It would, but does no one try to even bring up hot topics anymore? I haven't been following, are there still a lot of religious/political debates? Or are threads more and more neutral?

Welcome to 2010! Let the trench wars continue...

Okay, this thread really picked up and like many I just don't have the time to point-counter point every challenge but some comments by Mentat deserve/require a response.



I could start a response to this by pointing out that wasn't it you trumpeting your medical system but now you are pointing out an example of it basically writing someone off to die? Then the person comes over to our lousy system to get taken care of? And this actually sounds like an example of someone being responsible with their money to the extent that he was able to do those things instead of complaining about how expensive it is and saying that it isn't fair that other people aren't footing the bill. I applaud your friend's actions and I believe that a good, responsible person like that will likely be able to recover financially.

And you really presume too much about me. Of course you wouldn't know any of this but I am the type of person that personally invites and moves my parents a thousand miles to live with my family and me for three years. Encouraged my father to finally seek treatment at the VA for his long list of chronic problems. After the three years they had a strong desire to regain their independence and moved out. I also personally flew cross country and loaded up all of my mother's belongings and moved her 2000 some odd miles after my father passed away. You know, had I been more responsible with money over the years then maybe I could have taken the further noble steps your friend did to help prolong my father's life. So, please, decide how you want to judge me on this issue.



Which is why I said awhile ago that rich is a vague term. I think many here might think an American with a million dollars is rich. In fact, he really would just be a person positioned to retire with dignity or adequately deal with unforeseen events that happen in life. That is really all I am advocating for.



Most people definitely have the opportunity to not go in debt for frivolous spending. Most people have the opportunity to work and save although I understand that currently the prospects just seem to be getting worse but that is where being financially responsible to begin with helps people weather these sort of times. Really, you should stop throwing around the term rich. Most people that are "rich" got that way by being responsible with their money (most American "rich" anyway are first generation rich busting the myth that it's all inherited). How stupid is it to say who is going to clean your gutters and mow your grass when everyone is rich? Everyone won't be. Everybody has to start somewhere and I'm pretty sure their are some successful small business out there engaging in exactly those sorts of activities. Are those successful small business owners rich? Are their employees? Could someone do such work to save money to help pay for further education to land a better job and then further increase their income? It is true though, people in my country definitely need to be educated in freedom.

ps - By the way, just so you know even after typing all that spell check only balked at "Okay", "Mentat", and "trumpetting". I don't care if "okay" is not the correct spelling, that's how I'm going to spell it regardless so basically only one word with an extra "t". You all should be proud of me.

Most people who are 'rich' got that way by fluke/inheritance or treading on those poorer than them.

Ok, maybe I'm coming into this a bit late, but are you seriously saying that professors work harder than law enforcement and military??? Wow (I can even tell you from personal experience that religious leaders put in lots of long hours). And, did it ever occur to you that since people in the US have some control over their professions, that law enforcement, religious leaders and military tend to be conservatives because it's conservatives that are drawn to those sorts of jobs because they coincide more with their ideals?

Oh and also, militar members are not exactly poor. I'm not saying they're rich, but they can definitely be wealthy. I made about $54k last year and I'm on the LOOOW end of the totem pole.

I like this source:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html?_r=1

Kool-Aid drinker.

No. I'm an American. I despise my medical system.


What if I told you that my friend was close to retirement? He's not, but let's assume for one moment that he is. This is just one example amongst a limitless supply that shows that people can be responsible with their money & still run across issues in life that prevent them from becoming wealthy. My friend actually does complain about having to pay the bill. He's also about as conservative as it gets. I'm happy to see that you agree with his actions because I think that most of us would make the same decision, regardless of the consequences. I'm simply trying to show an example of why your ideology isn't realistic. Let's pretend that he manages to save a lot of money again & his mother's cancer resurfaces. He'll once again have to foot the bill. Just because you're responsible doesn't mean that your family & friends are & while you could simply write them off as ridiculous, you'll probably still feel responsible for taking care of them when no one else will.


I'm sorry for your loss. I'm happy to see that under that ideology of selfishness, you actually do have a heart. Now imagine what would've happened to your father if he didn't have someone like you to take care of him. That's a reality for many people. It seems to me that your ideology prevents you from admitting that these types of circumstances exist. I can't comprehend this.


I don't see anything wrong with advocating that people try their hardest to be prepared for all of life's struggles. However, I simply don't think it's "right" to say to hell with everyone that failed at doing so. Some of these people tried & failed because maybe they're not quite as smart as you & others never gave it a chance but I think that we as a society should be helping to educate each-other on these issues (e.g. preparedness) & to be there to lend a hand until everyone is able to do so. We all know that life isn't "fair" but it'll never be close if we don't develop a system that makes an attempt at making it so. I don't think that your ideology has room for this. It's contrary to Murphy's Law ("if it can happen it will"). This is why people want protection, regulation & safeguards.





I would agree with those statements. However, if you can't say make those statements with "all people" instead of "most people" the point is moot. By saying "most people" you're admitting that not everyone has the "opportunity" to do these things & that's what we're trying to show you.


If you're referring to data from the Federal Reserve, I would advise you to take in to consideration that whether or not you became rich before, after or if you inherited money is insignificant if your family is wealthy & you had opportunities that others didn't. No one is denying that it's impossible to become wealthy. Many of us are simply saying that it's very unlikely given the available statistics on class mobility, which Jon'C was alluding to earlier.

Sounds like you should like it. Sorry, though, I think I had you confused with Martyn. Not sure. Don't have time for the rest now, though.

Yes, Sarn_Cadrill, I do believe professors work harder than people who have others structure their lives for them.

Conceded; Wookie06, then, probably never experienced the hardship of many Americans.

Didn't we just agree that you would drop the Ann Coulter bit?

I may not have but most Americans, thankfully, haven't had to experience the hardships those in the military experience.

Anyway, not that it's anyone's business my gross last year was 65499.51, my net would have been about 4000 less and, interestingly, my taxable income was only 10109.70. I'm still waiting on my wife's W2 and my rental income statement but I fully expect to be one of the many people that get a "refund" far larger than anything that was withheld.



Sorry, haven't yet had the time to thoroughly review the thread but seeing as how he related a story where a woman that was written off over a decade ago is still alive seems to speak well of our system. At least that example and that was what I based that statement upon. If I was channeling Coulter there it would have been far more offensive.

Requires Login.

bugmenot.com

back to the original topic, usually if i listen to talk radion i listen to KFI am 640, largely "conservative" they have Rush as well as a number of MUCH less extreme show hosts. recently i actually started to listen to a "progressive" liberal radio station KTLK am 1150... more out of curiosity than anything else.
on both stations the hosts who hold more extreme views are basically mirroring one another. Rush Limbaugh thinks liberals and progressives literally want to destroy the country, and on the flip side liberal host Mike Malloy believes that conservatives want to destroy the country. although Malloy seems to have a more violent streak in his dialog.

talk radio can be an incredibly useful tool. both sides will bring up stories that mainstream news will NOT report for whatever reason. you really need to research the stories further on your own though, and not just accept whatever the host spouts out.

also, for the most part any individual in this country can become wealthy. for most it will mean working multiple jobs night classes taking huge risks and pretty much neglecting everyone else in your life. it probably would not be worth becoming such a miserable human being, but it is possible.

Nevermind.

Who the hell are you?

Nice

Or you could just get your news online & bypass these idiots altogether.


Using "for the most part" & "any individual in this country" sort of cancel each-other out. If you're taking a risk, that absolutely means that not everyone will make it. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

The only program on Air America that was worth listening to was Stephanie Miller anyway... it's nationally syndicated.

I dunno. KFI has lost their thunder. John & Ken used to be reasonable but now they just scream and yell about the current du jour topic. Namely it's against illegal immigration. I am quite surprised to this day that John has not croaked over by a cerebral aneurysm. When I hear him really lay into someone, I can just see the veins pop out. Bill Handel is nice. I don't think he takes himself or his show seriously. Handel on the Law is nice to listen to people get told they're screwed because they're stupid. The 7-10 PM timeslot has changed A LOT in this past decade.

did you miss the part where it was the same system that wrote her off and would have left her for dead?

i'm sorry, but if you have to move halfway across the country for treatment, theres something wrong with the system.

again there is some stuff on talk radio that is NOT[/i][/u] reported anywhere else. not saying its all completely accurate or unbiased, but it is useful for finding out about it, and then looking into it further yourself.

ok... i am sure it is reported SOMEWHERE else, but if i dont know about it i would not know where online to look.



i must have missed something, were we talking about weather it is actually possible for most people to become wealthy or was this a "BUT YOU SAID EVERYONE SO UNLESS ITS EVERYONE IT DOESNT COUNT :saddowns:" argument?

The problem is somewhere in the semantics of

"I believe everyone has the opportunity to become rich"

and

"I believe everyone can be rich at the same time so nobody is poor"

I think we've established that the second of those is utterly impossible, and folk were still arguing about the first one.

I'd say frankly the first one is (very sadly) bull**** too. There are some people who will not become rich, no matter how hard they try OR because they will be brought up NOT to try. (yada yada yada, I'm a massive lefty etc. etc.)

Well, at least she was in the same country as opposed to all of the people that have to travel halfway around the world to get to the same center.

More the former than the latter. Let's assume people are all equally capable (which implies P=NP, but that's a different argument.) In such an environment, the only difference between a rich person and a poor person is the number of opportunities that are available to each of them.

It starts when they're young: rich people send their kids to private schools, where they develop higher abstract reasoning, rhetorical ability and solid public speaking skills. Rich people then send their children to Harvard or Yale, where they get a degree that is worth more, and while at Harvard or Yale they meet a lot of other rich people who will help them get a job when they graduate. Rich people marry other rich people, throw rich people parties where they meet even more rich people, have rich kids and send them to rich school too.

On the other hand, poor people send their kids to public schools, where they learn obedience and a curriculum carefully designed to minimize costs. While they are at public school, poor kids get the **** beaten out of them for getting good grades, ensuring that they never want to try. Poor people then go to a community college, pull a 2.3 in their first year and drop out, and join the other poor people at their poor people jobs. They marry poor, have poor kids, don't have the $20k a semester in tuition for a private school so they get to go to poor school too.

But hey, at least they still have free speech.

Totally agree. Obviously you've hit the top and (near) bottom of the scale, but it's true throughout the spectrum.

And I'm curious, where exactly do you fit into this Jon?

He's Canadian. He lives in a winter wonderland utopia.

He's right though.

You know, Jon`C may be grating sometimes, but that doesn't change the fact that he's usually right.

Exactly.

Milton Friedman lobbied pretty hard for the privatization of all education, subsidized (or paid wholly) with government vouchers. It's a really good idea: all students will automatically receive a higher standard of education, because private schools are businesses and the product of a private school is prestige. i.e. the better-equipped their students are to succeed in later life, the more students they can attract at a higher rate of tuition.

The reason this system doesn't get implemented is because a higher standard of education is not a priority. I'm honestly also not convinced that a higher standard of education is necessary or desirable. Primary education takes place during the most formative part of a child's life, and during that time their role in society is generally cemented into place. It sucks for them, but some people are going to be stuck with the terrible jobs, and giving a janitor a PhD would be a horrible waste of resources.

I'd like to make a distinction between two questions that are always lumped into one.

Is it fair to tax the rich more,

and should we tax the rich more?

Many people argue rightly that it's not fair, and they hold to an idea that if something is not fair, it should not be done. Others argue that we should, and try to say it is fair. Lets concentrate on what the real issue is, which is, should a government do something which is not fair to a minority, to benefit the majority?

Your version of fair depends on a certain point of view.

My version of fair is that taxes need to come from somewhere. The poor have no money to pay taxes, and the middle class is shrinking.

Uber-rich people have uber-disposable income. Within reason, survival is a fixed cost regardless of your income level - everything beyond that point is being spent on luxuries or business interests. We know that taxing luxuries won't work - Clinton tried it, and sales plummeted so hard that the government was actually getting less money than they got from the income of the laid off yacht builders. Taxing business won't work, because the working class believes that taxing business is the Great Satan.

What's the answer? It's human civilization. 'Fair' and 'works' go together like oil and water.

Taxing business can be very dangerous, especially in an economy like this. A government has to be very careful to not tax small businesses out of business, or all that will be left is a bunch of walmarts.

My mother runs a small business and her taxes aren't too taxing (forgive the pun).

I have to say, your memory fails you sir. That never happened and we all know it. It's kind of our trademark.

Aside from the obvious and difficult sociological problems with the modern underclass (which is a relatively low percentage of the population), I think the biggest barrier toward upward mobility in the middle class is a lack of sufficient motivation. The American middle class by all accounts is extremely prosperous. Sure, they aren't as prosperous as they would like to be, but no one is. The thing is, it takes a lot of work to become rich. Most people would like to be rich, but only so they can enjoy a more prosperous lifestyle. The trouble with becoming rich is that in order to get there you have to dedicate so much of your life to the your career, that in terms of leisure, you're usually much better off sticking with a middle class lifestyle.

There nothing wrong with being content with an American middle class lifestyle. Some people have the sort of personality that gives them a great deal of fulfillment from dedicating their lives to a career, and that's great, but most people don't, and that's fine too.