Originally posted by Karankawa
Oh, and by the way, it's very, very, VERY obvious to me that you and your "teen entourage" have absolutely no clue what it's like to be poor. Your assumptions about them, and how far you can get on minimum wage, make this very obvious that you have never experienced this matter.

Yes Karankawa, I've held minimum wage jobs, and no, I don't think you can support a family on a minimum wage job. If you want to know what my "entourage" thinks, you'll have to ask them.

Perhaps you need to give a little more credit to people on this board that HAVE lived on minimum wage and HAVE succeeded in this, oh, so horrible capitalistic society that we have.

Did you support a family with a minimum wage job?

And here is an idea you may want to consider:

Maybe it IS good that we have poor people that don't have it so good. Since being poor is not as desirable as being "rich", they have an incentive to try to get better. If you make it easy for poor people to have a "rich" life, you JUST MAY FIND that people will stop working hard.

Here's an idea you might wish to consider, allthough I doubt it.

Try reading my posts without your liberal/conservative, capitalist/socialist blinders on. I never suggested that we make it "easy" for poor people to become rich. I suggested that it's in everyone's interest to make it "easier".

OMG....can this already be happening in our society today? Can it be that people refuse to work at McDonald's and pick crops and collect the trash because the work is too hard?

I doubt it.

What do you think will happen when you continue to hand more and more money/benefits to the poor? Do you think they will be encourage to work hard?

Think....about...incentives....for people to work and get ahead. Because in the socialist system, there is none.

Karankawa, you must be reading someone else's posts. I believe that a decent education and good health care should not be considered "benefits" but rather they should be considered "rights". Can you tell me why you've got this notion that I think we should be giving wads of cash to the poor?

Did you support a family with a minimum wage job?

Why even bother to answer? Everytime you ask a personal quetsion and you get an answer you don't like, you give a sarcastic answer similar to the one you gave Leper?

You know what you need to do? Quit asking personal questions and DEBATE THE ISSUE ON THE FORUM. You just spent 3 out of your last 4 posts to talk about crap that has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing here. And they weren't short either, they were long, and no one wants to read that crap.

I've noticed a similar posting pattern on the public education thread. You're more interested in discussing whether someone can use LOL or LMAO in their posts to be rude than talk about what the thread is about.

I also notice that you like to call people out when they are insulting others, but then you seem to dish out a few insults yourself. We have a saying where I live for people like you: If you can't take it, then don't dish it. Does that make sense to you?

I won't be replying to anymore of your personal questions or critiques of me or other posters. When you can talk about the issue at hand, then maybe we can talk.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Why even bother to answer? Everytime you ask a personal quetsion and you get an answer you don't like, you give a sarcastic answer similar to the one you gave Leper?

It was a rhetorical question Karankawa, and again, the sarcasm I directed at Leper was in response to his sarcastic response to Swede. Get it?

You know what you need to do? Quit asking personal questions and DEBATE THE ISSUE ON THE FORUM.

If you don't want me asking about your minimum wage job then don't bring it up. You are the one claiming how easy it was to get by making minimum wage, I fully expected you could back up that statement.

You just spent 3 out of your last 4 posts to talk about crap that has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing here. And they weren't short either, they were long, and no one wants to read that crap.

Actually I was responding to your posts Karankawa. You know, the "on topic" posts where you whine about my "entourage" and bitch about how much other people don't know, and then indulge in name-calling.

I've noticed a similar posting pattern on the public education thread. You're more interested in discussing whether someone can use LOL or LMAO in their posts to be rude than talk about what the thread is about.

If you're so interested in staying "on-topic" why did you make two posts that were nothing more than insults and advice like:

Sounds to me that whatever he answers, you will discount as a lie. Apparently, anytime anyone suggests that real life may be different from how you perceive it, you bail yourself out by calling people liars, and discount their testimonies.

Way to stay "on topic" Karankawa.

I also notice that you like to call people out when they are insulting others, but then you seem to dish out a few insults yourself.

Yes Karankawa, when someone insults me I occasionally respond in kind. I know I shouldn't, and I know I'm better than that, but sometimes I respond anyway. What you wont see is me initiating such an exchange. [rhetorical question]Can you say the same thing about yourself?[/rhetorical question]

We have a saying where I live for people like you: If you can't take it, then don't dish it. Does that make sense to you?

Yeah...does it make sense to you? If you don't want me to insult you then I suggest you keep your "entourage" comments, and false accusations out of the debate.

I won't be replying to anymore of your personal questions or critiques of me or other posters. When you can talk about the issue at hand, then maybe we can talk.

Again, if you don't wish to discuss your minimum wage job and how well you supported yourself with it, I suggest you stop using it as an example to justify your positions. You've done so repeatedly. I really have no interest in the subject other than that. If you don't wish to discuss it that's fine with me.

BTW, despite your contention to the contrary, I posted several "on topic" opinions in my last post, to wit:

1. I don't think you can support a family on a minimum wage job.

2. I never suggested that we make it "easy" for poor people to become rich. I suggested that it's in everyone's interest to make it "easier".

3. I believe that a decent education and good health care should not be considered "benefits" but rather they should be considered "rights".


...care to respond? :flowers:

Karankawa, it seems to me, you use your personal stories to justify your position, but when people ask you to justify your personal stories (Vilepagan) you say you don’t have to answer any more of his personal questions?

Originally posted by Karankawa
You know what you need to do? Quit asking personal questions and DEBATE THE ISSUE ON THE FORUM.

Quiet bringing in your personal stories and examples, and then maybe people won’t ask questions about them.

Examples:

Originally posted by Karankawa
You just might want to consider defering to someone with experience for once.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Hard working people, myself included, already have to do this. All you are doing is making the rest of us work harder by pushing for more programs, more benefits, more, more, more. This is EXACTLY why I am resentful to your type. Instead of spending time with my family, I'm stuck at work a lot longer to support the Department of Health and Human Services. Abolish it, please!

Originally posted by Karankawa
No. I only supported my junior college education. But funny, I still managed to keep 1k or so saved up in case of emergencies. Oh yes, I also used absolutely no government aid at all. And I sure as hell didn't come onto a political forum to whine about how hard I had it.

Awww, that's cute. I see that Vilepagan has called in his buddy to come and help him out. What's wrong, outposting me 3 to 1 and outwording me 200:1 isn't enough? Oh well, it's amusing. ;)

Originally posted by Karankawa
Awww, that's cute. I see that Vilepagan has called in his buddy to come and help him out.

Nope, Vilepagan can prove you wrong on his own. I’m just justifying the whole issue of you saying; “don’t ask me questions about personal information” but then you go ahead and post examples and personal stories to justify your position. You can’t have it both ways.

Originally posted by Karankawa
What's wrong, outposting me 3 to 1 and outwording me 200:1 isn't enough? Oh well, it's amusing. ;)

It’s okay; we can’t win every debate, Karankawa. Better go pout you were “out-posed” and “out-wordered” Life just isn’t fair, now is it? But sure, dance around the issues, and try and spin it on us. We have debated you, and we have forced you to make up excuses for you not wanting to continue this. Have a good day.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan
Try reading what I post Leper, and you might avoid having to post insults and falsehoods.

What I said was, that it was much more difficult for a poor person to get ahead, not impossible, and what I suggest is that our government help the poor, and make it easier for them to succeed, not hand them success on a silver platter. You complain about how poor people are taking money out of your pocket, and you refuse to acknowledge that all of us would benefit by reducing or eliminating poverty in this country.

I beg your forgiveness,Vile; I meant to say practically impossible, so much so that you don't expect someone to exit the lower class with reasonable effort unless the government taxes other people to bail them out.


I have no doubt that you didn't come from a rich background, since your statements about the plight of the rich, and how horribly they are taxed, sound like the work of an overwrought imagination. I also recognize that you didn't come from a poor background because your idea that these people are poor due to their own incompetence is equally fantastic.

Speculate all you want about my personal life. I can tell you I think I have a pretty damn good idea about what it's like to be poor since, although my family had a house, many people I knew lived in trailer homes, and many of those people lived on my street. In fact, my best friend growing up had to wear torn up clothing to school, for which he was often made fun of and another of my good friends growing up had to actually shovel feces out of his toilet because the sewage usually didn't work.

As for what I know about the plight of the rich, I went to a private school for my undergraduate education, where most of the people I knew were well-off, and I didn't resent them in the least bit for it....from what I could see, their parents had all earned a good start for their children through hardwork and imagination. Would I take that away from them because my parents decided to have five kids (Catholics!)? No way; my parents chose their and their children's lifestyle.


No, I would guess that you probably worked hard and had a public school education that was better than one you might have received if you lived in poverty. Or maybe you were just lucky. The point is Leper, that your personal experience may be average, or it may be exceptional. With only one example to go by you can't make a blanket determination that your experience is either, yet you do this constantly when you compare your experience to that of the poor.

Sure, it's possible, although improbable, that my life experience IS exceptional, but I still have more experience to back up my claims than I've ever heard from you. Then again, I know many of the oppurtunities afforded to me are afforded to everyone in this country, so I really doubt my experience is an exceptional one.


BTW, you've stated that you didn't come from a rich family, and thus you know what it's like to have to work your way through school. Ok...I'll accept that.

What experience do you have that gives you such amazing insight into what it's like to be poverty-stricken?

See my "amazing insight" above. I suggest you get some of your own before challenging mine.

One more thing: since you took a chance at speculating about my personal life, I'm going to take a chance at yours, based on a theory I'm developing about the socialists I've known. My guess is that you and your entourage consists of spoiled rich kids who think the rich have it easy simply because your lives are easy, and fail to fully appreciate what your parents (or whoever the source of your inherited wealth is) did to earn their wealth.

Originally posted by Leper

I beg your forgiveness,Vile; I meant to say practically impossible, so much so that you don't expect someone to exit the lower class with reasonable effort unless the government taxes other people to bail them out.

Don't beg Laper, it's unbecoming. I don't have any problem with expecting someone to exert reasonable effort to exit the lower class. I think it's unreasonable to expect people to move up from poverty when they are not given the opportunity to get a decent education, or when they don't have access to affordable health care. These are two areas where we fail to provide what we could in this country, and again, we would all benefit if we did so. You like to claim that I want the government to "bail" people out, but that's not the case, and your contention is not backed up by anything other than your assumptions.

Speculate all you want about my personal life. I can tell you I think I have a pretty damn good idea about what it's like to be poor since, although my family had a house, many people I knew lived in trailer homes, and many of those people lived on my street. In fact, my best friend growing up had to wear torn up clothing to school, for which he was often made fun of and another of my good friends growing up had to actually shovel feces out of his toilet because the sewage usually didn't work.

As for what I know about the plight of the rich, I went to a private school for my undergraduate education, where most of the people I knew were well-off, and I didn't resent them in the least bit for it....from what I could see, their parents had all earned a good start for their children through hardwork and imagination.

I didn't speculate about your personal life to be intrusive or insulting Leper. It seemed to me, from reading your posts, that you were neither rich nor poor, and that seems to be the case. For the record, I don't resent the rich either, but I do think that they can afford to bear a heavier tax burden than the poor because...well...they have the money.

Would I take that away from them because my parents decided to have five kids (Catholics!)? No way; my parents chose their and their children's lifestyle.

Despite what you may believe, and have posted, I have no desire to tax the rich into the poorhouse.

Sure, it's possible, although improbable, that my life experience IS exceptional, but I still have more experience to back up my claims than I've ever heard from you. Then again, I know many of the oppurtunities afforded to me are afforded to everyone in this country, so I really doubt my experience is an exceptional one.

I would question your statement that the opportunities afforded to you are available to everyone in this country. Perhaps many do have the same opportunities, and perhaps many don't. I also suspect that while your experience may not be an exceptional one, their are those in this country whose experiences in life were far more unpleasant than yours or mine.

See my "amazing insight" above. I suggest you get some of your own before challenging mine.

I don't believe I challenged your "insight", I believe I asked you about it...with perhaps a hint of sarcasm. My apologies. While your story certainly is not one that would be related by a rich person, it is also not a story of abject poverty. There are people who live in poverty to the point that they are undernourished, can't afford to pay their energy bills, and live in roach infested tenements. Their children go to school in underfunded schools, and are taught by marginal, unmotivated teachers. I suspect that neither you or I, have any real "insight" as to what it's like to grow up in conditions like that. These are the people who need our help.

One more thing: since you took a chance at speculating about my personal life, I'm going to take a chance at yours, based on a theory I'm developing about the socialists I've known.

Perhaps your "theory" applies to Socialists, but I don't see the relevance, since I'm not a Socialist. There are aspects of Socialism that might work to improve our health care system, for instance, but I'm just as much a Capitalist as you, and I believe that free-market economics is what drives this country.

My guess is that you and your entourage consists of spoiled rich kids who think the rich have it easy simply because your lives are easy, and fail to fully appreciate what your parents (or whoever the source of your inherited wealth is) did to earn their wealth.

Your "guess" about me would be completely wrong.

I don't mean just a little bit, I mean completely wrong.

Since you were "gracious" enough to tell us something of your background, I'll tell you a little about mine.

My father was a tool-and-die maker. My mother worked briefly as a legal secretary. I attended public school and worked three jobs to attend a technical school after high school, where I received an Associates Degree in Police Science. My father passed away in 2000 after a long illness, and I did "inherit" a few thousand dollars upon his death. Certainly not enough to constitute "wealth".

Personally, I've worked a number of different jobs since then, including Security Guard, Manufacturing, and Retail positions. My highest yearly income was in the neighborhood of 25-30k.

While I have no personal "insight" as to what it's like to be rich or poor, being decidely "middle-class", I do recognize that I had the opportunity to attend reasonably good schools, and I never was in want of proper health care. I also recognize that I had it considerably better than a lot of people.

One thing that I think you don't recognize, or fail to appreciate, is the fact that poverty, like wealth, is "inherited". If you grow up poor, there is an increased likelihood that you'll stay poor, and it's this cycle of poverty that we should be addressing as a society. I have no problem with people inheriting the wealth that their parents worked hard to achieve, but we should do all we can to make sure people don't inherit poverty.

The best way we can do this, in my opinion, is to improve the educational opportunities, and the health care system in this country. We are the richest nation in the world yet we lag behind other nations in these two areas, and there is no excuse for that.

I think it's unreasonable to expect people to move up from poverty when they are not given the opportunity to get a decent education, or when they don't have access to affordable health care.

Is a 100% free high school education with a college degree that can be completely paid for by grants/low interest loans not cheap enough?

Is Medi-Care, 100% free medical aid, not cheap enough?

How can you honestly say " it's unreasonable to expect people to move up from poverty?" In actuality, it's unreasonable for anyone to be in poverty!

For the record, I don't resent the rich either, but I do think that they can afford to bear a heavier tax burden than the poor because...well...they have the money.

Man, I love this logic! This line of reasoning can be used forever; you can use it to strip away every advantage that someone has worked ahead for, and re-distribute it, JUST BECAUSE they have it. This is exactly NOT what a capitalist economy does. Taking away the advantages of working hard and getting ahead also takes away the incentive to do just that.

You are making the mistake of not giving credit to those who are rich. I don't think you realize it, but you are riding on their coatails as it is. Very likely, the need for your job is because of someone else's industry, someone who has worked hard, come up with ideas for a business, made huge profits, and created the need for more jobs and more business. The idea of socialism undermines the rewards that the rich reap whenever they do figure out ways to do things better. When you take away from the financial advantages of becoming rich, you take away the reward for working hard and coming up with new, better ideas.

Has it occurred to you that taxing the rich more may actually hurt everyone's lifestyle more overall? Has it occurred to you that by increasing the tax on the people that are in the higher brackets, you are taking away from the incentives for the enterprising to do things better? Has it ever crossed your mind that the quickest way to get a better standard of living is to let capitalists make more money and the rest of the population ride their coattails, so to speak?

Let me rephrase this for you:

Has it occurred to you that the US's standard of living is going up constantly, not because we helped our poor, but we are made it rewarding for people to get rich? What would you do if you had an idea that was probably worth a few billion dollars? Would you take it to a country that is going to take your money away from you and redistribute it among the poor or would you take a look at a country that allows people to keep what they made fair and square? And what repercussions would each country suffer for their attitudes towards the rich?

Think....think....think.....

Originally posted by Karankawa
Is a 100% free high school education with a college degree that can be completely paid for by grants/low interest loans not cheap enough?

Provided that it is a quality education, yes.

Is Medi-Care, 100% free medical aid, not cheap enough?

That would be very nice, thank you.

Man, I love this logic! This line of reasoning can be used forever; you can use it to strip away every advantage that someone has worked ahead for, and re-distribute it, JUST BECAUSE they have it.

Well, if I had suggested taking away every advantage that rich people have worked for I could understand your vehemence, but since I didn't suggest that, your argument is pointless.

You are making the mistake ... things better.

You state the obvious, but thanks for the economics 101 lesson.

When you take away from the financial advantages of becoming rich, you take away the reward for working hard and coming up with new, better ideas.

Well, again I must repeat myself...I'm not suggesting taxing anyone into the poorhouse, or dropping a tax burden onto businessmen that drives them out of business...

Has it occurred to you that taxing the rich more may actually hurt everyone's lifestyle more overall?

It has occurred to me, I just don't think it's true.

Has it occurred to you that by increasing the tax on the people that are in the higher brackets, you are taking away from the incentives for the enterprising to do things better?

Yes, it has occurred to me, but I think the effect would actually be the opposite of what you think would happen. If you are a company and you have some of your profits taken away by taxes, you now have incentive to do things "better" so as to get back that money that was paid in taxes.

Has it ever crossed your mind that the quickest way to get a better standard of living is to let capitalists make more money and the rest of the population ride their coattails, so to speak?

That would be fine in a world made up of kind-hearted capitalist bosses who had everyone's best interests in mind. But since we don't live in that fantasy world, the government needs to regulate business, and tax them to "promote the general welfare".

Has it occurred to you that the US's standard of living is going up constantly, not because we helped our poor, but we are made it rewarding for people to get rich?

Partly correct.

What would you do if you had an idea that was probably worth a few billion dollars? Would you take it to a country that is going to take your money away from you and redistribute it among the poor or would you take a look at a country that allows people to keep what they made fair and square? And what repercussions would each country suffer for their attitudes towards the rich?

I'd like to think that I would take advantage of the idea and become wealthy in such a way as to allow others to get rich as well. I'd like to think I would be more concerned about my employees than making that extra dollar in profits. I'd like to think all businesses are run this way, but history tells me that's not the case.

Think....think....think.....

Thanks for the advice Karankawa, perhaps you should try it sometime yourself.

Yes, it has occurred to me, but I think the effect would actually be the opposite of what you think would happen. If you are a company and you have some of your profits taken away by taxes, you now have incentive to do things "better" so as to get back that money that was paid in taxes.

Oh, what a clever incentive there. Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You say that we increase taxes to intentionally decrease profits. Now when companies, workers, etc, see that they have less money the companies, workers, whoever, go out and make more to make up for what they lost. Mmmmmm.......

Did John Kerry teach you this?

Okay, okay, okay, let's PRETEND for a minute that this sort of reasoning actually works on people! Suppose I take a poor person that has very little. I then take away the little that he has. According to your logic, this person will now have incentive to go out and work harder because he lost what he has. This is your logic remember.

Let me propose an alternative scenario to you: what if these workers, companies, etc, see that whenever they make money, it is simply taken away from them. Now what is the logical response when something that you work for is always taken away from you? Hmmmmmm, let me think hard about this.....

Oh, damn, they quit doing it because it's pointless! They see it's going to be taken away anyhow, so why bother?

Take those 2 scenarios, and you tell me which is more realistic.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Oh, what a clever incentive there. Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You say that we increase taxes to intentionally decrease profits. Now when companies, workers, etc, see that they have less money the companies, workers, whoever, go out and make more to make up for what they lost. Mmmmmm.......

Did John Kerry teach you this?

Okay, okay, okay, let's PRETEND for a minute that this sort of reasoning actually works on people! Suppose I take a poor person that has very little. I then take away the little that he has. According to your logic, this person will now have incentive to go out and work harder because he lost what he has. This is your logic remember.

Let me propose an alternative scenario to you: what if these workers, companies, etc, see that whenever they make money, it is simply taken away from them. Now what is the logical response when something that you work for is always taken away from you? Hmmmmmm, let me think hard about this.....

Oh, damn, they quit doing it because it's pointless! They see it's going to be taken away anyhow, so why bother?

Take those 2 scenarios, and you tell me which is more realistic.

Both scenarios are unrealistic because you took them both to ridiculous extremes as usual.

If you want realistic, try not to exaggerate what I said in my posts.

Let's try this again.

Well, again I must repeat myself...I'm not suggesting taxing anyone into the poorhouse, or dropping a tax burden onto businessmen that drives them out of business...

why do you constantly say that I want to take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor? How many times must I repeat myself before it sinks in?

I tried to explain to you using easy to understand analogies why you're wrong. If you can't understand that, then there is nothing else I can do for you.

I worked for years, I had 2 jobs, had disability insurance, health insurance etc. 2 years ago I fell ill with Cancer. One year ago I had radiation treatments and haven't been able to walk since.

I was screwed out of my disability insurance. I couldn't get our health insurance to cover alot of the Cancer tests. (My HUB WORK'S FOR THE STATE FOR PETE'S SAKE!)

Now he is working 4 jobs! Yes, I said four jobs to pay for my medications, in which he still doesn't make enough for all of my meds.

Because my hub works 4 jobs and our income is more than what is allowed for Government assistance, we can NOT get any help. I have applied umpteen months ago for disability and still haven't heard a darn blasted thing from them...

I have since had to file for bankruptcy..

They won't be happy until we have lost EVERYTHING we have worked so hard for!!! By the time I finally get the help I need we will be out on the streets. I have nothing to look forward to.

Because my hub ISN'T a lazy @**, and doesn't let me just rot in this bed, we are being punished.

I have applied for foodstamps, medicaid, disability, went to all sorts of organizations, and no one will help. Let me take that back, I had a few organizations help me out, but nothing permanent until I can get my disability. Food stamp place says that I can't get help until my disability is approved...

What in the frick good is a food stamp gonna do me when we are out on the street??

With the steady rise of co-pays and prescriptions, what good is having the health insurance? I am already 21,000 in the hole this year AFTER filing for bankruptcy!

Sspitoooey,

I am only 32 with two hungry kids to feed.

What in the world does this lower class family have to look forward to?

Originally posted by Karankawa
I tried to explain to you using easy to understand analogies why you're wrong. If you can't understand that, then there is nothing else I can do for you.

Your "easy to understand analogies" were gross exaggerations and had nothing to do with reality. I've posted my opinions repeatedly yet you continue to assert that I want to excessively tax businesses and hand out cash to the poor, both assertions being completely incorrect.

If you want to have a debate on the subject, that's fine Karankawa, but that means you should debate what I post not twist my post into some ridiculous statement, or try to answer with some wildly unrealistic analogy.

Having read some of my posts I think you know that my reading and writing skills are such that you don't have to make your posts "easy to understand". I doubt there is anything you could post that would be beyond my ability to comprehend.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Don't beg Laper, it's unbecoming. I don't have any problem with expecting someone to exert reasonable effort to exit the lower class. I think it's unreasonable to expect people to move up from poverty when they are not given the opportunity to get a decent education, or when they don't have access to affordable health care. These are two areas where we fail to provide what we could in this country, and again, we would all benefit if we did so. You like to claim that I want the government to "bail" people out, but that's not the case, and your contention is not backed up by anything other than your assumptions.


I didn't speculate about your personal life to be intrusive or insulting Leper. It seemed to me, from reading your posts, that you were neither rich nor poor, and that seems to be the case. For the record, I don't resent the rich either, but I do think that they can afford to bear a heavier tax burden than the poor because...well...they have the money.


Despite what you may believe, and have posted, I have no desire to tax the rich into the poorhouse.


I would question your statement that the opportunities afforded to you are available to everyone in this country. Perhaps many do have the same opportunities, and perhaps many don't. I also suspect that while your experience may not be an exceptional one, their are those in this country whose experiences in life were far more unpleasant than yours or mine.


I don't believe I challenged your "insight", I believe I asked you about it...with perhaps a hint of sarcasm. My apologies. While your story certainly is not one that would be related by a rich person, it is also not a story of abject poverty. There are people who live in poverty to the point that they are undernourished, can't afford to pay their energy bills, and live in roach infested tenements. Their children go to school in underfunded schools, and are taught by marginal, unmotivated teachers. I suspect that neither you or I, have any real "insight" as to what it's like to grow up in conditions like that. These are the people who need our help.


Perhaps your "theory" applies to Socialists, but I don't see the relevance, since I'm not a Socialist. There are aspects of Socialism that might work to improve our health care system, for instance, but I'm just as much a Capitalist as you, and I believe that free-market economics is what drives this country.


Your "guess" about me would be completely wrong.

I don't mean just a little bit, I mean completely wrong.

Since you were "gracious" enough to tell us something of your background, I'll tell you a little about mine.

My father was a tool-and-die maker. My mother worked briefly as a legal secretary. I attended public school and worked three jobs to attend a technical school after high school, where I received an Associates Degree in Police Science. My father passed away in 2000 after a long illness, and I did "inherit" a few thousand dollars upon his death. Certainly not enough to constitute "wealth".

Personally, I've worked a number of different jobs since then, including Security Guard, Manufacturing, and Retail positions. My highest yearly income was in the neighborhood of 25-30k.

While I have no personal "insight" as to what it's like to be rich or poor, being decidely "middle-class", I do recognize that I had the opportunity to attend reasonably good schools, and I never was in want of proper health care. I also recognize that I had it considerably better than a lot of people.

One thing that I think you don't recognize, or fail to appreciate, is the fact that poverty, like wealth, is "inherited". If you grow up poor, there is an increased likelihood that you'll stay poor, and it's this cycle of poverty that we should be addressing as a society. I have no problem with people inheriting the wealth that their parents worked hard to achieve, but we should do all we can to make sure people don't inherit poverty.

The best way we can do this, in my opinion, is to improve the educational opportunities, and the health care system in this country. We are the richest nation in the world yet we lag behind other nations in these two areas, and there is no excuse for that.

Sorry bout the stereotype...had to test it out. Anyways...

If I lived in "abject poverty," then I would rescind my position, because I, like Karan, believe that there is no reason a healthy, hardworking, reproductively responsible person should ever live in poverty for an extended period of time in the United States as it exists today.

I also have a couple of things I want clarification on:

One, you seem to think some people do not have access to a reasonable public education. I can't speak for other states, but I know that, in Texas, if you get in the top 10% of your high school, ANY high school, then you were automatically admitted into a state college. Furthermore, junior colleges are not particularly selective nor so competative that an unintelligent person can't make good grades and get at least an associate's degree if they put forth a little effort. Is that not reasonable access to education for anyone? If not, what would be reasonable access in your opinion.

Two, you say you're a capitalist (maybe a watered-down capitalist), but you support every proposed social program I've ever heard of. My understanding of your position is this: that you think everyone, no matter how hard they work or how responsible they are, has a fundamental right to unlimited food, education, shelter, and healthcare. Or from a capitalistic perspective, the incentive to work is obtaining luxuries. Am I leaving anything out and is that correct?

Originally posted by Leper

One, you seem to think some people do not have access to a reasonable public education. I can't speak for other states, but I know that, in Texas, if you get in the top 10% of your high school, ANY high school, then you were automatically admitted into a state college. Furthermore, junior colleges are not particularly selective nor so competative that an unintelligent person can't make good grades and get at least an associate's degree if they put forth a little effort. Is that not reasonable access to education for anyone? If not, what would be reasonable access in your opinion.

Here in Wisconsin we don't have the same program that gives you automatic admission to a state college after high school. I think the main problem with our education system is not the availablity, but the quality of that education.

When I was 11 years old my father bought a house in Brookfield, a suburb of Milwaukee. I went from the Milwaukee Public School System to the ElmBrook School System, and it was like the difference between night and day. Even at the age of 11 I immediately recognized that the quality of my education had just drastically improved.

There is no reason that the quality of our schools, no matter where they are located, cannot be improved, and made more uniform. This will help insure that inner-city kids, and kids in poor rural neighborhoods receive as good an education as kids who live in affluent communities. While we have taken great pains to integrate our schools based on race, there has been little effort to integrate our schools based on affluence, and this contributes to the cycle of poverty.

My understanding of your position is this: that you think everyone, no matter how hard they work or how responsible they are, has a fundamental right to unlimited food, education, shelter, and healthcare. Or from a capitalistic perspective, the incentive to work is obtaining luxuries. Am I leaving anything out and is that correct?

No Leper, it's not correct.

My outlook is this. You want to know whether I'm a Capitalist or a Socialist or maybe some other kind of ist. I don't think labels are what matters. What we have in our country is a Capitalist/Republic and we've found that generally that works better than say the former Soviet Union, which could be described as a Communist/Dictatorship. These are rough terms and really may not apply to all aspects of these two country's governmental systems. Some people think of Capitalism as the end all and be all of economic systems but I think we both recognize that it isn't perfect by any stretch. While Capitalism is responsible for the fact that we are the richest nation in the world, all you have to do is look at this country in the late 1800's and early 1900's to see the effect of unregulated Capitalism. Child labor, union busting, monopolies, and other horrors that we would not tolerate today would be rampant in an unregulated Capitalistic society. These things and others gave rise to the unions and indeed, provided the stimulus which gave rise to Communist and Socialist theories.

In this country Socialism is considered a "dirty" word in politics, yet there are some aspects of Socialism that would serve us well. We are struggling now in this country to find a way to provide universal health care to our citizens under our Capitalist system and it isn't working out very well. The problem is that if you let the market decide the cost of medical care, there will be those who simply can't afford it. We have a basically Socialist attitude towards primary education in this country and that doesn't seem to bother people who consider them selves rabid capitalists, so why not have the government provide healthcare to all citizens?

What I think we need to do is use all of the best attributes of several different political/economic systems and create a hybrid. Socialism would not work well to run our whole economy, but Capitalism is not the best way to provide for the needs of all of our citizens, so we need to use what we can from both systems until we manage to invent a better system.

I think education and healthcare should be considered "rights" in this country and the government should provide both to it's citizens. As far as food and shelter go, I think the government should help with those items, in a basic way, for those who cannot provide for themselves, simply because there are societal benefits that accrue to us all when the government does this. There has been a lot said about this taking away people's incentive, and I think this idea is somewhat overblown. I'ts difficult for me to imagine that if the government provided public housing and food stamps to the needy, that suddenly everyone would want to quit their job and go on the dole. Public Housing is not a pleasant place to live and there would be plenty of incentive to find a better place to live.

PROOVES that Socialism can work

The Problem with America, is that not enough people have Enough money, the Wealth is too Un-Evenly Distributed

We need to Re-Distribute the Wealth, that way Everyone will be happier,

We Need a LIVING WAGE, Socialized Health Care, etc.

What about the people who are having their wealth distributed. I doubt they would be too anxious to jump on the bandwagon.
And secondly, the wealth today is not distributed. It is freely given to people by their peers. Everyone is in agreement on what is given to them.

The movie Bulworth proves that socialism can work

:eek: Holy shit, you mean to tell me that Socialism can work in America, and all we had to do to realize it was watch a movie???

God, don't I feel like a dumb ass...

The Problem with America, is that not enough people have Enough money

Or, perhaps, good ideas. Maybe they should exploit other career options by developing the drive necessary to acquire more cash. Since when is it the governments job to make sure "you're" taken care of?

We need to Re-Distribute the Wealth

We do...it's called paying taxes.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan
Here in Wisconsin we don't have the same program that gives you automatic admission to a state college after high school. I think the main problem with our education system is not the availablity, but the quality of that education.

When I was 11 years old my father bought a house in Brookfield, a suburb of Milwaukee. I went from the Milwaukee Public School System to the ElmBrook School System, and it was like the difference between night and day. Even at the age of 11 I immediately recognized that the quality of my education had just drastically improved.

There is no reason that the quality of our schools, no matter where they are located, cannot be improved, and made more uniform. This will help insure that inner-city kids, and kids in poor rural neighborhoods receive as good an education as kids who live in affluent communities. While we have taken great pains to integrate our schools based on race, there has been little effort to integrate our schools based on affluence, and this contributes to the cycle of poverty.

I too, in high school, got a dose of two different school systems and witnessed a drastic difference in educational quality. I think we're basically in agreement with this ideal, as are most people. I think everyone would like to see a uniformly strong school system. However, practical achievement is not so simple. For example, what if the problem stems from the community and not the school system (as I think was the problem in my lower quality high school)?


No Leper, it's not correct.

My outlook is this. You want to know whether I'm a Capitalist or a Socialist or maybe some other kind of ist. I don't think labels are what matters. What we have in our country is a Capitalist/Republic and we've found that generally that works better than say the former Soviet Union, which could be described as a Communist/Dictatorship. These are rough terms and really may not apply to all aspects of these two country's governmental systems. Some people think of Capitalism as the end all and be all of economic systems but I think we both recognize that it isn't perfect by any stretch. While Capitalism is responsible for the fact that we are the richest nation in the world, all you have to do is look at this country in the late 1800's and early 1900's to see the effect of unregulated Capitalism. Child labor, union busting, monopolies, and other horrors that we would not tolerate today would be rampant in an unregulated Capitalistic society. These things and others gave rise to the unions and indeed, provided the stimulus which gave rise to Communist and Socialist theories.

In this country Socialism is considered a "dirty" word in politics, yet there are some aspects of Socialism that would serve us well. We are struggling now in this country to find a way to provide universal health care to our citizens under our Capitalist system and it isn't working out very well. The problem is that if you let the market decide the cost of medical care, there will be those who simply can't afford it. We have a basically Socialist attitude towards primary education in this country and that doesn't seem to bother people who consider them selves rabid capitalists, so why not have the government provide healthcare to all citizens?

What I think we need to do is use all of the best attributes of several different political/economic systems and create a hybrid. Socialism would not work well to run our whole economy, but Capitalism is not the best way to provide for the needs of all of our citizens, so we need to use what we can from both systems until we manage to invent a better system.

I think education and healthcare should be considered "rights" in this country and the government should provide both to it's citizens. As far as food and shelter go, I think the government should help with those items, in a basic way, for those who cannot provide for themselves, simply because there are societal benefits that accrue to us all when the government does this. There has been a lot said about this taking away people's incentive, and I think this idea is somewhat overblown. I'ts difficult for me to imagine that if the government provided public housing and food stamps to the needy, that suddenly everyone would want to quit their job and go on the dole. Public Housing is not a pleasant place to live and there would be plenty of incentive to find a better place to live.

I think this whole nation is also in agreement that a hybrid of socialism/capitalism is necessary for success.

Here are the issues on which I think we're in disagreement:

Education - Why is this absolutely necessary beyond the 11th grade?

Healthcare - What is the incentive to practice good health habits or do you think being healthy alone is an appropriate amount of incentive? What is the incentive to keep people from going to the doctor/hospital when they really don't need to?

Food - What sort of food should be provided and how should it be provided? Our state has a system where the needy person is provided an effective credit card (aka the "Lone Star Card") with a set spending limit every month and the needy person uses that to buy groceries. Do you not see a problem with this?

Shelter - How much and what quality of shelter do we provide? For example, should each family have it's own house rentfree? What about upkeep?

Incentive - Do you not think there is less incentive to work to improve your life if your basic necessities are provided regardless of your actions? Do you really believe that there are no people who would be content with just basic necessities provided for? Should we do anything to discourage people who can't provide for themselves or their offspring from reproducing further?