Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oboe on June 12, 2005, 10:18:43 PM
-
Not long. If you read it I hope you get something out of it. Does a much better job of describing the issues that concern me than I ever could.
Losing Our Country (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/opinion/10krugman.html?8hpib)
-
Link not requiring registration.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0610-24.htm
-
So we are all doomed huh?
-
Left wing blather. Nothing to see here.
-
And there's good reason to believe that a society in which most people can reasonably be considered middle class is a better society - and more likely to be a functioning democracy - than one in which there are great extremes of wealth and poverty.
Do you think this is true or false, Steve?
-
Steve is right, even your quote is leftwing nonsense...
He makes all sorts of stupid claims:
Working families have seen little if any progress over the past 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, the income of the median family doubled between 1947 and 1973. But it rose only 22 percent from 1973 to 2003, and much of that gain was the result of wives' entering the paid labor force or working longer hours, not rising wages.
Following WW2 the American economy exploded. Competition among workers in this country drove up the cost of labor as companies had to compete for the best workers.
As the our economy became more global no longer are workers just competing against each other here.
Supply and demand at work.
But the wealthy have done very well indeed. Since 1973 the average income of the top 1 percent of Americans has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1 percent has tripled.
Why is it you leftist are always worried about what the rich guy is doing?
Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of working families - and under the current administration, that favoritism has become extreme and relentless. From tax cuts that favor the rich to bankruptcy "reform" that punishes the unlucky, almost every domestic policy seems intended to accelerate our march back to the robber baron era.
It's not a pretty picture - which is why right-wing partisans try so hard to discredit anyone who tries to explain to the public what's going
Straight out of the Dems play book?
Rich guys keeping us all down...
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there's good reason to believe that a society in which most people can reasonably be considered middle class is a better society - and more likely to be a functioning democracy - than one in which there are great extremes of wealth and poverty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ummm isnt that almost the same arguement communism makes?
Only there everyone is supposed to be equal.
Its just that some people are always more equal then others:)
-
yep... no matter what the commie paper said or didn't say..
When I was growing up the "middle class" didn't have cell phones or computers or navigation systems in their cars or even color TV's much less cable and HBO and blockbuster... The average house was like 1000 square feet and you took your lunch to work or school in abrown bag and if you traveled it was a big deal... You probly blew 3 tires on a 3000 mile round trip.
Houses had one bathbroom and often no airconditioning.... few if any cars had air conditioning. Your toys were inexpensive and often you had to make up your own games. People got fired on the whim of whoever was in charge for whatever reason. If you wanted to be in sports or scouts or whatever the parents had to think hard about wether they could afford it or not.
People didn't get bypasses or heart transplants.. they just died. Cancer meant death.
And no.... I don't think that a huge middle class with little hope of getting rich is good for the country oboe... You really have to think about it... do you really want socialism for this country?
lazs
-
Oh yeah, things are so bad!!! They are so bad that a kid growing up on SS and VA death bennefits can retire at under 50 and be traveling the country full time, going where we want when we want and all on a "blue collar" retirement. Yep Oboe things are really bad here. I'm sure I'll just have to roll over and curl up in a ball because I can do what I want like that.... :rolleyes:
-
The trouble , in this sense, started about the same time that the real "workers" and the true backbone of our country were forced out of existence. By this I mean such things as the small family farms that had been handed down from one generation to the next. The taking over of the small, independent business world and making it damn near impossible to compete with large cooperations and big business in a lot of cases. The forcing the small man out by the use of what would be called illegal monopolies in simplier times.
Now we have a class of folks who doesn`t know the actual meaning of the word "work".
Along with the forcing out of a lot of independents went hopes and dreams and also a large chunk of what made this country tick on a personal basis. That being pride in your work and your accomplishments.
Now we have a large percentage of people who do jobs that amount to nothing. The shuffling of documents from one department to another, the changing of funds from one place to another and so on. When you take a close look at a lot of these places you will find that they actualy do nothing, serve no purpose and produce nothing other than the transfer of funds from one place to another and so on and so on. No production of actual products and no input into our country. Just 'make do" work that neither contributes to our country in any way , nor contributes anything to our society.
-
You had to be allmost mutilated in order for a dentist to suggest braces.... Maybe one kid in a thousand had em... Now... every other kid is in dire need of 5-10k worth of mouth metal that is probly only partially covered by insurance and the poor downtroden "middle class" don't even blink at the cost.
You couldn't afford to get fat. Now we have to diet.
The second car... or even the only car was seldom new. It was usually 10 years old and... cars needed valves at 60k and an overhaul was 100k.
lazs
-
I am thinking about it - I guarantee it. Thats why I post stuff here - to gather opinions to digest, exchange ideas, etc. It might take me a long time to make up my mind though...I tend to be slow on the uptake.
I am just not sure people here understand the proper terms political systems. For example, communism and socialism are distinctly different from each other, are they not? But I seem to be often labelled a commie or a socialist. How could I be both?
I suspect its as the story says - I give the impression that my views are to the 'left' of many posters here, and they respond by name calling. To the extent that occurs I'm starting to doubt the benefit of posting here.
Drediock, no I don't think that's the same argument communism makes. True, I think communism makes the argument that all share the resources equally (and I agree it doesn't work out that way in practice - some people still have more power and wealth than others). The argument for a large middle class doesn't preclude the existence of the lower class or upper class. They would still exist.
Is socialism the only way to achieve a sizeable middle class? I suspect its not. For example, the author claims that "social norms that favor equality, strong labor unions, and progressive taxation" gave rise to the middle class which is in decline today.
Did that describe socialism? I don' think it did, because I think you can have all three of those components in a capitalist society.
In fact we did in the US after WWII - do you think we were a socialist country in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s?
Your experience growing up in the middle class sounds similar to mine. I remember our first color TV, our fist car with A/C, and flat tires were pretty common on our family car. My family had little hope of getting rich, but they did have secure jobs and affordable healthcare, which I think fewer and fewer people have today.
-
I agree with Jackal.
Part of what Laz and Jackal are talking about is simply the march of technology though. The middle class has this stuff now because it is affordable for them now. I don't think its because we are so much richer as much as it is because the things just became cheaper. No way I could afford one of the first VCRs, but after a few years the proce became low enough that I could get one. Same for computers. I don't see that occuring as a result of one political party dominating over another though. That's just progress, and progress goes on no matter which party controls the government.
-
I am just not sure people here understand the proper terms political systems. For example, communism and socialism are distinctly different from each other, are they not? But I seem to be often labelled a commie or a socialist. How could I be both?
communism:
A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
socialism:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
Who told you they are 'distinctly different'?
It like saying you are 'progressive' rather then 'liberal'. It's the same damn thing for all practical purposes.
Steal from those who have and give it to those who don't, redistribution of wealth.
So when the author claims that 'social norms that favor equality, strong labor unions, and progressive taxation gave rise to the middle class which is in decline today' that is socialism and its not true.
Not only is his premise wrong in regards to what gave rise to the middle class he is an advocate for a left leaning political philosophy that embraces what I am sure he would call 'good socialism'.
He argues about the slow growth in middle class wages but ignores the fact that real prices for goods and services have declined.
Even the poor in this country aren't as 'poor' as they were 25 / 30 / 50 years ago. What bunches his panties is the 'income gap'. He feels, like most leftists, that the 'rich' ought to subsidize the poor so we can all be 'middle class'.
:rolleyes:
It's nothing more then egalitarian nonsense.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I agree with Jackal.
Part of what Laz and Jackal are talking about is simply the march of technology though. The middle class has this stuff now because it is affordable for them now. I don't think its because we are so much richer as much as it is because the things just became cheaper. No way I could afford one of the first VCRs, but after a few years the proce became low enough that I could get one. Same for computers. I don't see that occuring as a result of one political party dominating over another though. That's just progress, and progress goes on no matter which party controls the government.
one thing that jackal is talking about that the author is clearly bashing is the Bush tax reforms for the "rich" oops did I say rich? yes because that's what they are classified as. But truth be told they are small business owners who file their taxes that way. He also gave them alot of tax incentives to expand their business. Business expansion equals more jobs ect.
This babble about tax cuts for the rich is getting SOOOOO OLD! It has been pointed out time and time again that poor people don't pay taxes. I AM POOR I DON'T PAY INCOME TAXES. AT THE END OF THE YEAR THE GOVT PAYS ME. HOW CAN I GET A TAX CUT?
Please move off of this subject allready the midle class are doing fine. As long as they don't max out all their credit cards and take out 3 mortages on their homes (POINT IN FACT: home ownership especially among minorities is at an all time high) then they will strive just like they allways have.
-
I grew up with a working definition of socialism as high tax/high benefit state, which may not have been correct, but I think alot of people think of it that way. I'm immediately dubious of the definitions you provide, Wotan, due to the use of the word 'scheme' - it definitely suggests a negative bias to me. Here are some definitions I found -
communism A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
socialism 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
I can see how its tempting to call them the same thing, or even branches of the same tree - they both are predicated on state ownership of capital (the means of production). But doesn't communism go further and imply state ownership of goods as well? Anyway, Marx and Lenin apparently say they are different.
I don't see at all how state ownership of capital is implied by "social norms that favor equality, strong labor unions, or progressive taxation." To me, social norms that favor equality might as easily be demonstrated by a corporation board that is very tight fisted with executive pay.
Gunslinger: I thought the article was about more than just tax cuts for the rich. I thought he was talking about a range of trends which are undermining the middle class - job security and healthcare costs among them.
-
what is "middle class"?
salary range of what?
one or two cars? sq ft of house? number of tv's? cable? cell phone(s)?
I think the problem lies in the fact the middle class doesn't exist as in fact it is above what "middle" was 20/30+ years ago ...
what lazs said...
we are the fattest, materialistic poor ppl in the world :)
-
Originally posted by oboe
Not long. If you read it I hope you get something out of it. Does a much better job of describing the issues that concern me than I ever could.
Losing Our Country (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/opinion/10krugman.html?8hpib)
Below are a few blurbs from a different New York Times study:
18 percent of people reported living in the lower class as children. But today, only 7 percent say they belong to that class. Another 44 percent say they had a working class childhood. However, only 35 percent say they are part of the working class today.
28 percent of people reported growing up middle class and just 8 percent said they had lived in an upper-middle-class home. Today, 42 percent of people say they belong to the middle class and 15 percent say they are part of the upper-middle class.
People were asked if they thought it was still possible to start out poor in this country, work hard, and become rich. The first time this question was asked in 1983, only 57 percent of respondents thought it was possible. In 1998, in the midst of exceptionally strong economic growth, 70 percent thought it was possible to get rich. Today, 80 percent say it is possible to become rich in America and a mere 19 percent say it is not.
People were also asked about what they thought their own personal prospects were for becoming rich. 11 percent said that they thought it was very likely. Another 34 percent thought it was somewhat likely. Only 22 percent thought they had no chance at all.
-
grew up with a working definition of socialism as high tax/high benefit state, which may not have been correct, but I think allot of people think of it that way. I'm immediately dubious of the definitions you provide, Wotan, due to the use of the word 'scheme' - it definitely suggests a negative bias to me. Here are some definitions I found -
communism A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
socialism 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
I can see how its tempting to call them the same thing, or even branches of the same tree - they both are predicated on state ownership of capital (the means of production). But doesn't communism go further and imply state ownership of goods as well? Anyway, Marx and Lenin apparently say they are different.
It's all the same thing, the confiscation and redistribution of wealth by the state. Whether the dictator is a single entity or the mass it's still the same thing. The state steals from one group and gives to another.
I don't see at all how state ownership of capital is implied by "social norms that favor equality, strong labor unions, or progressive taxation." To me, social norms that favor equality might as easily be demonstrated by a corporation board that is very tight fisted with executive pay.
What do you think 'progressive taxation' is? The taking of wealth from those who earned and giving to those who didn't.
What difference does it make to you whether a CEO makes 10 dollars or 10 billion? The amount of money people can earn in the US is not limited. The CEO making 10 billion dollars doesn't make one bit a difference to a guy making minimum wage. The CEO isn't taking money from the minimum wage worker.
If you think the government should tell the CEO that if they make more then XX dollars that they will take the rest then investment in this country will dry up.
Much of the middle class invests in these types of corporations. They expect a decent return on their investment. If the shareholders decide to pay a CEO billions of dollars to ensure they get a good return on their investment who are you to say that CEO doesn't deserve it?
It doesn't matter if you think you are a progressive rather then a liberal or a socialist rather then a communist because it all the same thing. The forced redistribution of wealth by the government.
-
Once again, I quote Thomas Sowell, from his recent articles:
Liberals and Class, parts I, II, and III
The new trinity among liberal intellectuals is race, class and gender. Defining any of these terms is not easy, but it is also not difficult for liberals, because they seldom bother to define them at all.
The oldest, and perhaps still the most compelling, of these concerns is class. In the vision of the left, we are born, live, and die in a particular class -- unless, of course, we give power to the left to change all that.
The latest statistics seized upon to support this class-ridden view of America and other Western societies show that most people in a given part of the income distribution are the children of other people born into that same part of the income distribution.
Among men born in families in the bottom 25 percent of income earners only 32 percent end up in the top half of the income distribution. And among men born to families in the top 25 percent in income earners, only 34 percent end up down in the bottom half.
How startling is that?
More to the point, does this show that people are trapped in poverty or can coast through life on their parents' wealth? Does it show that "society" denies "access" to the poor?
Could it just possibly show that the kind of values and behavior which lead a family to succeed or fail are also likely to be passed on to their children and lead them to succeed or fail as well? If so, how much can government policy -- liberal or conservative -- change that in any fundamental way?
One recent story attempting to show that upward mobility is a "myth" in America today nevertheless noted in passing that many recent immigrants and their children have had "extraordinary upward mobility."
If this is a class-ridden society denying "access" to upward mobility to those at the bottom, why is it that immigrants can come here at the bottom and then rise to the top?
One obvious reason is that many poor immigrants come here with very different ambitions and values from that of poor Americans born into our welfare state and imbued with notions growing out of attitudes of dependency and resentments of other people's success.
The fundamental reason that many people do not rise is not that class barriers prevent it but that they do not develop the skills, values and attitudes which cause people to rise.
The liberal welfare state means they don't have to and liberal multiculturalism says they don't need to change their values because one culture is just as good as another. In other words, liberalism is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.
Racism is supposed to put insuperable barriers in the path of non-whites anyway, so why knock yourself out trying? This is another deadly message, especially for the young.
But if immigrants from Korea or India, Vietnamese refugees, and others can come here and move right on up the ladder, despite not being white, why are black and white Americans at the bottom more likely to stay at the bottom?
The same counterproductive and self-destructive attitudes toward education, work and ordinary civility found in many of America's ghettos can also be found in lower-class British communities. Anyone who doubts it should read British doctor Theodore Dalrymple's book "Life at the Bottom," about the white lower class communities in which he has worked.
These chaotic and violence-prone communities in Britain do not have the excuse of racism or a legacy of slavery. What they do have in common with similar communities in the United States is a similar reliance on the welfare state and a similar set of intellectuals making excuses for their behavior and denouncing anyone who wants them to change their ways.
The latest round of statistics emboldens more intellectuals to blame "society" for the failure of many people at the bottom to rise to the top. Realistically, if nearly a third of people born to families in the bottom quarter of income earners rise into the top half, that is not a bad record.
If more were doing so in the past, that does not necessarily mean that "society" is holding them down more today. It may easily mean that the welfare state and liberal ideology both make it less necessary today for them to change their own behavior.
Someone once defined a social problem as a situation in which the real world differs from the theories of intellectuals. To the intelligentsia, it follows, as the night follows the day, that it is the real world that is wrong and which needs to change.
Having imagined a world in which each individual has the same probability of success as anyone else, intellectuals have been shocked and outraged that the real world is nowhere close to that ideal. Vast amounts of time and resources have been devoted to trying to figure out what is stopping this ideal from being realized -- as if there was ever any reason to expect it to be.
Despite all the words and numbers thrown around when discussing this situation, the terms used are so sloppy that it is hard even to know what the issues are, much less how to resolve them.
Back in mid-May, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal had front-page stories about class differences and class mobility. The Times' article was the first in a long series that is still going on a month later. Both papers reached similar conclusions, based on a similar sloppy use of the word "mobility."
The Times referred to "the chance of moving up from one class to another" and the Wall Street Journal referred to "the odds that a child born in poverty will climb to wealth." But the odds or probabilities against something happening are no measure of whether opportunity exists.
Anyone who saw me play basketball and saw Michael Jordan play basketball when we were youngsters would have given odds of a zillion to one that he was more likely to make the NBA than I was. Does that mean I was denied opportunity or access, that there were barriers put up against me, that the playing field was not level?
Or did it mean that Michael Jordan -- and virtually everyone else -- played basketball a lot better than I did?
A huge literature on social mobility often pays little or no attention to the fact that different individuals and groups have different skills, desires, attitudes and numerous other factors, including luck. If mobility is defined as being free to move, then we can all have the same mobility, even if some end up moving faster than others and some of the others do not move at all.
A car capable of going 100 miles an hour can sit in a garage all year long without moving. But that does not mean that it has no mobility.
When each individual and each group trails the long shadow of their cultural history, they are unlikely even to want to do the same things, much less be willing to put out the same efforts and make the same sacrifices to achieve the same goals. Many are like the car that is sitting still in the garage, even though it is capable of going 100 mph.
So long as each generation raises its own children, people from different backgrounds are going to be raised with different values and habits. Even in a world with zero barriers to upward mobility, they would move at different speeds and in different directions.
If there is less upward movement today than in the past, that is by no means proof that external barriers are responsible. The welfare state and multiculturalism both reduce the incentives of the poor to adopt new ways of life that would help them rise up the economic ladder. The last thing the poor need is another dose of such counterproductive liberal medicine.
Many comparisons of "classes" are in fact comparisons of people in different income brackets -- but most Americans move up from the lowest 20 percent to the highest 20 percent over time.
Yet those who are obsessed with classes treat people in different brackets as if they were classes permanently stuck in those brackets.
The New York Times series even makes a big deal about disparities in income and lifestyle between the rich and the super-rich. But it is hard to get worked up over the fact that some poor devil has to make do flying his old propeller-driven plane, while someone further up the income scale flies around a mile or two higher in his twin-engine luxury jet.
Only if you have overdosed on disparities are you likely to wax indignant over things like that.
Part III of Thomas Sowell's recent articles, Liberals and Class, Parts I, II, and III to follow in the next post.
-
Thomas Sowell, "Liberals and Class" Part III.
Sometimes it seems as if liberals have a genius for producing an unending stream of ideas that are counterproductive for the poor, whom they claim to be helping. Few of these notions are more counterproductive than the idea of "menial work" or "dead-end jobs."
Think about it: Why do employers pay people to do "menial" work? Because the work has to be done. What useful purpose is served by stigmatizing work that someone is going to have to do anyway?
Is emptying bed pans in a hospital menial work? What would happen if bed pans didn't get emptied? Let people stop emptying bed pans for a month and there would be bigger problems than if sociologists stopped working for a year.
Having someone who can come into a home to clean and cook and do minor chores around the house can be a godsend to someone who is an invalid or who is suffering the infirmities of age -- and who does not want to be put into an institution. Someone who can be trusted to take care of small children is likewise a treasure.
Many people who do these kinds of jobs do not have the education, skills or experience to do more complex kinds of work. Yet they can make a real contribution to society while earning money that keeps them off welfare.
Many low-level jobs are called "dead-end jobs" by liberal intellectuals because these jobs have no promotions ladder. But it is superficial beyond words to say that this means that people in such jobs have no prospect of rising economically.
Many people at all levels of society, including the richest, have at some point or other worked at jobs that had no promotions ladder, so-called "dead-end jobs." The founder of the NBC network began work as a teenager hawking newspapers on the streets. Billionaire Ross Perot began with a paper route.
You don't get promoted from such jobs. You use the experience, initiative, and discipline that you develop in such work to move on to something else that may be wholly different. People who start out flipping hamburgers at McDonald's seldom stay there for a full year, much less for life.
Dead-end jobs are the kinds of jobs I have had all my life. But, even though I started out delivering groceries in Harlem, I don't deliver groceries there any more. I moved on to other jobs -- most of which have not had any promotions ladders.
My only official promotion in more than half a century of working was from associate professor to full professor at UCLA. But that was really just a pay increase, rather than a real promotion, because associate professors and full professors do the same work.
Notions of menial jobs and dead-end jobs may be just shallow misconceptions among the intelligentsia but they are a deadly counterproductive message to the poor. Refusing to get on the bottom rung of the ladder usually means losing your chance to move up the ladder.
Welfare can give you money but it cannot give you job experience that will move you ahead economically. Selling drugs on the streets can get you more money than welfare but it cannot give you experience that you can put on a job application. And if you decide to sell drugs all your life, that life can be very short.
Back around the time of the First World War, a young black man named Paul Williams studied architecture and then accepted a job as an office boy at an architectural firm. He agreed to work for no pay, though after he showed up the company decided to pay him something, after all.
What they paid him would probably be dismissed today as "chump change." But what Paul Williams wanted from that company was knowledge and experience, more so than money.
He went on to create his own architectural company, designing everything from churches and banks to mansions for movie stars -- and contributing to the design of the theme building at Los Angeles International Airport.
The real chumps are those who refuse to start at the bottom for "chump change." Liberals who encourage such attitudes may think of themselves as friends of the poor but they do more harm than enemies.
I think the above articles say all that needs to be said on the matter, although Wotan said it pretty well himself.
-
small family farms that had been handed down from one generation to the next
That's because you liberals want to tax inheritances. LOL
Do you think this is true or false, Steve?
I can't see what is wrong w/ middle class but consider this: I grew up middle class. We had a family of 5 in an 1100 sq ft home. My parents lived in that house for over 20 years. We had a one car garage, after we lived in the house for a few years. Both my parents had to work full time in order to support us in this relatively meager existence. Mom as a secretary and Dad as an electirican. I was happily ignorant that we spent our lives in a hand to mouth existence until:
One year, Dad got hurt while doing some charity work(wiring a hangar) for his flying club.
Since it wasn't on the job, the IBEW benefits didn't apply. His own flying club, of which he was President at the time, turned their collective backs on him and refused to help by admitting any liability(had they, their insurance would have covered things). He was laid up w/ multiple breaks(fell off scaffold that turned out to be very dangerous) for several months. It got to the point where we had little to eat. I was 17 at the time. I took all the money I had saved form afterschool/summer jobs and gave it to my parents in order to keep our home. For months I gave my mom my paycheck. We almost lost our home. This is what middle class was like. What's so great about that?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Thomas Sowell, "Liberals and Class" Part III.
[/I]
Sowell is a smart man.
-
Thanks for the read holden. This was my favorite part:
Racism is supposed to put insuperable barriers in the path of non-whites anyway, so why knock yourself out trying? This is another deadly message, especially for the young.
But if immigrants from Korea or India, Vietnamese refugees, and others can come here and move right on up the ladder, despite not being white, why are black and white Americans at the bottom more likely to stay at the bottom?
The same counterproductive and self-destructive attitudes toward education, work and ordinary civility found in many of America's ghettos can also be found in lower-class British communities. Anyone who doubts it should read British doctor Theodore Dalrymple's book "Life at the Bottom," about the white lower class communities in which he has worked.
These chaotic and violence-prone communities in Britain do not have the excuse of racism or a legacy of slavery. What they do have in common with similar communities in the United States is a similar reliance on the welfare state and a similar set of intellectuals making excuses for their behavior and denouncing anyone who wants them to change their ways.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Thanks for the read holden.
Who the Hell is Holden?
-
Truly sorry for what happened to your father, Steve. From the situation you describe, though - it sounds to me like your family slipped from the middle class into the lower class for a while there.
You didn't answer my question, though.
Virgil, thanks for the article. I agree with much of what he says. Liberalism is responsible for some policies that failed pretty miserably.
Wotan, I define progressive taxation as a system of taxation whereby poorer people pay a smaller percentage of their income as taxes than do wealthy people, on the grounds that a larger percentage of the poor's income is consumed by basic necessities.
I don't believe taxation is necessarily redistribution of wealth. When it is used to fund programs like welfare, yes, but not when it is used to pay for government functions like law enforcement, courts, roads, bridges, national defense, etc. This would be true whether the tax code was regressive or progressive.
What difference does it make to you whether a CEO makes 10 dollars or 10 billion? The amount of money people can earn in the US is not limited. The CEO making 10 billion dollars doesn't make one bit a difference to a guy making minimum wage. The CEO isn't taking money from the minimum wage worker.
If you think the government should tell the CEO that if they make more then XX dollars that they will take the rest then investment in this country will dry up.
I have never suggested the government should set an upper limit on CEO pay. That is ridiculous. I do wish boards of directors would tie CEO pay more closely to actual company performance, as measured by more than just the stock price. Its pretty sad to see a mismanaged company run into trouble and have to layoff thousands, while the resulting uptick in share price triggers a multihundred thousand bonus for the executives. That compensation model seems just plain broken to me.
-
perhaps I was not being simplistic enough.. My point is... define middle class..
Are we more able to afford a refrigerator now than 30 years ago when... a refrigerator was in every home anyway?
How bout a radio or a TV or a gallon of milk? How bout a 2000 square foot house? What kind of middle class family lived in a 2000 square foot house with two new cars?
And... did all these advancements come from the enterprise of poor or even middle class Americans? Did strong unions give us cheaper better cars and houses?
Socialism and communism are indeed intrechangeble except that in one... the government controls all means of manufature... in the other government allows private ownership but confiscates all the wealth and redistributes it. Works out the same... government controls everything and those who produce are punished and those who do not produce are rewarded.
The term "progressive" is a dead giveaway that a socialist or commie is speaking by the way.
lazs
-
I think we'd have more success defining middle class in terms less specific than whether or not they can buy a gallon of milk or a refirgerator, one car or two, etc.
You could probably look at a distribution of income and define it statistically. Or a statistician could anyway. Probably has something to do with being one or two standard deviations on either side of the median annual income.
A rule of thumb I made up is this:
Lower class can barely afford the necessities.
Middle class can afford necessities and some luxuries, but has to pick and choose because they can't afford everything.
Upper class could afford every luxury the middle class is dreaming of.
So Progressive taxation is communism, huh?
-
Wotan, I define progressive taxation as a system of taxation whereby poorer people pay a smaller percentage of their income as taxes than do wealthy people, on the grounds that a larger percentage of the poor's income is consumed by basic necessities.
That already happens under the current system.
Even so its still redistributing wealth.
I don't believe taxation is necessarily redistribution of wealth. When it is used to fund programs like welfare, yes, but not when it is used to pay for government functions like law enforcement, courts, roads, bridges, national defense, etc. This would be true whether the tax code was regressive or progressive.
Of course it is redistribution of wealth. When you take money from one segment of society and give to another that is redistributing wealth. Whether you do it with a direct check or social program it is still the same thing.
Law enforcement, court, roads, bridges can be paid for through bonds or user fees.
National defense is the only thing that the Federal Government need taxes for but even then there are other ways to pay for it.
Social spending is socialism and the redistribution of wealth.
I have never suggested the government should set an upper limit on CEO pay.
You didn't directly but you did say:
To me, social norms that favor equality might as easily be demonstrated by a corporation board that is very tight fisted with executive pay.
Corporations pay their managers what they feel they are worth. It's not up to you to decide how corporations pay their managers. How do you achieve your idea of 'equality' then? Unless you use the force of the Government market forces will take over. CEOs that earn good money for their shareholders will be rewarded. They have value, more so then the guy driving around a fork lift or in the production line. All employees aren't 'equal'.
Most layoffs aren't a result of mismanagement. It's quite the opposite in that good managers will cut costs like labor and other things to make the corporation competitive and attractive to investors.
-
My point is that there is a larger group of people today that not only have the necessities but are able to afford amounts of luxury that could only be dreamed about by the "middle class" decades ago.. Often the poorest amoung us have more luxury items than the middle class of the past.
I believe that a lot of that has to do with bussiness getting stronger and getting some tax relief. I do not believe that any redistribvution of wealth that the government has done has been anthing but a burden for the middle class... SS for instance costs more and more with less of a real benifiet every year.
lazs
-
We are in agreement that progressive taxation is currently in use.
We agree that spending on social programs like Welfare amounts to redistribution of wealth.
We agree that government have options besides (or in addition to) taxes to raise money for proper government expenditures like roads, bridges, law enforcement, regulating commerce, national defense, etc.
I didn't say it was up to me to tell corporations how much to pay their CEOs. Neither did I say all employees were equal.
Laz,
I see what you are saying. Yes, today's poor, if transported back in time would have some things the yesterday's middle class had. And today's middle class would be yesterday's upper class. Kind of a neat trick of time travel.
Laz, is the wastewater treatment facility you operate owned by a private company, or publicly held by a municipality, county, state or federal agency?
-
And today's middle class would be yesterday's upper class. Kind of a neat trick of time travel.
So you agree that the middle calss is better off than ever before.
-
No I adisagree with that statement. That's like saying because we can all afford digital watches now, none of us has ever been better off.
Why don't you answer the question I put to you?
Do you believe that a society in which most people can reasonably be considered middle class is a better society - and more likely to be a functioning democracy - than one in which there are great extremes of wealth and poverty?
-
What realy matters more is class mobility and that is something that studies have shown that we are losing. We are now in the same position as the UK, from which we rebeled, in terms of class mobility and the Scandinavian countries now have better class mobility than we do.
-
Oboe I'd like you to read this. It explains alot of what I've been saying about the dems and how out of touch they really are:
Democrats Must Reconnect With Middle Class
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
By Martin Frost
For my entire political life -- which spans 26 years as a congressman and at least an additional 10 years before that as a campaign organizer -- I have always believed that my party, the Democratic Party, represented the middle class.
Unfortunately, the public doesn’t see it that way today.
A recent study prepared by a new Democratic think tank, Third Way, demonstrated this reality in chilling fashion. The study was titled “Unrequited Love: Middle Class Voters Reject Democrats at the Ballot Box,” and is worthy of very serious review by everyone in the country who considers himself or herself a Democrat.
The study is an analysis of exit poll data from the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut of 13,718 voters in the 2004 presidential and congressional elections. Middle class was defined as a family income between $30,000 and $75,000. Middle class voters, as defined in this study, accounted for 45 percent of total votes cast.
President Bush and House Republicans both carried middle class voters (a composite of white, black and Hispanics). The truly remarkable aspect of this study is that while John Kerry and House Democrats carried both black and Hispanic middle class voters, Democrats were absolutely swamped among the white middle class, thus tipping the aggregate middle class figures into the Republican column.
Let’s be very specific. Bush defeated Kerry by 22 points among middle class whites, and House Republicans running for Congress won middle class whites by 19 points. Democrats have always assumed that white middle class voters (many, but not all of whom, are union members) were an important constituency for the party.
To quote the study, “While Democrats may consider themselves the party of middle class, working America — middle class, working America thinks otherwise. White middle class voters, in particular, vote in such low numbers for national Democrats that it may be more accurate to believe that they feel that Democrats are hostile to, not champions of, their interests.”
This brings us to the obvious question: What must Democrats do to improve their standing among white middle class voters in order to start winning national elections again, both for the presidency and for Congress?
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the answer does not start with economic issues. It starts with national security. Many middle class voters supported Republicans in 2004 because they were not convinced that Democrats would keep them safe -- either at home or abroad.
There is great irony here because it was Democrats who first proposed a new Department of Homeland Security and it was Democrats who supported the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, while congressional Republicans tried to block their implementation. On this count, Democrats must do a better job of telling their story.
Democrats should also continue to stand up for our veterans while Republicans try to cut veterans' benefits. They should not be bashful about pointing out how poor planning on the part of the Bush administration has led to a high level of casualties in Iraq, and how this is significantly harming the readiness of our Army by making it more difficult for the military to recruit new soldiers and retain soldiers on active duty.
On the domestic front, Democrats should aggressively devise a strategy to increase the number of Americans who have health insurance, even if it does costs some money. We should be willing to tell our friends in the auto industry that they should make more fuel-efficient cars. More fuel-efficient cars will help save energy (making us less dependent on foreign oil) and will force the American auto industry to modernize in a way that it can better compete with foreign car makers and ultimately save American jobs.
Democrats should remind the middle class that we are the party who created Social Security and are the party who will make sure that it is available when they retire. And finally, Democrats should be willing to support middle class tax cuts that help people supplement their Social Security, not through private accounts that take funds away from the Social Security system but with increased IRAs and 401(k) plans.
The analysis done by Third Way should be a wake-up call for Democrats. If it isn’t, Democrats may stay in the wilderness for some time.
Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. He served two terms as Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position for House Democrats, and two terms as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to FOX News Channel. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center.
-
Hmmm....
"Common Dreams news center"
for the "progressive" community...another word for liberal aka too far left...and that story links to the New York times a paper known for it's politically charged yellow journalism.
Just remember what Obi-wan once said..
"Many of the truths we cling to, depend on your point of view"
I'm sure the far right would have a story somewhere that says exactly the opposite.
I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.
just my .02
-
Originally posted by oboe
I think we'd have more success defining middle class in terms less specific than whether or not they can buy a gallon of milk or a refirgerator, one car or two, etc.
You could probably look at a distribution of income and define it statistically. Or a statistician could anyway. Probably has something to do with being one or two standard deviations on either side of the median annual income.
A rule of thumb I made up is this:
Lower class can barely afford the necessities.
Middle class can afford necessities and some luxuries, but has to pick and choose because they can't afford everything.
Upper class could afford every luxury the middle class is dreaming of.
So Progressive taxation is communism, huh?
Yes, progressive taxation is communism/socialism. Any time the government "appropriates" something that does not belong to them, on a sliding scale, it is redistribution of wealth by force, a primary tenet of both communism and socialism.
By your definition, the middle class is HUGE. Plenty of people I would condsider quite wealthy still cannot afford every, or even a high percentage of, the luxuries they desire. Of course, it depends on how you define luxury.
By the way, if I was "harsh'' towards you in the other thread, it was not my intent. I'm rather short and abrupt by nature, and tend to be sort of "rough". I sometimes "overexplain" my positions, resulting in a wall of text. I try to avoid it, and often in doing so tend to be somewhat plain and pointed.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Yes, progressive taxation is communism/socialism. Any time the government "appropriates" something that does not belong to them, on a sliding scale, it is redistribution of wealth by force, a primary tenet of both communism and socialism.
Playing Devil's Advocate:
You could also argue that the people that benefit the most in a favorable economic environment provided by a government, could pay back a little bit more....
But, the reality, as I see it, is that many of the wealthy are also involved in politics, directly and indirectly. In SC, it was called the "Good Old Boy System", but I suspect it reaches out far more than the deep South.
-
Originally posted by oboe
No I adisagree with that statement. That's like saying because we can all afford digital watches now, none of us has ever been better off.
Why don't you answer the question I put to you?
Do you believe that a society in which most people can reasonably be considered middle class is a better society - and more likely to be a functioning democracy - than one in which there are great extremes of wealth and poverty?
Please define more clearly the terms middle class and luxury, as your previous attempt was very vague.
There will always, in a capitalist, free market, democratic society, be a great disparity in ''wealth" and "poverty". It is unavoidable.
I think it was Ben Franklin who once said that it is better to help/coerce/push people out of poverty than it is to ease their suffering or make it more comfortable to remain there. That is NOT a direct quote, but rather a paraphrase.
I simply fail to see where it benefits the "impoverished" to continually increase the tax burden on the "wealthy" because the "wealthy" can afford it, to waste it on ridiculous attempts
at social engineering.
Even the blue collar middle class despises the excess taxes on increased income. Have you ever been on a blue collar job and heard people outright REFUSE to work overtime, for time and a half, double time, or even triple time wages? I have. Their reason?
This is EXACTLY what I hear 90% of the time: "I work extra hours and make more money, and then the IRS comes in and taxes it right back down to near straight time pay. Why give up MORE time for the same or LESS money?" THAT is why progressive taxation on income is TERRIBLY wrong. It discourages growth and productivity even in blue collar middle class employees. EXACTLY who the liberals and progressive taxation proponents claim to be the champions of.
Now, on to the issue of "lack of funding". I'll use education as an example, because that is one of your favorite causes. The truth is, we spend more on education per student now than we did when I was in school, and my kids get LESS education. The NEA and the tax and spend progressive liberals keep DEMANDING we throw more MONEY at the problem, and we keep getting LESS education for our money. These days they're concerned with "self esteem" rather than teaching the skills needed to perform in the real world. They're concerned with DIVERSITY and TOLERANCE rather than FACTS, TRUTH, and the knowledge of what kids need to survive and prosper. So long as they keep wasting the money they already have on that GARBAGE, we'll keep getting uneducated kids who don't have the skill set and the mental maturity and common sense to survive, thrive, and prosper in the real world. They don't need more money, they need to TEACH.
-
Originally posted by XrightyX
Playing Devil's Advocate:
You could also argue that the people that benefit the most in a favorable economic environment provided by a government, could pay back a little bit more....
But, the reality, as I see it, is that many of the wealthy are also involved in politics, directly and indirectly. In SC, it was called the "Good Old Boy System", but I suspect it reaches out far more than the deep South.
Even with a flat tax, they do pay more. Considerably more.
Take the most popular form of the flat tax idea, where we retain the same standard deductions for the individual and/or family, and then allow the deduction of ONLY other taxes paid (state income tax and property tax in most cases). Use the current
percentage most often quoted of about 12%.
Figure the difference in taxes paid between an income of $30K for a family of 4, and $50K for the same family, $100K for the same family, $200K for the same family, and $500K for the same family. Even when you consider the higher income brackets get a
bigger deduction for other taxes paid, their tax burden increases dramaticly when compared to the $50K family, and especially the $30K family.
-
Why don't you answer the question I put to you?
What question. sorry if I missed it or forgot it.
Oboe, you have contradticted yourself by disagreeing with me. Look it over.
One way to gauge wealth is by home ownership. Home ownership is at a record high % wise and numbers wise. How to you explain this if we are becoming a land of have-nots?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Even with a flat tax, they do pay more. Considerably more.
Take the most popular form of the flat tax idea...
We don't have a flat tax...but I'm all for it, actually.
The biggest problem that I see with the poor/middle class is debt management. And I don't blame the credit card companies for predatory practices. It's human nature to want more, now. Gets you into problems real quick like....
-
We are in agreement that progressive taxation is currently in use.
Well great... However, that was never a question of discussion. The real point is that progressive taxation equals the redistribution of wealth. Taking from one and giving to another by force of law.
We agree that spending on social programs like Welfare amounts to redistribution of wealth.
Not really. Re-word it to say that all taxes raised and spent on social programs equates to the redistribution of wealth.
The redistribution of wealth is a key principle of both socialism and communism. Which takes us back to the first response I gave to your question:
For example, communism and socialism are distinctly different from each other, are they not? But I seem to be often labelled a commie or a socialist. How could I be both?
They are not 'distinctly different'.
We agree that government have options besides (or in addition to) taxes to raise money for proper government expenditures like roads, bridges, law enforcement, regulating commerce, national defense, etc.
Again this was never in question. However, the redistribution of wealth is and has always been a tool of the left.
I didn't say it was up to me to tell corporations how much to pay their CEOs. Neither did I say all employees were equal.
What you said was:
To me, social norms that favor equality might as easily be demonstrated by a corporation board that is very tight fisted with executive pay.
If you really believe that then you need some other force besides the free market to achieve that. CEO is a pretty exclusive labor pool. The best can, for the most part, set their own salary.
Shareholders demand a good return on their investment. Shareholders are a cross section of society, many of them 'middle class'.
If your whole point about corporate pay is nothing more then a hippie like 'I have a dream...' or 'I wish...' egalitarian expression then what's to discuss? I wish I had a billion dollars in the bank...
If your answer to that question is going to be some never ending circular argument there's no need to answer.
The problem with modern liberals and leftists is that they spend more time trying to avoid being 'labeled' as such that they come off like wishy washy women.
If some one believes in the redistribution of wealth as primary role of the federal tax system then they are a socialist. If they believe in artificial restrictions on income they are a socialist.
If they spend time worrying about what the other guy has, and whether or not they feel he deserves it, they should get help. Envy can be a bad thing.
The rich guy doesn't stop the poor guy from making a living. We don't live in a caste system. People are only limited by their own effort. Government should not interfere with that.
-
It matters not how much we tax the wealthy... our schools will just get worse and the NEA richer.. the longer the government runs anything the worse it gets... the less we get for the buck.
Our middle class lives like sultans compared to the middle class of 30 years or so ago.
lazs
-
I don't care who is what, just bring the prices of homes down a little bit. I'm thinking of taking a framing class at wentworth and building one.....seriously.
-
oboe asked.... "Laz, is the wastewater treatment facility you operate owned by a private company, or publicly held by a municipality, county, state or federal agency?"
The one I currently run is a city owned facility. Treatment plants are different than most public facilities in that they can be district owned, city owned or contract company owned... it runs about equal amounts.
Because of this... we have to compete no matter what body owns us. I submit budgets and reasons why it is best to remain city owned. This is pretty much what I would like to see for schools.... let em compete for the dollar.
Oboe... I think that the point of my posts is that maybe there is no sense in even using the word "middleclass" in the when comparing yesterdays middle class with whatever it is we have today.
sixpence... you don't have to pound the pins yourself to save the money.. a general contractor is about 14% or more of the total cost. You can be an "owner builder" and get your own subs who could do the work cheaper and better than you could.
An example would be that I got a price of 1500 for insulation for my house I built... I hate doing insulation! I got a price through the bid process that was about 800 installed.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Oboe I'd like you to read this. It explains alot of what I've been saying about the dems and how out of touch they really are:
And this goes hand in hand with what I posted earlier. The Dems don't understand the middle class anymore.
Martin Frost should be the Chairman of the Democrat party but the far left pushed for Dean and got him. Just read this article and you can see why Frost has a better understanding of what is needed for his party.
Frost ran against Sessions in my district (mainly republican) after he was booted out of his own when the lines were re-drawn. He proved his worth as an organizer and solid politician by making a damn good race of it.
IMO Frost would have already a better machine in place to raise money and promote his party than Dean has shown. We (reps) are lucky the dems were not sharp enough to see that.
-
Nice to see the O'club back, and it looks like I have a fair amount of catching up to do.
First, Gunslinger - thanks for posting that article. On the whole I agree with what he is saying. I think he overestimates union membership (its my understanding that fewer than 1 in 8 workers now belong to a union) and in my experience $30,000 - $75,000 annual income is a little skewed toward the low end of middle class (hard for me to picture $76,000/yr as upper class). But I think his main points are right on. btw I do not consider myself a Democrat.
Steve, can you point out the contradiction? Its not jumping out at me...btw I agree home ownership is something of a measure, though maybe net worth would be more accurate? Either way, its all assets and income, and somewhere in that mix we could find a middle class.
Wotan, is it not social spending itself that is the redistribution of wealth, rather than the particular method of tax collection? If all taxes were simply used to pay for national defense and build roads, would you still consider progressive taxation redistribution of wealth? Or what if we had a flat tax (if that is what you prefer) but all spending was on social programs only? Wouldn't that still be redistribution of wealth even though it was a flat tax? btw, do you defined the act of taxing as "government taking something that doesn't belong to them?"
Virgil, I agree that in a capitalist free market society, there is a natural disparity in wealth, as wealth becomes concentrated in the the hands of fewer and fewer people. Interestingly, I have read this exact notion recently in the words of both Laz and Albert Einstein, so make of that connection what you will. My concern remains: does this ever increasing desparity of wealth in a capitalist society reach a point where it adversely affects the normal functioning of democracy? Even if this concern is legitimate, however, it would be a mistake to assume my proposed solution is to take the wealthy's money and give it to the poor. EDIT: In fact I haven't proposed a solution at all. But I can see how virtually anything I suggest could be construed as a redistribution of wealth in some manner or other. So I have to admit I'm stuck on this one.
Ben Franklin was a great man and one of my favorite founding fathers. I don't doubt the wisdom in his words.
Thomas Jefferson was another of my favorites, and he felt strongly about the importance of public education in a democracy.
Having said that, I agree our public schools are a mess. The first thing I'd probably do is get rid of all the computers, hire more teachers, and institute a merit pay system. I'd also like to see teachers be able to administer discipline within reasonable limits, to gain respect from the students. I agree simply throwing more money at a problem is no solution.
I also accept your criticism of my rule of thumb regarding class defintion - I admit its crude. I was trying to avoid using fixed dollar amounts as those become dated, and don't take into account number of dependents, etc. I'm sure there is a statisical way to define middle class though.
Finally Laz, I can't think of a better example of mini-socialism in action than publicly held utilities. The "people owning the means of production" can refer precisely to a municipal wastewater treatment facility. So somebody somewhere thought that was a pretty good idea, and you seem to approve of the arrangement yourself, correct?
Maybe its the U.S.'s blend of practical socialism and free market capitalism that has made us one of the greatest countries to live in. (No one here is under the impression that the U.S. is a pure free market capitalist society or that it isn't a great place to live, are they?)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I'm rather short and abrupt by nature, and tend to be sort of "rough". I sometimes "overexplain" my positions, resulting in a wall of text. I try to avoid it, and often in doing so tend to be somewhat plain and pointed.
I thought you were tall?:)
And I know you are just a cuddly teddy bear:)
:D
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I'm rather short and abrupt by nature, and tend to be sort of "rough". I sometimes "overexplain" my positions, resulting in a wall of text. I try to avoid it, and often in doing so tend to be somewhat plain and pointed.
No problem, Virgil, the only thing about your post that raised my hackles was the 'people like you' comment, because I dislike being put into a group, esp one where I really don't fit. Though I can't find that comment anywhere in this thread anymore.
-
"I have read this exact notion recently in the words of both Laz and Albert Einstein, "
this board is really getting a little tooooooo kinder and gentler..
As for the treatment of sewage... or fire of police or armies... I have never said that government doesn't need to do certain things just that they do em very badly... some things can't be done well or economicaly..
But... you didn't read what I said...Sewage treatment is not the sole domain of public held utilities... they can be districts or they can be contract companies.... MANY are. they submit a bid on what I do and I have to beat that bid or give reasons why their bid is incomplete. I have staved off all takeovers for about 10 years writing the first bid for my former boss.
I have nothing against contract companies bidding on fire or police either. So long as service is not affected except for the better. For instance... one of my bidding points is response time.. The city wants an hour or less response time to customer complaints... I manage on average, 20 minutes for my guys.
I am on call for more than a week a month but in reality... 24/7/365 I may not be the best there ever was but I am better than the competition...
Now look at schools..... Private schools are not even allowed to compete. They can't bid for your dollars... we all lose. I wouldn't care if the NEA got the award but I bet they would do a better job if they had to compete. A lot of treatment facilities around me have gone over to contractors. As they probly should have.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
snip
Now look at schools..... Private schools are not even allowed to compete. They can't bid for your dollars... we all lose.
lazs
Actually, lazs, in Texas they are. Google for "charter schools", one of the concepts GWBoosh promised to get get enacted as part of his gubernatorial platform (along with concealed carry) and did.
We have several successful charter schools locally, and more slated to start up.
culero
-
that is good news but it is barely a start.... a much needed and overdue start but a start.
lazs
-
Einstein favored socialism, on several grounds. Check this out:
Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein (http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm)
Its kind of long, but here is an interesting excerpt:
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
Written in 1949, but still describes our current political situation adequately. Though I don't think we've reached a point where it is impossible for a citizen to make intelligent use of his political rights, and private capitalists do not control education in the US. I'm not going to call that left wing tripe, but I do think he was overstretching his case.
Your facility may constantly compete against private contractors, but your current situation is still "public ownership of the means of production" and that is a major tenet of socialism. I can see how having to compete constantly against the threat of privatization keeps you efficient, and I can see why you think that would be a good principle for public schools as well.
How do you envision that working? Let's say an expensive private school with a primary enrollment of children from wealthy families with very smart parents has test scores that drastically eclipse the local school's student test scores. What would you do - close the public school and use the taxes to fund the private school? What about the public school students? Would they then attend the private school? If so, is the private school really a private school anymore? And what will happen to the test scores now?
Or is all this just a roundabout way of busting the NEA?
-
Laz,
Private contracting for Police and Fire service?!?!?!? :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
oboe... einstein never worked for a living so how would he know?
as for your reasoning on public schools... I have no idea what you mean.
A voucher system would be the solution. the parents would decide what school they wanted... schools are just buildings with teachers in em... nothing like a public utility infrastrure... the most complicated bit of infrastructure in a school is self made... the NEA.
poor or rich... under voucher... everyone would choose what school they went to. I would have no problem with requiring that public schools still be funded to the point that they stayed open as an option in all communites.. They would either be as big as they are (if 100% of parents chose to send their children) or....
some fraction of what they are now. They may be a small building with 3 teachers say and no students if that is how it worked out.
lazs
-
Einstein most certainly did work for a living. His first job out of college was as a patent clerk - he was a public servant, just like you. Now that's TWO things you have in common with him!
I misunderstood the method you were proposing for public/private school competition - I assumed you wanted it to work along the lines of your own facility's competition with private industry. But it looks like I was right about your designs on the NEA. I'm not going to make excuses for them or apologize. They may be as you claim, the major problem with public education today.
We have charter schools here in Minnesota too, with a few publicized, well, almost spectacular failures. There doesn't seem to be enough oversight on them and a large group pf parents were recently fleeced of tuition for a charter school which I don't believe was even in operation for one full year before it went under.
Did you know that our public schools have to pay for transporation for students to and from private schools? That's true in Minnesota at least. Certainly seems to be an advantage for private schools when education cost/pupil is compared to public schools.
-
oboe... I was a private contractor for manyu more years than I have held this position.
I am not sure what a "charter school" is but I have never heard of a private school here "fleecing" parents out of tuition. Every private school I have ever seen had much better scholastic results than it's public school competition.
there would be no "fleecing" of parents under a voucher system... the money would not come from the parents per se.
We would all still be paying for education as before.
All schools would have to have the same standards. Busing would either be a plus or a minus. private schools might not even offer it... If you needed it an the private schools didn't offer it... you might want to stick with the public school.... same for a lunch program..
Point is... parents would have some choice and not be completely at the mercy of what the public school system felt was best for them.
mav... fire and police are the sacred cow but... you could go for a week easy with no fire or police... How long could your city go without sewage treatment?
When was the last time a city was shut down (not allowed any new growth) over poor police or fire? They get shut down (cease and desist) all the time over wastewater and water issues.
Contract police and fire may not work.. they would have to offer the same level of service and I think that probly it couldn't be done any cheaper but... who knows?
lazs
-
Laz,
My take on your privatization situation was the legal, training, staffing and liability issues that would devastate the situation in LE and Fire. It just won't work depending on a private company to do that type of work, IMO.
As to when or where. Yep you are right the city didn't shut down in my home town but... About 1973 or so there was a city wide strike by LE in Tucson. Alomost all the rank and file walked off the job after the city left the table. Almost all the married Officers were on food stamps due to getting the "living wage" averaging about $500 to $900.00 a month. The city was sitting on a nice surplus and kept claiming poverty.
The result was the city did come back to the table and settled. A week after the contract was signed they claimed it invalid and refused to comply. The wages that were agreed on were cut, but still better than before.
FWIW that week to 2 week period of nothing but administrators on patrol was about the quietest time for crime in Tucson for a long time. The news did a dandy job of following the strike issue closely. As the deadline got near the gun stores started doing a brisk business. When the strike hit they couldn't keep any stock on hand. All the burglars and robbers went underground knowing there were so many armed folks out there that were nervous about not being able to call the cops. The ones that got arrested later on after the strike confided they held off of doing "business" as they figured they'd get taken out by the victims.
-
thanks mav...
I think that we agree on the situation including what happens when citizens arm themselves.
I think that being both a priivate contractor and a public servant and in position to see how it works has given me some perspective on the situation.. I would never have thought that something like phone company.. power companies... water and wastewater.. could ever be privatized.
Perhaps fire and police (and of course army) are the line we have to draw at privatization but.... privatization is creeping in to those fields as well... private owned prisons for instance... creeping fire "districts".
lazs