| Pages:
1
..
13
14
15
16
17
..
31 |
ELINVESTIG8R
Select Nomad
Posts: 15882
Registered: 11-20-2007
Location: Southern California
Member Is Offline
|
|
The legitimate Latino votes will be seen in the Republican column. Vas a ver!
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Iflyfish,
just read your most recent post, and, as usual, I learn from your words. Every time I read one of your more lengthy contributions, I am amazed at how
well integrated your thoughts and knowledge are.
However, after reading it, I became a bit embarrassed by my own contentious tone compared to your reasoned magnanimous prose. It is serving to remind
that winning an argument and proving a point doesn't necessarily change hearts and minds. And, actually, that is what is really important; to win a
war and not just the battles. And, futhermore, the agenda of winning a war may even be a misplaced mission here in this forum. Maybe and merely the
"engagement" in this platform of the exchange of contrasting ideas, here, in this forum which is so rich with so many quality Nomads, may be a more
fitting goal than winning a war.
I'm working on it.
MitchMan
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
MitchMan
I appreciate the clarity of your most recent post. The stunning thing to me about all of the agencies that were undermined is that they exist to
protect the air, water, environment, public health, education and safety that we all need. Most of these agencies grew out of crisis that affected the
country as a whole and were in response to egregious behavior on the part of Trusts or Corporations who denigrated these resources. The job of Public
Servants is to ensure the Life, Liberty and Safety of those who elected them not to destroy the very institutions that provide those services.
History of EPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pro...
History of the Department of Labor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--aQMVJH1xA
History of OSHA
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/mono-osha13introto...
Example of the work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml01/01119.html
I would encourage you to inform yourself of the history of these agencies and the public crisis that created them.
One can argue that their budgets are too large, that there is waste in these agencies etc. I understand and appreciate these arguments and some are
well founded. However to appoint heads of these agencies as Reagan et. al. did, whose sole purpose was to do away with these agencies and the
protection they provide, in circumvention of the needs of the people, in support of Corporate Interests, is in my view an insufferable breach of
public trust and an excellent example of how the rights and needs of the public are trampled by the very Public Servants who are elected to Protect
and Defend the interests of the people. None of this will change until we take the money out of Politics.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
MitchMan-------after THAT last post you can still indicate that "you are surprised that no mind changes have resulted", or words to that effect??
Amazing!!! You just lost about 60% of your credibility with me with THAT post, and your rant DOES sound loony to me from my perspective!
You will be SHOCKED to learn that I support all (or most of) the Reagan appointees-----I worked for the National Park Service and BLM for those years,
and the direction we were headed in those organizations before Reagan was scary to me----his appointees at least stemmed the tide for a little while.
I religiously read most of (all?) the cites that you and Fish provided, and disagreed with a large percentage of those articles and the interpretation
of the "stats" (not the stats themselves), not to a small degree because of the authors, and/or the organizations that published them-----all
left-wing folks and think-tanks, or so it appeared to me, and seldom or inadaquately presented the opposing points of view.
As for my "success", I do not consider myself "unique", or a "micro example" of what is possible in this great Country-------ANYBODY can duplicate
what I have done if they take a little time to observe, and apply what they learn. Believe me, if I can do it, anybody can! And that is exactly what
I am trying to convey to people-----what the left is telling you is largely a bunch of bull, backed up by a bunch of intellectuals distorted &
cherry-picked facts and mostly erroneous conclusions, (the 'dots' don't really connect) and I have no idea why they are doing it, and have given up
trying to figure that out. Some of my best friends are in your camp, one in particular a Harvard grad and professor at Emory U in Atlanta, and we
daily go at it on these subjects, each of us NEVER convincing the other of the error of their ways, even when personal absolute facts that refute what
the other is saying are presented (I present the facts, and he does not believe they are applicable because his Harvard buddies have CONVINCED him
that THE Harvard folks are always correct). It is amazing-----these guys (like you and Fish???) are supposedly research and fact-based guys, yet you
refuse to see any validity in obvious examples of where you are going wrong, and discount them as "unique" and not applicable.
What you accuse the GOP of doing, "tearing down" or "destroying" Government, we see as restoring Government to it's proper and Constitutional place in
the scheme of things------two completely different viewpoints. We in the GOP are guilty of the same claims of "you guys" (oooops, that is a
prejudicial, and probably racial comment) of course, but both groups are convinced that "we are right and correct, and the other side is so mis-lead".
It is a wonder that we can even talk to each other with the mind-sets that we both are coming from. But, thank God, we do "talk" as I think each of
us wants to solve problems way down deep in our brains, and we know that the only rational way to do that is to "talk", despite the fact that we
almost NEVER appear to get anywhere. However, we have got to defend our positions, don't we, as to just give up dooms us to utter failure in the way
things eventually turn out-----we have got to do our part in defending what we in our gut feel is RIGHT, I believe----and that is a good thing.
So, I and my little family will go on, prosper one way or another, and vote, and try to counter the rantings of the organisers and supporters of the
"victim" mentality that demands that the successful and rich help SUPPORT them, regardless. This despite the FACT that all the rich that I know give
overwhelmingly to the charities OF THEIR CHOICE a large percentage of their earnings (in my brother-in-laws case about 70% of his total yearly
earnings).
As Dennis would say, "JEEEEEZO, what a dilemma", or something like that. 
Cheers to all of you, (and you lefties, too---except for Goat)
Barry
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Iflyfish
One can argue that their budgets are too large, that there is waste in these agencies etc. I understand and appreciate these arguments and some are
well founded. However to appoint heads of these agencies as Reagan et. al. did, whose sole purpose was to do away with these agencies and the
protection they provide, in circumvention of the needs of the people, in support of Corporate Interests, is in my view an insufferable breach of
public trust and an excellent example of how the rights and needs of the public are trampled by the very Public Servants who are elected to Protect
and Defend the interests of the people. None of this will change until we take the money out of Politics. |
Absolutely golden! You summarized it perfectly and accurately. If only the general public would step back from the trees and look at this forest as
you just did.
I have been saying for the past year to people around me that the one thing that would go the furthest in curing the situation is to "take the money
out of politics". After all is said and done, that is the one action that would turn the tide most completely.
The "money" problem got its genesis in the mid 70s when Jack Abramoff figured out that the conservative agenda benefits big business directly and
specifically and that he could make big bucks by persuading big business to contribute to him and he would in turn promote specific agendas. I
believe one of the first agendas was to campaign specifically against unions for which he got plenty of contributions for his association from big
business. He paid himself handsomely. This whetted his appetite and the rest is history. His efforts found complicity with Ralph Reed, Grover
Norquist, Carl Rove, and soon Tom Delay in government. The interesting facet of this is that Ralph Reed and Abramoff saw this activity more as a
money maker for them personally than merely furthering a pure political agenda. They actually viewed it as a money making "industry".... i.e.,
lobbying. It worked!
What the right wing fails to realize is that in the realm of real world economics, there are actual realities called eonomic "externalities". An
externality is a negative consecquence not anticipated such as pollution from an automobile, or contamination of ground water from industrial waste.
For instance, a customer voluntarily buys a car. The car manufacture voluntarily manufactures the car and voluntarily sells it to the customer.
Closed transaction, free trade. Fine. Since the goal of any business in a market based capitalistic economy is to maximize profits by lowering costs
while gettng the highest price possible, the manufacturer is not inclined (nor is it a good business decision) to spend money ona clean engine. There
is a third party to this, the general public who has to breath in the pollution spewed into the air by the car that was made without the expense of
manufacturing a clean air engine. Now, the public is/was not in privaty of contract in the transaction between the seller and the buyer and so had no
say mandating that the manufacturer spend more money to make a cleaner engine. Air pollution = externality of buy/sell/manufacture market
transaction.
Since business's goal is to maximize profits, there is no profit motive to produce a clean engine. The society and the public has to protect itself,
among other things, that is the role of government. So it is up to the government to mandate and enforce the manufacture of only clean engines. The
government has many such roles: safe drugs, clean air, safe cars, planes and railroads, clean water, clean oceans, eco balance, safe house and
buidling construction. Another role for government is to protect the market itself from "too big to fail", from runaway risky behavior of businesses
(CEOs and executives) that are in charge of banks, monopolies and monopolistic behavior, from boom and bust applying sound monetary policy and fiscal
policy, regulation of the banking industry especially since government guarantees deposits, the military, etc., etc., etc.
Virtually all economists recognize that there is a role for government. Most people do too. The argument is over how much of a role. Well, we saw
what lack of government role did via the right wing deregulation agenda in the S&L debacle, the bursting of the dot com bubble and more recently
in the 2007/8 near collapse of the all too deregulated financial sector. Such deregulation was a direct result of successful lobbying, which brings
us back to getting money out of politics which hopefully will get us statesemen in government instead of "politicians" who are solely interested in
getting re-elected and will do and say things based solely on "political" motivation. Getting re-elected makes them amenable to pandering to sources
of money for their campaigns. Congressmen spend 1/4 of their time campaining for funds for their campaigns.
Do we have a billion dollar lobbying industry? Ooops, yes we do.
[Edited on 10-30-2011 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Mitch--------
I TOTALLY AGREE that we need to get big money our of politics-----I am with you on that.
And I TOTALLY AGREE with you that the Government has a roll in protecting the public
And I TOTALLY AGREE with you that "the problem" is just how much power we actually give to these Public Agencies to control stuff------
You appear to think More Power is good, and I believe that minimal power is good (else they destroy the very system that provides us with prosperity)
OK, now what--------------------?????? 
Barry
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
MitchMan, I see, in your opinion, the bottom line is that the right wing is responsible for the present economic situation, the housing collapse, the
high unemployment rate, and every other malady that plagues the US.
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
Mitch--------
I TOTALLY AGREE that we need to get big money our of politics-----I am with you on that.
And I TOTALLY AGREE with you that the Government has a roll in protecting the public
And I TOTALLY AGREE with you that "the problem" is just how much power we actually give to these Public Agencies to control stuff------
You appear to think More Power is good, and I believe that minimal power is good (else they destroy the very system that provides us with prosperity)
OK, now what--------------------??????
Barry |
I appreciate your clarifying the points were we do agree. I think that the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street share some of the same frustrations with
the status quo.
I do not say that increasing the power of a government or a government agency is necessarily a good thing. I am saying that these agencies exist for a
genuine reason and have been denigrated via fiat and that is unjust. An unbridled government is as dangerous as unregulated Corporations. The
difference is one of degree, not of kind.
My point is that Corporate money has so corrupted the means of rationally oversight of these agencies that they are sorely limited in providing their
function. The Supreme Court decision to allow UNLIMITED funding of political activity was in my view the final unbalancing of the political playing
field that has cemented the corruption in our political system. My beef is with Corporatism of our government and the undermining of its role as
protector of the peoples interest.
Ditto with Corporate media that has slanted “news” in such a way that it is very hard for the general public to obtain an unbiased perspective and now
facts have been denigrated into “opinion” to the demise of reasonable debate.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Barry,
I get it that you disagree with us liberals. I just hope ... someday ... that you will start actually posting some facts, clear verifiable facts to
support your disagreements and contentions.
Can't you see that simply declaring your disagreement is neither proof nor substantiation? There is no credibility in unsupported assertions. And,
accordingly, there is no credibility in those who perpetuate such unsupported assertions ... over and over and over again.... as you do.
Fore example:
| Quote: | Barry A.
-----what the left is telling you is largely a bunch of bull, backed up by a bunch of intellectuals distorted & cherry-picked facts and mostly
erroneous conclusions |
Barry, which statements are a bunch of crap? Which specific intellectuals? Which cherry picked facts? Which erroneous conclusions? Be specific,
then provide the factual proof and citations sufficient to prove your point. You never do this. Never.
Reckless, Barry, reckless, unconvincing, unpersuasive, not credible, irresponsible, vacuous = 'hot air".
Look at your post. Where's the beef? All you wrote were iterations of your opinions and disagreements. No facts. No stats, no verifiable quotes,
nada.
BTW, how can you disagree with something but not the "stats"?
Here's some stats for you: 1% of the top own 40% of the wealth, 10% of the top own 71% of the wealth, 60% at the bottom only have 4% of the wealth,
and the bottom 40% own only 1/4 of 1% of the nation's wealth. Conclusion: there is too great a disparity of wealth and income in this country.
Fact: the USA ranks second worst in the world for disparity of wealth.
Barry, do you disagree with my above conclusion? I supported my conclusion with verifiable fact. If you disagree, support your conclusion with
verifiable fact.
All I am asking for is a little fair play here, Barry. You believe in fairness, right? If not, we'll have to eliminate the judicial system.
[Edited on 10-30-2011 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
MitchMan, I see, in your opinion, the bottom line is that the right wing is responsible for the present economic situation, the housing collapse, the
high unemployment rate, and every other malady that plagues the US. |
Almost, Cypress. I believe that the right wing is primarily responsible and that the right wing agenda is totally virtually totally responsible for
the present economic situation, the high unemployment rate, the housing collapse, and that there was/is certainly complicity by certain democrat
elected politicians in Congress and elsewhere that aided and abetted the problem(s). Blue Dogs comes to mind among others. As far as "... every
other malady that plagues the US". That's obviously far too broad to blame on either liberals or the right wing.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Iflyfish
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
Mitch--------
I TOTALLY AGREE that we need to get big money our of politics-----I am with you on that.
And I TOTALLY AGREE with you that the Government has a roll in protecting the public
And I TOTALLY AGREE with you that "the problem" is just how much power we actually give to these Public Agencies to control stuff------
You appear to think More Power is good, and I believe that minimal power is good (else they destroy the very system that provides us with prosperity)
OK, now what--------------------??????
Barry |
I appreciate your clarifying the points were we do agree. I think that the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street share some of the same frustrations with
the status quo.
I do not say that increasing the power of a government or a government agency is necessarily a good thing. I am saying that these agencies exist for a
genuine reason and have been denigrated via fiat and that is unjust. An unbridled government is as dangerous as unregulated Corporations. The
difference is one of degree, not of kind.
My point is that Corporate money has so corrupted the means of rationally oversight of these agencies that they are sorely limited in providing their
function. The Supreme Court decision to allow UNLIMITED funding of political activity was in my view the final unbalancing of the political playing
field that has cemented the corruption in our political system. My beef is with Corporatism of our government and the undermining of its role as
protector of the peoples interest.
Ditto with Corporate media that has slanted “news” in such a way that it is very hard for the general public to obtain an unbiased perspective and now
facts have been denigrated into “opinion” to the demise of reasonable debate.
Iflyfish |
All great points, Fish.
The Supreme Court (IMO) HAD to come to the decision that they came too on Campaign Finance because of their defined job of protecting the
Constitition. I agree that the financing of campaigns needs to be curtailed drastically, but in order to do that we must amend the Constitution, and
if the Country really wants to do that it has been proven that it CAN BE DONE on fast-track mode.
I don't fault "Corporate Media" so much (all Media with any impact is run by Corporations) but the problems occur in that most Media Management hires
folks in a non-balanced way, do not declare their bias (thus lose credibility), and they do so with relative impunity-----a very poor Management
decision, by the way. As ALWAYS HAPPENS, the Market (reads the 'listening Public' in this case) corrects that over time (thus the public are more
and more moving to FOX NEWS, a more "fair and balanced" organization that declares it's bias) I believe that CNN, PBS and FOX handle news the best,
but of course that is just my feeling, but I do believe that PBS should admit their gemeral bias, which is so obvious..
Striking a balance with the various regulating Agencies is a much more challenging problem, but I believe that we MUST always defer decisions that
tend to subdue the capital markets until the truth is absolutely known less we stop or hinder the engine of prosperity. Where that "line" is, is
debatable of course. I do not reject "science" ever, but so far the track record on science being correct on their short term assumptions and
conclusions on things like Climate Change is not that impressive, so implementing monumental decisions with chaotic consequences and expense must
always be deferred, in my opinion. I studied Climatology in College, and have followed developments since, and we are a long way from really
understanding it, in my opinion------there are so many variables.
I believe we know where you stand on all these issues, Fish and Mitch, so it is refreshing and hopeful that you both are able to moderate your "real"
feelings and beliefs for the benefit of this discussion, and hope that I and others on "the other side" can do the same.
Barry
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
MitchMan, I see, in your opinion, the bottom line is that the right wing is responsible for the present economic situation, the housing collapse, the
high unemployment rate, and every other malady that plagues the US. |
Almost, Cypress. I believe that the right wing is primarily responsible and that the right wing agenda is totally virtually totally responsible for
the present economic situation, the high unemployment rate, the housing collapse, and that there was/is certainly complicity by certain democrat
elected politicians in Congress and elsewhere that aided and abetted the problem(s). Blue Dogs comes to mind among others. As far as "... every
other malady that plagues the US". That's obviously far too broad to blame on either liberals or the right wing. |
I beleive that the policies of deregulation, three unfunded wars in the middle east, lowering taxes on Corporations and the wealthy, the 5/4 Supreme
Court decision to allow Unlimited Political Contributions by Corporations, all supported by FOX and the Republican Party have indeed made major
contributions to the problems we now face.
I believe that both Democrats and Republicans are beholding to Corporate sponsors and no longer represent the interests of the general public.
I believe that the deregulation of the ownership of Corporate Media and the elimination of the Fareness Doctrinee have robbed us of an unbiased media.
What we are fed as "news" is generated and shaped by Corporate Media that excludes candidates like Republican Buddy Roemer who advocate taking the
money out of politics. I am not advocating a vote for Buddy Roemer, due to many of his domestic positions I would not vote for him, but I would very
much like to see him on the national stage where people could hear his inside perspective on the corruption in Congress and the White House. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkvsn-oNz5s
The reason you have not yet seen this guy is that he only accepts donations of $100. It takes MILLIONS of dollars to now buy Corporate Media time so
that ideas like this can be discussed in the election cycle. I would think that this guy would be embraced by the Republican right if he had any
national forum for his ideas to be heard.
"Washington is not about the people it's about money and re-election".
Iflyfish
|
|
|
BajaGringo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3922
Registered: 8-24-2006
Location: La Chorera
Member Is Offline
Mood: Let's have a BBQ!
|
|
I don't blame all of our problems solely on the left or right. BOTH sides have sold us out to the highest bidder. Politicians of BOTH parties have
spent us into financial ruin and paved the way for globalization - the true enemy of the US economy.
A global economy will take us to a global standard of living and all the political fighting resembling a high school football game reminds me of Nero
fiddling while Rome burned...
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Here is an excellent example of how our views are shaped and who is shaping them on the right. On the left there is a parallel system. The entire
system is corrupt to the core.
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Independent-groups-pu...
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
BajaGringo, The global standard of living? Would be interesting to know exactly what that is. Under those conditions, I suspect most Nomads wouldn't
be doing much traveling, have vacation homes, or worry about which restaurant is up to par. 
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
I don't think that you are a loon, Barry, I just think that you are mistaken. But, then again, you think that I am mistaken as well. What is making
me chuckle right now is the realization that neither of us, nor any of us has changed our minds. After all that was written, no one is seeming to
have budged.
Now, that's funny! |
Mitchman,
You are quite correct in that "no one is seeming to have budged". While that is a desired accomplishment, it is a futile one.
Gentlemen:
You may have noticed, I have grown tired of posting political opinion on this forum. (That I have been missed has been communicated by a few U2Us and
email by those who have the email address. Thank you!). In the past I believe I have made some contributions that, hopefully, have helped to open
minds, but it was ultimately an unrequited personal endeavor. For the time that it was challenging, I enjoyed it. However, I have concluded that this
is the wrong medium for the great effort and time it takes to pour out one's heart and soul.
The Bajanomad still remains the best place of reference for staying informed on all things Baja. Many here still feel like family.
Iflyfishinallthingstoperfection and Mitch-The-Man's postings are so well researched, substantiated and articulated that I really enjoy reading them.
If I were just born yesterday, with no preconceived or experiential political inklings, you guys would be the light that mentors my direction. Barry,
while providing "the other side" to bounce off of, would merely serve the fledgling newborn by clarifying the mistaken and flawed ideology of that
"other side". I like and respect him as a good human being, which I believe most people are in other forms of encounter.
(edited to correct ego driven punctuation errors). 
[Edited on 10-30-2011 by toneart]
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
We are "cross-posting" here which makes it hard to follow-----
Mitch said,
"BTW, how can you disagree with something but not the "stats"?
Here's some stats for you: 1% of the top own 40% of the wealth, 10% of the top own 71% of the wealth, 60% at the bottom only have 4% of the wealth,
and the bottom 40% own only 1/4 of 1% of the nation's wealth. Conclusion: there is too great a disparity of wealth and income in this country. Fact:
the USA ranks second worst in the world for disparity of wealth.
Barry, do you disagree with my above conclusion? I supported my conclusion with verifiable fact. If you disagree, support your conclusion with
verifiable fact. "
I can "disagree" with the conconclusions reached because NEVER are all the "FACTS" presented, all the stats presented, which of course they never can
be. Facts themselves are what they are------facts------and cannot be disputed on their face. But as we ALL know, you can quote facts & stats to
support any theory that you want, but that does not make the theory necessarily true. Facts & stats help, for sure, but reasonable people leave
room for interpretation of facts & stats, conflicting facts, mis-leading facts, limited facts, etc. thus the arguments and disagreements (but you
know that, and the fact that I don't cite "facts" to back up my statements is, to me, a RED HERRING).
'Facts' and 'stats' are the things we look at in order for us to reach a conclusion-----like 'science', facts and stats are simply tools in the
process of thinking-people reaching a conclusion, and I normally believe that a person making statements that are to be taken seriously are made by
those that have ALREADY done their homework. My Gawd, do you really want to wade thru all the 'facts'?? You may, as a scholar, but not
me--------when I look at many stats and facts all they usually do is bring up more questions in my mind then what they resolve. Again, the most
powerful evidence that I have is my personal experience, and what I have observed relative to things that I absolutely know because I have seen it
with my own eyes, heard it from people I trust, or generally appear to be really obvious to me when I study history.
Perhaps that is a flawed method, but it has always worked for me, and I like & trust the results. I am not a researcher, nor a scholar, or a
scientist, and have never presented myself as one. I have lived a reasonably long time, have experienced some stuff, suceeded and failed at stuff,
and have come to some conclusions which I sometimes like to share, hoping that someone will benefit.
By the way, your question above on the stats just presented--------I generally agree with those stats with some quibbles about how they were obtained
that I won't go into, and frankly I don't remember the details anyway, and have no idea where to look up the citations.
Barry
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64854
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Wow, if only so much energy could go into writing about Baja!  
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
Here's some stats for you: 1% of the top own 40% of the wealth, 10% of the top own 71% of the wealth, 60% at the bottom only have 4% of the wealth,
and the bottom 40% own only 1/4 of 1% of the nation's wealth. Conclusion: there is too great a disparity of wealth and income in this country.
Fact: the USA ranks second worst in the world for disparity of wealth. |
Those facts are correct and liberals want to redistribute the upper wealth to the bottom. The people at the top earned what they have which is lost on
liberals.
There are many reasons why the bottom 60% have only 4% of the wealth. Some people are mentally or physically unable to make it as they say and they
need help. There are others that for whatever reason are disconnected from society being a drunk, on drugs, various criminal behavior etc.
Divorce is probably the largest single factor as it drags down both parties. Women don't earn as much as men and a single mom is usually on some form
of welfare or assistance at some point. Men most often pay child support and when they remarry their salary can't support two households at the level
it did for one household. 70% of the black children are born to a girl/woman not married. Latinos are not far behind.
Over the past 40 or more years people stopped saving as much as they use too. But everybody wants the toys. Their eyes override their brains. Gotta
have a new car, truck or SUV often more than one. As a society we too often live above our means. If you invested $100 per month from age 20 to 65
with compound interest you would have a million dollars when you retire. How many people do you know in their 20s and 30s are saving money or
investing it?
Schooling, roughly 25% of the kids in CA high schools drop out. Of those that do finish high school on the average they read and do math at a 5th
grade level.
Many high schools do not offer classes for auto mechanics, HVAC, and other building trades like they once did and now a kid out of high school must
attend a trade school or Jr college to get the skills. Not all kids are college material but they can learn a skill that can make them a good living.
For those able to work it becomes the choices they make as to what they will have in life and to have someone take from you and give it to someone who
made bad choices is not right and all the stats in the world won't change that.
By the way I don't believe the USA ranks second worst in the world for disparity of wealth. I know of a lot of countries including Mexico that are
worse.
[Edited on 10-30-2011 by TW]
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by BajaGringo
I don't blame all of our problems solely on the left or right. BOTH sides have sold us out to the highest bidder. Politicians of BOTH parties have
spent us into financial ruin and paved the way for globalization - the true enemy of the US economy.
A global economy will take us to a global standard of living and all the political fighting resembling a high school football game reminds me of Nero
fiddling while Rome burned... |
Ron,
I have to separate the ideologies of Right and Left from the corporate and banking lackey politicians of both parties who are ruining the global
economy. Thankfully, the Occupy Wall Street movement is gaining, worldwide. 
One can find merit in all ideologies. It is when put into practice by greedy career politicians who do NOT represent We The People, that the
ideals become corrupted. That is compounded and made indelible in peoples' minds who get all their information from corporate controlled media. The
way they reinforce is a calculated form of brainwashing called Branding.. The Rupert Murdock media agenda has been especially effective by
being the opinion breeder for the Republican political party.
Our dilemma is that our ideological choices are channeled through two political parties which command our vote, but do not represent us.
[Edited on 10-30-2011 by toneart]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
13
14
15
16
17
..
31 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
