Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 4 of 14 pages
Of course that's little more than a polite way of saying the same thing, since blocking out external reality to the exclusive calling of one's own inner voices is usually a pretty good sign of a mental breakdown.
The part about gay people having more money because they have fewer children is undeniably true, and is something I hadn't considered before.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there might be a dozen or so straight people who don't have children.
So he has no responsibilities or duties and I have responsibility and duty for all? That isn't very motivating.
Lassus, are you trying to argue that gay couples on average have as many children as heterosexual couples do on average?
I think it is mainly zero sum. There is, speaking generally, no such thing as a more "respectful" society, taken on the whole. In fact, I'd go further - I think the myth of respect being not zero sum is the core fallacy of socialism. If there are winners, there are always losers; if there are folks that are respected, then there are folks who are disdained (and to your point about Memorial Day, my late grandfather, who was excluded from WWII because of a heart condition, had horrifying stories about the way strangers treated him at home).
If everyone behaves to a higher standard, then the bar will shift. If everyone was working and productive, then we'd stigmatize those who were slightly less productive. Way back in the day, folks without shoes were stigmatized. Then everyone got richer, and folks without nice shoes were stigmatized. Then richer still, and the shoes had to be nice and new.
Winning and losing, haves and have nots are as core to human nature as breathing and eating. You can't legislate it away.
Nobody in this thread has adequately addressed the drain on the US economy perpetrated by professional musicians. By no means can playing the guitar on the MTV or banging on the bongos like a chimpanzee be characterized as "working" in the tradtional sense, yet they are compensated disproportionately and also receive female companionship gratis. While they face occasional workplace hazards such as blisters on the little finger or thumb, there is no reason why these individuals, with their earrings, makeup, and their own hair, should have their own jet airplanes and be millionaires. Meanwhile, those that install microwave ovens, deliver custom kitchens, and move refrigerators and TVs are left to live a life of unfulfilled resentment.
'Zop, I know this gets used a lot so the impact is lessened, but your #266 really sounds like a parody piece.
LOL. ~11,000,000 illegal immigrants in the U.S., but it's a "canard" that our immigration laws haven't been enforced.
Well, we know you're not a budget hawk, so does this mean you'd have no problem with the U.S. deporting millions of people if Congress appropriated the money to do so?
Alvin Lee = Ten Years After. Now there is an underrated band.
Maybe so, but I've seen enough of Sugar Bear's inner voices to last me for quite a while.
LOL. ~11,000,000 illegal immigrants in the U.S., but it's a "canard" that our immigration laws haven't been enforced.
Over nine million property crimes per year, do you think property laws are being enforced? Do you see the tiny little logical flaw in your statement?
If you want to give me some stuff I want, then maybe I can support increasing the budget for enforcement - oh hey that is how the law you hate so much was negotiated in a bipartisan nature.
The existence of property crimes is not evidence that laws against property crimes are unenforced.
People no longer trust that the other party will keep its word, even if the obligation is enshrined in law.
gay people = no children = more money = new improved ruling class power is a nonsensical conclusion.
Because respect follows wealth and power
Correct, just like the fact that the existence of illegal immigrants is not evidence immigration laws are not enforced.
You realize that Obama had a higher rate (and more) deportations than Bush did and that the total rate of illegal immigration is down during Obama's term relative to Bushes term, right?
The GOP not having trust in Obama has much more to do with GOP issues than it does Obama and enforcement of immigration laws.
Which is of course why MLK and Mother Theresa garner so little respect as opposed to Hitler and Stalin.
While scrambling to cover up for your nonsense you've managed to double down on it. It's gonna be a fun day, I can tell. You do understand the qualitative differences between illegal immigration and property crimes, right?
Like I said before, you can assign blame all you want, but that won't solve your problem.
Can you drop this, please? You know very well that reduced immigration is do to the shitty job market in the US, particular the housing/construction sector.
So in your opinion if immigration laws were enforced there would be no illegal immigrants,
but the existence of property crimes implies property laws are being enforced? What on Earth are you talking about?
Unless you think laws magically stop crime you are talking nonsense. Obama has enforced immigration laws at least as well in total as Bush did.
Spouting raw numbers of illegal immigrants proves nothing regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Especially with regards to Obama since the rate of illegal immigration has dropped during his term.
Oh dear, you really don't understand that there are massive qualitative differences between illegal immigrants and acts of vandalism.
In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of money or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victims. The property crime category includes arson because the offense involves the destruction of property; however, arson victims may be subjected to force. Because of limited participation and varying collection procedures by local law enforcement agencies, only limited data are available for arson. Arson statistics are included in trend, clearance, and arrest tables throughout Crime in the United States, but they are not included in any estimated volume data. The arson section in this report provides more information on that offense.
My problem? I have said many times before there is no bad outcome politically for my side in the immigration debate. Either the GOP reinforces their image among minorities as racist bastards or my side gets a pile of new voters who strongly trend to vote for my side.
I have a policy preference, but the problem is all on the GOP side (well and among the immigrants).
So explain to me the huge qualitative differences in how Illegal Immigration and Property Crimes respond to enforcement.
Your problem, as somebody who believes in small d democracy, is that the US is turning into a low trust society. Low trust societies struggle to maintain a viable democracy, let alone the sort of socialism you'd like to see.
The US is turning into Brazil. We're going to end up with a very prosperous white/Asian upper and professional class, and a largely Hispanic underclass working menial jobs and subsisting on Gov't handouts, with highly dysfunctional family and social dynamics.
How this is an improvement for the U.S., I can't fathom.
FTFY. I had to walk by Zucotti Park almost every day, so I am intimitely familiar with the Occup protestors.
Our economic/political system is fundamentally broken, and broken in a way that helps the top-1%, and really helps the top 0.1%, while absolutely screwing the 10th-75th%-ile. The bottom 10% were always, and will always be screwed.
100 years ago the US had high and rising wages, and a shortage of labor relative to capital. Neither of those is the case.
And we enter into assertion land. I don't think "the US is turning into a low trust society", and in fact I would love to see an actual definition of what you mean by that and evidence you would like to present.
Here you go. You can see that American confidence in virtually every public and private institution has fallen significantly over the past 40 years, with the exception of the military and the police. So... yay?
You can find tons more to support whatever conclusion you want to draw if you spend a few minutes on Google, regardless of what it is you are trying to "prove."
to support whatever conclusion you want to draw
To a large extent it is, in that it has stop responding to middle class needs.
That would coincide with the idea that "government IS the problem" becoming a popular truism.
Because the party of the powerful and rich convinced large swathes of the middle class that "government is the problem."
It's cute that you still think in terms of Dem/GOP, but trust in non-governmental institutions has plummeted as well.
But, wages did increase. Male wage levels were 35% (farm-labor) to 50-70% (non-farm labor and manufacturing) higher in 1899 than in 1850. Female wages doubled. (source NBER) Given that the price level was effectively constant (gold standard) that was a big real increase.
Wages in the US were also 2-3 times that of Europe. European capital flowed into the US in massive amounts in the pre-WWI period, which offset the huge inflows of labor.
It's all part of the same paradigm. If you can't trust the single largest institution that's supposed to look out for you, why should you trust all those smaller institutions who aren't tasked to look out for you at all? What makes IBM or Coke or the YMCA or the Red Cross any other large institution more trustworthy than the federal government?
Once you stop trusting, you stop trusting.
Also they have taught a generation of Snappers (i.e., conservatives who want to help the working class) that the one thing proven above all else to help the working class (a strong labor movement) is absolutely and utterly anathema.
Except when you don't. The military and police are more trusted now than they were 40 years ago.
You also neglect to mention that a high minimum wage is death to the employment prospects of the least skilled workers, especially minority teenagers, and HS drop-outs, preventing them from even getting on to those first rung of the economic ladder.
The Democrats have don't nothing to help the middle class in the last 40 years either. They have been just as big of cheerleaders for the globalization, free trade, open borders ideology, as the worst of the WSJ Republicans.
Lots of immigrants came due to the high wages, but, since lots of capital came too, they didn't depress wages that much.
Which actually amplifies and reiterates the decline in social trust, since those two institutions are there to protect us from other people.
This trend to "less trust, except for the police state" is not universal; it is particular and demographic. Basically, it's a function of aging white boomers. It's not so surprising that as their iron-grip on defining what society is, as a function of what they want regardless of what anyone else might want or need, old white people suddenly become paranoid and more distrustful of the organs they used to run as a function of their personal will.
You do realize that wealth and power will still be concentrated in old white people 20 years from now? In fact, it will be more concentrated, as fewer and fewer old white people hold ever increasing quantities of wealth.
A doubling of wages at McDonald's would almost certainly involve some layoffs, asserts Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and a HuffPost blogger. At the same time, more workers would stay in their jobs longer, Baker added.
Experts generally assume that roughly one-third of the cost of increased wages gets passed on to consumers, with much of the rest of cutting into profits, Baker said. Regardless, McDonald’s is so vast and lucrative that it could easily survive a major wage increase, Baker added.
“The idea that it’d put McDonald’s out of business, there’d be no way,” said Baker.
But respect for white males hasn't changed a whit! Bitter Mouse said it was so!
Which is not a question of "trust society" so much as a consequence of the oligarchy's suckering the white working class and white poor into voting for oligarchy because of racial and/or cultural panic.
Anyway, I thought your initial claim was that the decline of trust was due to old white people trying to maintain their power.
There's your error, then. My original point was that the decline of "trust" was due to old white people - a plurality if no longer a majority - losing power, and thus no longer "trusting" institutions because those institutions were no longer bent entirely to their will. This is also why police state power is the one thing that is "more trusted," because those same old white people now believe the only thing standing between them and hordes of brown skinned ne'erdowells is Joe Arpaio and his army of tanks and assault rifles.
None of that is going to change over the next 20 years. In fact, it will probably get worse, as increasing numbers of former middle and working class white people fall into the dependent class.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (3 members)
Page rendered in 1.0905 seconds, 73 querie(s) executed