the wealthy are the producers in society?

No, being productive creates wealth.

BNA! wrote:

Deadite4 wrote:

So only the wealthy are the producers in society?

No, being productive creates wealth.

In general this is true as wealth is in the eye of the beholder. I make the typical middle class salary, yet consider myself wealthy....I own a house, have an education, don't need for life's necessities, have things I want, am healthy, etc.... But in terms of taxation and the social hirearchy, I am not wealthy. This however does not mean I don't produce for society. Most people produce without creating 'wealth' in terms of what is considered wealth in these discussions and in the eye of the government.

Deadite4 wrote:

BNA! wrote:

Deadite4 wrote:

So only the wealthy are the producers in society?

No, being productive creates wealth.

In general this is true as wealth is in the eye of the beholder. I make the typical middle class salary, yet consider myself wealthy....I own a house, have an education, don't need for life's necessities, have things I want, am healthy, etc.... But in terms of taxation and the social hirearchy, I am not wealthy. This however does not mean I don't produce for society. Most people produce without creating 'wealth' in terms of what is considered wealth in these discussions and in the eye of the government.

Wealth actually means "well being" not "well monetarized". Taxation and social hirarchy are common but not necessarily absolute definitions of wealth. Drilling down to the core of the word wealth reveals more the pursuit of happiness than shrewd business practices and stock piling money.

If this sounds too much like a lecture I apologize, but I really think it's important not to mistake wealth with monetary riches.

I agree wealth is overall well being. Not mistaking wealth for monetary wealth was the exact reason I made my post discerning between the two. With a lot of these threads being revolved around taxes and money, it was worth mentioning the two different types of wealth. They can easily be confused given the nature of the discussions.

Deadite4 wrote:

I agree wealth is overall well being. Not mistaking wealth for monetary wealth was the exact reason I made my post discerning between the two. With a lot of these threads being revolved around taxes and money, it was worth mentioning the two different types of wealth. They can easily be confused given the nature of the discussions.

Oh absolutely. I think it's a major mistake to work for money rather than wealth. Focus on your wealth and the wealth of others and material riches will be the least thing you have to worry about.

BNA! wrote:

The US has never been a purely capitalist country. There has always been labour unions, social security and likewise support.

Look I understand what you are trying to say here, however it is exceedingly difficult to take you seriously when you are getting your historical facts wrong. There have not always been labor unions. There has not always been social security or any form of social support. The fact of the matter is that many people fought and died to achieve the right to organize, the right to decent working conditions, the right to social support, and you are doing those people's memories a dis-service by saying it has always been such.

Oh yeah, I'll believe Obama is a socialist when he brings up a credible plan to stop things like this from happening:
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... /810220167
Until then he is still running on a center-right platform.

asmodeus wrote:

BNA! wrote:

The US has never been a purely capitalist country. There has always been labour unions, social security and likewise support.

Look I understand what you are trying to say here, however it is exceedingly difficult to take you seriously when you are getting your historical facts wrong. There have not always been labor unions. There has not always been social security or any form of social support. The fact of the matter is that many people fought and died to achieve the right to organize, the right to decent working conditions, the right to social support, and you are doing those people's memories a dis-service by saying it has always been such.

You're nitpicking, have fun doing so. I know the native Americans did not have labour unions (but social support).

The USA as we know it today is just as interwoven with state interventions as any other country, just the percentages of money coming from the sate varies greatly. Getting historical facts wrong or not is silly since this is not a school test where a specific period of time is given.

As usual there is a given annoyance to hear that no matter what happens in the US it always is a dis-service to the memories of people who fought and died. I'm slowly loosing respect for US citizens still alive since they obviously did not fight and die for something.

socialism at work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqU ... re=related

Transcript:
"It was the most memorable time of my life. It was a touching moment because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he's gonna help me."

She's not alone. How many more think like this about what an Obama run government will do for them? Probably millions. Why would anyone think that being dependent on the government for daily sustenance is a good thing?

The sad thing is that Obama cannot promise any of this. I hope she's not too depressed when she realizes that she'll still have to pay $3/per gallon after Obama is elected.

pbmax wrote:

I hope she's not too depressed when she realizes that she'll still have to pay $3/per gallon after Obama is elected.

Well, there are other cars than SUVs - just ask GM, Chrysler and Ford if they would feel better today if they would have taken energy efficiency more into consideration.

Reminds me of the way Canadians think since many believe health care here is free. Guess they don't really look at their pay cheques, and see the nice 40% or so that gets skimmed off the top by our beloved and benevolent savior government. Never mind all the other user fees, licensing costs, sales taxes, gas tax on tax, recycling taxes, etc, etc, etc, etc that they pay with their after tax income. Guess they think some bureaucrat is better able to provide for their families than they themselves are.

Whatever, Obama is probably the lesser of two evils, and any aspiring president who talks about drawing down American military/industrial conquest can't be all bad. But still the public is so gullible. These guys crawl out of the woodwork when they want your vote and lie readily. Sad thing is people lap it up like pablum. Someone must have done some research and planned elections every four years based on the human brain's capacity to forget things in four years. Things never change.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Someone must have done some research and planned elections every four years based on the human brain's capacity to forget things in four years. Things never change.

Actually disaster half-life prediction time is 5/10.

Anything you forecast to scare the hell out of people must be at least 5 years away but no longer than 10 years.

If it's shorter than 5 years most people will remember it and go after you, if it's longer than 10 years everyone thinks a solution will be found by then and forget about it.