The redistribution of wealth is why people don't want him. Why should we work harder so those on welfare can continue to be funded? Communism must be making a comeback.
They are talking about returning taxes back to the levels that they were under Clinton, and rich people were doing just freakin' fine back then. Yet people want to act like it's some sort of 'give all your money to the goverment and they will dole it out in equal shares to each American' like plan.
I don't think people making over $250k are going to be severely hurt over a few point tax increase.
And don't even start how it's a disincentive to do better, because that's a huge crock of shit too.
All it takes is one little piece of unfiltered Obama in the face of
a single "joe the Plumber" to expose hime for the left wing elitist that he is.
The left-wing elite media need to start putting their freakin' satellite trucks in front of Ayers' house already. Stop scrutinizing a private citizen who asked for none of this. What the heck is the matter with these socialist freaks?
left-wing elitists and left-wing elite media suck.
An Obama presidency is unacceptable
McCain/Palin '08
The redistribution of wealth is why people don't want him. Why should we work harder so those on welfare can continue to be funded? Communism must be making a comeback.
Um... in case you haven't noticed, its beginning to look like a majority of people DO want him. Do seriously wish to imply that if you make less than 250 thousand a year you don't work!? That's hard to believe even from you. Communism. Please. And then you provide a link to FOX news.
SHEESH!!
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Um... in case you haven't noticed, its beginning to look like a majority of people DO want him. Do seriously wish to imply that if you make less than 250 thousand a year you don't work!? That's hard to believe even from you. Communism. Please. And then you provide a link to FOX news.
SHEESH!!
joe the "plumber" says nuh...
The ladder of success is generally sorted from the top down by those who:
Have more intelligence, talent, physical or mental stamina
Work smarter, harder, and faster
Apply themselves more in compulsery education
Do more in post-education
Better navigate their societal institutions
Limit their POOR choices (excuse me), thereby increasing personal opportunity.
All relatively rare exceptions aside....
I thought all liberals believed in evolution, the survival of the fittest and all that... why are rich people supposed to pay poor people again?
The ladder of success is generally sorted from the top down by those who:
Have more intelligence, talent, physical or mental stamina
Work smarter, harder, and faster
Apply themselves more in compulsery education
Do more in post-education
Better navigate their societal institutions
Limit their POOR choices (excuse me), thereby increasing personal opportunity.
All relatively rare exceptions aside....
I thought all liberals believed in evolution, the survival of the fittest and all that... why are rich people supposed to pay poor people again?
And this is the primary difference between your view and the view of many liberals, and it is not something that can be argued, but merely an ideological difference. For your argument to be valid, the primary principle must be that everyone has started with a clean slate and has started from the same starting point, for lack of better terms, and that therefore those who do better, make more and are more successful do so solely because they ARE better and those who are less fortunate are so due to deficiencies in intelligence, personality, stamina, etc. Myself and many others believe that such a view is dreadfully naive, and that such a viewpoint examines the country with blinders on. I don't know if that's a claim that could be argued, but there it is.
For your argument to be valid, the primary principle must be that everyone has started with a clean slate and has started from the same starting point, for lack of better terms, and that therefore those who do better, make more and are more successful do so solely because they ARE better and those who are less fortunate are so due to deficiencies in intelligence, personality, stamina, etc.
This is a particularly insulting piece of intellectual dishonesty to anyone who ever overcame anything substantial in order to improve themselves.
I'm so tired of this redistribution of wealth/socialist argument. We are talking about returning the top two tax brackets to 36% and 39.6% (from 33% & 35%). The right is so up in arms about us becoming a socialist country because a few percent of the country will pay 3-4.6% more in income taxes?
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
This is a particularly insulting piece of intellectual dishonesty to anyone who ever overcame anything substantial in order to improve themselves.
How is that insulting? Look at your argument...
"Apply themselves more in compulsory education"
+ Your argument only works if you believe that the infrastructures of schools play no part in education development. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter that the elementary school in the South Bronx cannot afford textbooks and computers and the elementary school in midtown Manhattan can afford everything. Your argument only works if you believe it doesn't matter that all students can equally develop their athletic skills, even if the poorer schools can't afford the equipment. And so on and so forth it goes. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter if a child has to leave high school to get a job to support his or her family that cannot make ends meet.
"Do-more in post-education."
+ Assuming you mean secondary education post-high school, your argument only works if you believe that colleges and universities will accept anyone regardless of their ability to pay. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter that since the previous generation in your family went to Yale, they are financially successful which makes it much easier for you to go to Yale. Your argument only works if you believe that going to a trade school will grant you all the same opportunities as going to Harvard will. And so on and so forth it goes.
"Better navigate their social institutions."
+ Your argument only works if you believe social institutions will be blind to educational and occupational history. Your argument only works if those who did not have the textbooks, did not finish high school because they had to get a job, get a fair shake as the kid born with the silver spoon in mouth. And so on and so forth it goes.
And so on and so forth it goes, until one's head could practically implode at the amount of self-delusion someone would have to practice to be willing to believe that everyone gets a 'fair shake,' that pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is all that is necessary to succeed and that if you do not do so it is your own damn fault. If you believe all this and many other things, then yes, I suppose your argument would work. I don't.
I think it's rich that I'm being accused of being "insulting" by someone who claims that if someone at the bottom of the ladder of success, it is because they lack "intelligence, talent and mental and physical stamina" and do not work hard. Give me a break. I value those who rose above challenging circumstances and poverty to be successful in life; my family did just that. However, I'm not naive enough to suggest that the people who don't are inherently inferior, which is exactly what your argument states.
"Apply themselves more in compulsory education"
+ Your argument only works if you believe that the infrastructures of schools play no part in education development. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter that the elementary school in the South Bronx cannot afford textbooks and computers and the elementary school in midtown Manhattan can afford everything. Your argument only works if you believe it doesn't matter that all students can equally develop their athletic skills, even if the poorer schools can't afford the equipment. And so on and so forth it goes. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter if a child has to leave high school to get a job to support his or her family that cannot make ends meet.
"Do-more in post-education."
+ Assuming you mean secondary education post-high school, your argument only works if you believe that colleges and universities will accept anyone regardless of their ability to pay. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter that since the previous generation in your family went to Yale, they are financially successful which makes it much easier for you to go to Yale. Your argument only works if you believe that going to a trade school will grant you all the same opportunities as going to Harvard will. And so on and so forth it goes.
"Better navigate their social institutions."
+ Your argument only works if you believe social institutions will be blind to educational and occupational history. Your argument only works if those who did not have the textbooks, did not finish high school because they had to get a job, get a fair shake as the kid born with the silver spoon in mouth. And so on and so forth it goes.
And so on and so forth it goes, until one's head could practically implode at the amount of self-delusion someone would have to practice to be willing to believe that everyone gets a 'fair shake,' that pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is all that is necessary to succeed and that if you do not do so it is your own damn fault. If you believe all this and many other things, then yes, I suppose your argument would work. I don't.
I think it's rich that I'm being accused of being "insulting" by someone who claims that if someone at the bottom of the ladder of success, it is because they lack "intelligence, talent and mental and physical stamina" and do not work hard. Give me a break. I value those who rose above challenging circumstances and poverty to be successful in life; my family did just that. However, I'm not naive enough to suggest that the people who don't are inherently inferior, which is exactly what your argument states.
let's go step by step:
1. regardless of how good your school is, A grades are A grades. An AVERAGE sat score combined with grades from ANY accredited school gets you into at least a state school. The balance of your argument here puts a bunch of 8 year olds in sweat shops, which I'm not buying. Extremely rare cases excepted.
2. can't afford a 4-year? How about Community college? or tech school? There are good jobs for folks who successfully get through these institutions as well. There are Pell grants and student loans to pay for all of that.
Want more school? turn that edu. into a job, get some caysh, and go back to a better school. You can get SOMETHING to start without having to pay a DIME until after graduation.
3. solved by the first two.
It's not easy, but neither is Darwin. He's a cold muther f-er. He says our ability to adapt to adverse conditions in our environment actually improves the species overall.
Hey, wanna help poor fatherless kids stay in school? wanna help handicapped? The elderly? I'm okay with paying for that. but any farther and we're just making bigger government and a weaker society with less individual accountability.
I can't run around the block, I blame the cigarrettes...
1. regardless of how good your school is, A grades are A grades. An AVERAGE sat score combined with grades from ANY accredited school gets you into at least a state school. The balance of your argument here puts a bunch of 8 year olds in sweat shops, which I'm not buying. Extremely rare cases excepted.
2. can't afford a 4-year? How about Community college? or tech school? There are good jobs for folks who successfully get through these institutions as well. There are Pell grants and student loans to pay for all of that.
Want more school? turn that edu. into a job, get some caysh, and go back to a better school. You can get SOMETHING to start without having to pay a DIME until after graduation.
3. solved by the first two.
It's not easy, but neither is Darwin. He's a cold muther f-er. He says our ability to adapt to adverse conditions in our environment actually improves the species overall.
Hey, wanna help poor fatherless kids stay in school? wanna help handicapped? The elderly? I'm okay with paying for that. but any farther and we're just making bigger government and a weaker society with less individual accountability.
I can't run around the block, I blame the cigarrettes...
OK...these are two extremely different viewpoints. First of all, you could've saved the time and said that you don't think that conditions matter. Despite the surroundings and social conditions people are born into, everyone has an equal shot at the 'American dream.' You see no differentiation between growing up in a tenement apartment in Bed-Stuy, with two parents making minimum wage because they can't get jobs anywhere else, and someone born on the Upper West Side who's a third-generation college student. You REALLY think the former child has the same opportunities to develop their skills, intelligence, and stamina then the latter? Of course it's not the case. Poverty is quite a bit more complicated than that; overcoming it is not "one of life's little challenges", like when you work on your jumpshot when trying to make the basketball team when you're just not good enough yet. Is it that hard to believe that when a student has the best opportunities in his or her development, that more often they will get the better schooling, the better job, the higher pay? And that that is a cycle that will continue indefinitely. You talk about Pell grants and Stafford loans; what if there's no college counselor in the school? What if there's no computer in the home? What if class sizes are 40-50, that don't allow for individual attention? Are you starting to see the problem here? Unless you except my premise, the only alternative is that the impoverished people in our country are 'defective', that they are not smart enough, good enough, or don't try hard enough. Pardon my language, but that is total and absolute crap.
If you wanted to get serious about your commitment to individual growth, we'd make 'legacy' appointments in colleges and universities illegal. We'd make sure that the best colleges and universities operated on a need-blind basis (and speaking as a kid that went to a great school on scholarships and loans, God knows they have the money to do this). I want to enable kids and working adults the tools the tools they need to succeed. And to say that such a standard exists from our government, on a consistent and supportive basis, is unfounded. I came from a home without much money, and I was lucky enough to go to a school on scholarships and loans; how damn arrogant would I have to be to believe that all those who were born into similar circumstances did not get that opportunity because they weren't as "good" as I was? That's a senseless argument, to me.
When it comes to Darwin, truth be told, I don't really give a shit about natural selection. He never ran a country. If one runner starts at A and enough starts at B, and the latter reaches C first, that's not an example of natural selection. It's a rigged game.
The problem with your argument, I feel, is that you see and are not willing to accept much middle-ground between no government involvement or a straight handout, that "check in the mail" you talk about. I don't want a handout; I want funding for after-school centers, which Bush gutted and McCain does not include in his plans. I want early childhood education. I want a sane health care system so that a kid doesn't have to drop out of high school to help pay bills when his mom gets sick and can't work. I want there to be libraries in all schools, not solely the ones that can afford them. This is not 'welfare.' This is improving our country, and if we were serious about fulling the potential of 'the pursuit of happiness' we'd be making sure that everyone born in our nation had the chance to pursue it fairly.
And your cigarette analogy is faulty. With cigarettes, you are making a choice with the health information given to you; you puff besides knowledge of the risk. How does that apply to someone facing social conditions that were not their doing? I don't see any discernible parallel there.
EDIT: I realize I come on pretty heavy with this...it's just that I've heard this argument many times before, and I've personally never understood it.
"Apply themselves more in compulsory education"
+ Your argument only works if you believe that the infrastructures of schools play no part in education development. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter that the elementary school in the South Bronx cannot afford textbooks and computers and the elementary school in midtown Manhattan can afford everything. Your argument only works if you believe it doesn't matter that all students can equally develop their athletic skills, even if the poorer schools can't afford the equipment. And so on and so forth it goes. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter if a child has to leave high school to get a job to support his or her family that cannot make ends meet.
"Do-more in post-education."
+ Assuming you mean secondary education post-high school, your argument only works if you believe that colleges and universities will accept anyone regardless of their ability to pay. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter that since the previous generation in your family went to Yale, they are financially successful which makes it much easier for you to go to Yale. Your argument only works if you believe that going to a trade school will grant you all the same opportunities as going to Harvard will. And so on and so forth it goes.
"Better navigate their social institutions."
+ Your argument only works if you believe social institutions will be blind to educational and occupational history. Your argument only works if those who did not have the textbooks, did not finish high school because they had to get a job, get a fair shake as the kid born with the silver spoon in mouth. And so on and so forth it goes.
And so on and so forth it goes, until one's head could practically implode at the amount of self-delusion someone would have to practice to be willing to believe that everyone gets a 'fair shake,' that pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is all that is necessary to succeed and that if you do not do so it is your own damn fault. If you believe all this and many other things, then yes, I suppose your argument would work. I don't.
I think it's rich that I'm being accused of being "insulting" by someone who claims that if someone at the bottom of the ladder of success, it is because they lack "intelligence, talent and mental and physical stamina" and do not work hard. Give me a break. I value those who rose above challenging circumstances and poverty to be successful in life; my family did just that. However, I'm not naive enough to suggest that the people who don't are inherently inferior, which is exactly what your argument states.
Is there an emoticon for standing up and cheering?
It's not easy, but neither is Darwin. He's a cold muther f-er. He says our ability to adapt to adverse conditions in our environment actually improves the species overall.
free handouts...greater welfare...dont pay taxes and get a refund check anyway.
And once again, we have this problem. I asked prytoj this exact question in another thread because I was very confused about where your side is coming from...in short, how exactly do you not pay taxes and yet still get tax cuts?
Here it is:
First of all, you've expressed outrage that people will be getting a "check in the mail" who do not pay taxes, those free-loaders! The problem with this argument is that it's not a "check in the mail" for everyone in the lowest quintile. Figure 2 measures the increase in income which will happen as a result of Obama's tax plan, not the amount of money received from the federal government. All of his "tax credits" and "tax cuts" are based upon the notion that you pay taxes; how you can you get a tax cut if you don't pay taxes at all? The results show that the lowest quintile will still benefit, and if anyone of them do pay federal income taxes (i.e. self-employed, etc) they will see the appropriate tax cut. But this notion that everyone in America is getting a check in the mail is unfounded. Show me the check in the mail in Obama's plan! It's not there; the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, college credit, you need to OWE taxes for these credits to be applicable. That's what makes a tax credit a tax credit in the first place. The only exception I see is if you are an undergraduate student in the 4,000 college affordability tax credit, in which you receive the credit as the dependent of another individual (who, surprise, must be a taxpayer). And tax cuts don't mean extra money; they mean you don't have to pay the money that was originally necessary by law. Again, where is this "check in the mail" you keep talking about? I made 800 dollars as a student last year and did not pay taxes; would I be getting that 'check in the mail?' Of course not. The Tax Policy Center shows, however, that I would benefit under Obama's plan, simply because in their view it is a better plan. A credit is the closest thing to the check in the mail, but those receiving the credit will be taxpayers. So how do non-taxpayers benefit directly?
If you could help me answer those questions, I'd appreciate it.
And once again, we have this problem. I asked prytoj this exact question in another thread because I was very confused about where your side is coming from...in short, how exactly do you not pay taxes and yet still get tax cuts?
Here it is:
First of all, you've expressed outrage that people will be getting a "check in the mail" who do not pay taxes, those free-loaders! The problem with this argument is that it's not a "check in the mail" for everyone in the lowest quintile. Figure 2 measures the increase in income which will happen as a result of Obama's tax plan, not the amount of money received from the federal government. All of his "tax credits" and "tax cuts" are based upon the notion that you pay taxes; how you can you get a tax cut if you don't pay taxes at all? The results show that the lowest quintile will still benefit, and if anyone of them do pay federal income taxes (i.e. self-employed, etc) they will see the appropriate tax cut. But this notion that everyone in America is getting a check in the mail is unfounded. Show me the check in the mail in Obama's plan! It's not there; the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, college credit, you need to OWE taxes for these credits to be applicable. That's what makes a tax credit a tax credit in the first place. The only exception I see is if you are an undergraduate student in the 4,000 college affordability tax credit, in which you receive the credit as the dependent of another individual (who, surprise, must be a taxpayer). And tax cuts don't mean extra money; they mean you don't have to pay the money that was originally necessary by law. Again, where is this "check in the mail" you keep talking about? I made 800 dollars as a student last year and did not pay taxes; would I be getting that 'check in the mail?' Of course not. The Tax Policy Center shows, however, that I would benefit under Obama's plan, simply because in their view it is a better plan. A credit is the closest thing to the check in the mail, but those receiving the credit will be taxpayers. So how do non-taxpayers benefit directly?
If you could help me answer those questions, I'd appreciate it.
If it takes me 10 minutes to wade through your point I'm not going to read it anymore.
But taking money from a group of people, and giving it to another group of people......
IS SOCIALISM
Your graphs perfectly define.....
SOCIALISM
just look at 'em.
Well, fine, answer these question:
1) How does someone get "a check in the mail for not doing anything and not paying taxes" as you put it if all of Obama's tax cuts and tax credit policies are, by definition for people paying taxes? Where the hell is the fantastic "check in the mail" that you get for being a citizen in Obama's plan? Tax cuts and tax credits require that someone be paying taxes for them to exist?
2) You think that someone's social surroundings (i.e. the infrastructure of their schools, etc.) have NOTHING to do with their ability to develop and harness potential?
3) Do you think poor people are all poor because they're dumb, weak, etc?
Sorry if it's taking a while to read through my posts. It's just that your points raise alot of problems and it takes a while to get through all of them.
And please don't come back at me with, "but....but...but it's SOCIALISM!" It's a weak argument and I think I've already shown why it's not socialism.
OK...these are two extremely different viewpoints. First of all, you could've saved the time and said that you don't think that conditions matter. Despite the surroundings and social conditions people are born into, everyone has an equal shot at the 'American dream.' You see no differentiation between growing up in a tenement apartment in Bed-Stuy, with two parents making minimum wage because they can't get jobs anywhere else, and someone born on the Upper West Side who's a third-generation college student. You REALLY think the former child has the same opportunities to develop their skills, intelligence, and stamina then the latter? Of course it's not the case. Poverty is quite a bit more complicated than that; overcoming it is not "one of life's little challenges", like when you work on your jumpshot when trying to make the basketball team when you're just not good enough yet. Is it that hard to believe that when a student has the best opportunities in his or her development, that more often they will get the better schooling, the better job, the higher pay? And that that is a cycle that will continue indefinitely. You talk about Pell grants and Stafford loans; what if there's no college counselor in the school? What if there's no computer in the home? What if class sizes are 40-50, that don't allow for individual attention? Are you starting to see the problem here? Unless you except my premise, the only alternative is that the impoverished people in our country are 'defective', that they are not smart enough, good enough, or don't try hard enough. Pardon my language, but that is total and absolute crap.
I'd like to add that health has a significant impact on one's ability to "succeed" - and income is the primary predictor of health outcomes.
another piece of particularly insulting intellectual dishonesty to anyone who has overcome anything significant to improve themselves.
Thanks for pointing out the elitist point of view...how perversely ignorant.
everybody works very hard everyday, I can't believe you'd say that....
Wait a minute, you favor population control as prescribed by the W.H.O., kinda lilke David Rockerfeller.
Nevermind.
Okay folks... you heard it here first: everyone works hard every day! And THAT, my friend, is exactly the point, and why it's fair to "spread the wealth around".
I challenge you to "be a deadbeat" and live off welfare for a year or two and see how far it gets you.
But, unless you've walked a mile in the shoes of every single person you're judging, don't judge.
in Missouri it gets you an Escalade, free food, and a lot of jewelry...anything else you wanna know?
and thats not from personal experience either, its a fact from the old neighborhood i lived in growing up and continue to see today when i go back there to visit
if you come and visit you can find out for yourself because these people dont hold back in telling you they are working the system and cant wait for Obama to be president to take even greater advantage of the system
in Missouri it gets you an Escalade, free food, and a lot of jewelry...anything else you wanna know?
and thats not from personal experience either, its a fact from the old neighborhood i lived in growing up and continue to see today when i go back there to visit
if you come and visit you can find out for yourself because these people dont hold back in telling you they are working the system and cant wait for Obama to be president to take even greater advantage of the system
I'm not asking for your judgement or observations. I'm saying you should personally experience it.
Comments
All it takes is one little piece of unfiltered Obama in the face of
a single "joe the Plumber" to expose hime for the left wing elitist that he is.
The left-wing elite media need to start putting their freakin' satellite trucks in front of Ayers' house already. Stop scrutinizing a private citizen who asked for none of this. What the heck is the matter with these socialist freaks?
left-wing elitists and left-wing elite media suck.
An Obama presidency is unacceptable
McCain/Palin '08
Dude, if you're going to quote Lou Dobbs verbatim, at least give credit where credit's due.
well, I'm parroting more than Dobbs, truth be told. AWWWW got me! But I thought it was a good point. Good first segment he had last night.
Um... in case you haven't noticed, its beginning to look like a majority of people DO want him. Do seriously wish to imply that if you make less than 250 thousand a year you don't work!? That's hard to believe even from you. Communism. Please. And then you provide a link to FOX news.
SHEESH!!
joe the "plumber" says nuh...
The ladder of success is generally sorted from the top down by those who:
Have more intelligence, talent, physical or mental stamina
Work smarter, harder, and faster
Apply themselves more in compulsery education
Do more in post-education
Better navigate their societal institutions
Limit their POOR choices (excuse me), thereby increasing personal opportunity.
All relatively rare exceptions aside....
I thought all liberals believed in evolution, the survival of the fittest and all that... why are rich people supposed to pay poor people again?
And this is the primary difference between your view and the view of many liberals, and it is not something that can be argued, but merely an ideological difference. For your argument to be valid, the primary principle must be that everyone has started with a clean slate and has started from the same starting point, for lack of better terms, and that therefore those who do better, make more and are more successful do so solely because they ARE better and those who are less fortunate are so due to deficiencies in intelligence, personality, stamina, etc. Myself and many others believe that such a view is dreadfully naive, and that such a viewpoint examines the country with blinders on. I don't know if that's a claim that could be argued, but there it is.
This is a particularly insulting piece of intellectual dishonesty to anyone who ever overcame anything substantial in order to improve themselves.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
How is that insulting? Look at your argument...
"Apply themselves more in compulsory education"
+ Your argument only works if you believe that the infrastructures of schools play no part in education development. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter that the elementary school in the South Bronx cannot afford textbooks and computers and the elementary school in midtown Manhattan can afford everything. Your argument only works if you believe it doesn't matter that all students can equally develop their athletic skills, even if the poorer schools can't afford the equipment. And so on and so forth it goes. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter if a child has to leave high school to get a job to support his or her family that cannot make ends meet.
"Do-more in post-education."
+ Assuming you mean secondary education post-high school, your argument only works if you believe that colleges and universities will accept anyone regardless of their ability to pay. Your argument only works if you believe that it doesn't matter that since the previous generation in your family went to Yale, they are financially successful which makes it much easier for you to go to Yale. Your argument only works if you believe that going to a trade school will grant you all the same opportunities as going to Harvard will. And so on and so forth it goes.
"Better navigate their social institutions."
+ Your argument only works if you believe social institutions will be blind to educational and occupational history. Your argument only works if those who did not have the textbooks, did not finish high school because they had to get a job, get a fair shake as the kid born with the silver spoon in mouth. And so on and so forth it goes.
And so on and so forth it goes, until one's head could practically implode at the amount of self-delusion someone would have to practice to be willing to believe that everyone gets a 'fair shake,' that pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is all that is necessary to succeed and that if you do not do so it is your own damn fault. If you believe all this and many other things, then yes, I suppose your argument would work. I don't.
I think it's rich that I'm being accused of being "insulting" by someone who claims that if someone at the bottom of the ladder of success, it is because they lack "intelligence, talent and mental and physical stamina" and do not work hard. Give me a break. I value those who rose above challenging circumstances and poverty to be successful in life; my family did just that. However, I'm not naive enough to suggest that the people who don't are inherently inferior, which is exactly what your argument states.
let's go step by step:
1. regardless of how good your school is, A grades are A grades. An AVERAGE sat score combined with grades from ANY accredited school gets you into at least a state school. The balance of your argument here puts a bunch of 8 year olds in sweat shops, which I'm not buying. Extremely rare cases excepted.
2. can't afford a 4-year? How about Community college? or tech school? There are good jobs for folks who successfully get through these institutions as well. There are Pell grants and student loans to pay for all of that.
Want more school? turn that edu. into a job, get some caysh, and go back to a better school. You can get SOMETHING to start without having to pay a DIME until after graduation.
3. solved by the first two.
It's not easy, but neither is Darwin. He's a cold muther f-er. He says our ability to adapt to adverse conditions in our environment actually improves the species overall.
Hey, wanna help poor fatherless kids stay in school? wanna help handicapped? The elderly? I'm okay with paying for that. but any farther and we're just making bigger government and a weaker society with less individual accountability.
I can't run around the block, I blame the cigarrettes...
Because poor people do the actual work that makes the money that rich people claim credit for.
OK...these are two extremely different viewpoints. First of all, you could've saved the time and said that you don't think that conditions matter. Despite the surroundings and social conditions people are born into, everyone has an equal shot at the 'American dream.' You see no differentiation between growing up in a tenement apartment in Bed-Stuy, with two parents making minimum wage because they can't get jobs anywhere else, and someone born on the Upper West Side who's a third-generation college student. You REALLY think the former child has the same opportunities to develop their skills, intelligence, and stamina then the latter? Of course it's not the case. Poverty is quite a bit more complicated than that; overcoming it is not "one of life's little challenges", like when you work on your jumpshot when trying to make the basketball team when you're just not good enough yet. Is it that hard to believe that when a student has the best opportunities in his or her development, that more often they will get the better schooling, the better job, the higher pay? And that that is a cycle that will continue indefinitely. You talk about Pell grants and Stafford loans; what if there's no college counselor in the school? What if there's no computer in the home? What if class sizes are 40-50, that don't allow for individual attention? Are you starting to see the problem here? Unless you except my premise, the only alternative is that the impoverished people in our country are 'defective', that they are not smart enough, good enough, or don't try hard enough. Pardon my language, but that is total and absolute crap.
If you wanted to get serious about your commitment to individual growth, we'd make 'legacy' appointments in colleges and universities illegal. We'd make sure that the best colleges and universities operated on a need-blind basis (and speaking as a kid that went to a great school on scholarships and loans, God knows they have the money to do this). I want to enable kids and working adults the tools the tools they need to succeed. And to say that such a standard exists from our government, on a consistent and supportive basis, is unfounded. I came from a home without much money, and I was lucky enough to go to a school on scholarships and loans; how damn arrogant would I have to be to believe that all those who were born into similar circumstances did not get that opportunity because they weren't as "good" as I was? That's a senseless argument, to me.
When it comes to Darwin, truth be told, I don't really give a shit about natural selection. He never ran a country. If one runner starts at A and enough starts at B, and the latter reaches C first, that's not an example of natural selection. It's a rigged game.
The problem with your argument, I feel, is that you see and are not willing to accept much middle-ground between no government involvement or a straight handout, that "check in the mail" you talk about. I don't want a handout; I want funding for after-school centers, which Bush gutted and McCain does not include in his plans. I want early childhood education. I want a sane health care system so that a kid doesn't have to drop out of high school to help pay bills when his mom gets sick and can't work. I want there to be libraries in all schools, not solely the ones that can afford them. This is not 'welfare.' This is improving our country, and if we were serious about fulling the potential of 'the pursuit of happiness' we'd be making sure that everyone born in our nation had the chance to pursue it fairly.
And your cigarette analogy is faulty. With cigarettes, you are making a choice with the health information given to you; you puff besides knowledge of the risk. How does that apply to someone facing social conditions that were not their doing? I don't see any discernible parallel there.
EDIT: I realize I come on pretty heavy with this...it's just that I've heard this argument many times before, and I've personally never understood it.
Is there an emoticon for standing up and cheering?
another piece of particularly insulting intellectual dishonesty to anyone who has overcome anything significant to improve themselves.
Thanks for pointing out the elitist point of view...how perversely ignorant.
everybody works very hard everyday, I can't believe you'd say that....
Wait a minute, you favor population control as prescribed by the W.H.O., kinda lilke David Rockerfeller.
Nevermind.
free handouts...greater welfare...dont pay taxes and get a refund check anyway...take from the rich, redistribute to the poor
shit, if i didnt have any morals i might be a deadbeat and join this Obama train
nah, i couldnt sink that low, i dont believe in Communism
Somewhere Darwin is rolling over in his grave.
And once again, we have this problem. I asked prytoj this exact question in another thread because I was very confused about where your side is coming from...in short, how exactly do you not pay taxes and yet still get tax cuts?
Here it is:
First of all, you've expressed outrage that people will be getting a "check in the mail" who do not pay taxes, those free-loaders! The problem with this argument is that it's not a "check in the mail" for everyone in the lowest quintile. Figure 2 measures the increase in income which will happen as a result of Obama's tax plan, not the amount of money received from the federal government. All of his "tax credits" and "tax cuts" are based upon the notion that you pay taxes; how you can you get a tax cut if you don't pay taxes at all? The results show that the lowest quintile will still benefit, and if anyone of them do pay federal income taxes (i.e. self-employed, etc) they will see the appropriate tax cut. But this notion that everyone in America is getting a check in the mail is unfounded. Show me the check in the mail in Obama's plan! It's not there; the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, college credit, you need to OWE taxes for these credits to be applicable. That's what makes a tax credit a tax credit in the first place. The only exception I see is if you are an undergraduate student in the 4,000 college affordability tax credit, in which you receive the credit as the dependent of another individual (who, surprise, must be a taxpayer). And tax cuts don't mean extra money; they mean you don't have to pay the money that was originally necessary by law. Again, where is this "check in the mail" you keep talking about? I made 800 dollars as a student last year and did not pay taxes; would I be getting that 'check in the mail?' Of course not. The Tax Policy Center shows, however, that I would benefit under Obama's plan, simply because in their view it is a better plan. A credit is the closest thing to the check in the mail, but those receiving the credit will be taxpayers. So how do non-taxpayers benefit directly?
If you could help me answer those questions, I'd appreciate it.
But taking money from a group of people, and giving it to another group of people......
IS SOCIALISM
Your graphs perfectly define.....
SOCIALISM
just look at 'em.
listen to this:
http://odeo.com/episodes/23444411-Obama-Tax-Plan-Back-To-Welfare-10-02-2008
breaks down his whole plan
Well, fine, answer these question:
1) How does someone get "a check in the mail for not doing anything and not paying taxes" as you put it if all of Obama's tax cuts and tax credit policies are, by definition for people paying taxes? Where the hell is the fantastic "check in the mail" that you get for being a citizen in Obama's plan? Tax cuts and tax credits require that someone be paying taxes for them to exist?
2) You think that someone's social surroundings (i.e. the infrastructure of their schools, etc.) have NOTHING to do with their ability to develop and harness potential?
3) Do you think poor people are all poor because they're dumb, weak, etc?
Sorry if it's taking a while to read through my posts. It's just that your points raise alot of problems and it takes a while to get through all of them.
And please don't come back at me with, "but....but...but it's SOCIALISM!" It's a weak argument and I think I've already shown why it's not socialism.
I'd like to add that health has a significant impact on one's ability to "succeed" - and income is the primary predictor of health outcomes.
Let's say for a minute that my computer is broken and without sound (which it is), and you give me the gist of it.
you dont have to have a job to take advantage of his plan you just have to be "looking" for a job or "attempting" to go to school
it goes into good detail, i hope you can listen to it at some point
Okay folks... you heard it here first: everyone works hard every day! And THAT, my friend, is exactly the point, and why it's fair to "spread the wealth around".
I challenge you to "be a deadbeat" and live off welfare for a year or two and see how far it gets you.
But, unless you've walked a mile in the shoes of every single person you're judging, don't judge.
in Missouri it gets you an Escalade, free food, and a lot of jewelry...anything else you wanna know?
and thats not from personal experience either, its a fact from the old neighborhood i lived in growing up and continue to see today when i go back there to visit
if you come and visit you can find out for yourself because these people dont hold back in telling you they are working the system and cant wait for Obama to be president to take even greater advantage of the system
I'm not asking for your judgement or observations. I'm saying you should personally experience it.
i probably should, could make more money than what i do now making an honest living
i might make an effort when Obama is president, it will be really easy then and not to mention more money