The Repub Debate

[BigRedBuster]

 

My point is, yes, there are issues we can improve on to make it easier for some people.

I get the impression that this is zoogs' point, too. I think you guys are saying largely the same thing. zoogs is saying it's getting harder, not that it's impossible. You're not saying it's easy, and you acknowledge that there may be some deck-stacking going on, but that through hard work you can still get to Z from A.

 

You guys are pushing a lot of electrons around your screens to discuss how gray that gray is.

 

To be fair, my conversation really didn't start with zoogs. It was in reply to the comment:

 

There is an extremely small chance of moving up to a higher SES bracket than the one you were born into.

 

Which, implies that the world is so stacked against you that why even try.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

My point is, yes, there are issues we can improve on to make it easier for some people.

I get the impression that this is zoogs' point, too. I think you guys are saying largely the same thing. zoogs is saying it's getting harder, not that it's impossible. You're not saying it's easy, and you acknowledge that there may be some deck-stacking going on, but that through hard work you can still get to Z from A.

 

You guys are pushing a lot of electrons around your screens to discuss how gray that gray is.

To be fair, my conversation really didn't start with zoogs. It was in reply to the comment:

There is an extremely small chance of moving up to a higher SES bracket than the one you were born into.

 

Which, implies that the world is so stacked against you that why even try.

It doesn't imply anything. It's a fact. No one is moaning about how it's not worth trying or that working hard is pointless. You're seeing things that aren't actually there. In real life there's that moaning but it hasn't happened in this thread but it's been mentioned several times for some reason.

 

The quoted is an absolute fact. And no where in my recollection was it stated that people should give up and not try.

 

People can give all the reasons they want for why that fact is not because those people are trying hard and failing but because they're not told the right things (or whatever) and those reasons may have some truth to then but that doesn't make the fact untrue. IMO it starts immediately at birth. Low SES parents are poorly educated. Their kids have far worse vocabularies at age 2. Then when they get to school age they're attending schools with poor funding. If I had the power to change one thing that I think would make the most difference it would be in how school funding worked.

 

You mention above there are ways people can go to college if they really want to as if that's an issue. It's not really an issue anymore as far as I know. Lots and lots of people are going to college (including many who shouldn't) and then not getting good jobs. Although we could start a whole new topic about english and art and philosophy degrees.

 

 

Also, and this isn't directed at anyone in particular, I hate the implication that almost always comes up that people who want anything to change related to this topic just want free stuff. I'll be earning my M.S. in May and have a good job lined up and have the potential in a few years for my husband to be a house dude. I don't need or want free stuff. I just give a f#*k about what I see as injustice.

[BigRedBuster]

If the facts are that the chances of improving your lot in life are extremely small because of all these horrible things against you in our society, then I guess maybe I am lucky enough to know a large part of the statistic that accomplish it. Lucky me.

 

Maybe you should explain exactly what you mean by "moving up to a higher SES". Are there some type of official levels you are looking at? Are you specifically looking at lower income levels?

If you come from a family where the parents make from...let's say....$50,000 to $150,000 per year, I would agree that their chances of all of a sudden making $500,000 to $1,000,000 per year are probably pretty small. However, honestly, I'm not too concerned about that group.

I would assume you are more concerned about the people who would make less than $50,000. And, your post somewhat implies what I'm saying. It starts at birth in the family and community. A parent doesn't need a college education to sit down with their 2 year old and start teaching them how to read so they are ready for school. It doesn't take a college education for the parents to get involved with the community schools in a productive manner to improve them.

Yes....funding is an issue that needs to be looked at. I started a thread on that last week and there are serious issues right here in Nebraska and I'm sure elsewhere.

However....like you said....it starts in the family with the issues both you and I have said.

[Moiraine]

If the facts are that the chances of improving your lot in life are extremely small because of all these horrible things against you in our society, then I guess maybe I am lucky enough to know a large part of the statistic that accomplish it. Lucky me.

 

Maybe you should explain exactly what you mean by "moving up to a higher SES". Are there some type of official levels you are looking at? Are you specifically looking at lower income levels?

 

If you come from a family where the parents make from...let's say....$50,000 to $150,000 per year, I would agree that their chances of all of a sudden making $500,000 to $1,000,000 per year are probably pretty small. However, honestly, I'm not too concerned about that group.

 

I would assume you are more concerned about the people who would make less than $50,000. And, your post somewhat implies what I'm saying. It starts at birth in the family and community. A parent doesn't need a college education to sit down with their 2 year old and start teaching them how to read so they are ready for school. It doesn't take a college education for the parents to get involved with the community schools in a productive manner to improve them.

Yes....funding is an issue that needs to be looked at. I started a thread on that last week and there are serious issues right here in Nebraska and I'm sure elsewhere.

 

However....like you said....it starts in the family with the issues both you and I have said.

 

You keep doing the bolded for some reason.

 

I'm talking about all SES brackets. It's the case for every one, included the poorest. Anecdotes do not trump data.

 

Do you think most poor people who don't improve upon the income of their parents are not trying or not working hard enough? You've accused me of implying things just by stating a fact. So I have to say that's what it seems you're implying.

[Danny Bateman]

These posts seem way off topic.

 

Trump just dominated in Nevada and if you are a Rubio fan you need Cruz to drop out very soon. I think it will be Rubio and Trump in the end.

 

I like Sanders personality, the guy cracks me up..I bet he would be fun to get a drink with...except for the fact that you know he would stick you with the bill.

 

Cruz has lots of money behind him and I could see him continuing the delusion that he can actually win for quite a while. CNN was saying this morning that apparently he's reached a boiling point and will now aggressively go after Trump instead of "not responding in kind." So, that could be interesting.

 

Screw that, Bernie would try to put the bill on the tab of the 1%.

[zoogs]

I don't think it is the same kind of 'broad brush' to say there are barriers in the system. Nor is that negated by people who overcome it. The issue I took with the earlier statement is that I often see an idea similar to that used to advance the idea that we don't need to, or shouldn't, do anything. My apologies if I've misunderstood.

 

Partly this is a question of scale, and perception. What's a bigger deal that we are plagued by? Socioeconomic programs that have people far too dependent on the government to do anything for themselves, or rising inequality that vastly exceeds most of our own impressions?

 

The median American estimated that the CEO-to-worker pay-ratio was 30-to-1, and that ideally, it’d be 7-to-1. The reality? 354-to-1. Fifty years ago, it was 20-to-1.

Here's an illustration from the WSJ:

 

 

From Pew:

 

 

So income has been growing since the Reagan years began. At a trickle for almost everybody; in leaps and bounds for a select few. This has been allowed by policy that wasn't there before and doesn't have to be there today. It isn't even a matter of choosing which people to be concerned with. The existence and trending of this gap affects the shape of the entire country. To quip the Scientific American article from earlier, "Americans actually live in Russia"; we just think otherwise. A pertinent passage:

 

...Americans widely believe that success is due to individual talent and effort.

 

...By overemphasizing individual mobility, we ignore important social determinants of success like family inheritance, social connections, and structural discrimination. The three papers in Perspectives on Psychological Science indicate not only that economic inequality is much worse than we think, but also that social mobility is less than you’d imagine. Our unique brand of optimism prevents us from making any real changes.

[BigRedBuster]

 

If the facts are that the chances of improving your lot in life are extremely small because of all these horrible things against you in our society, then I guess maybe I am lucky enough to know a large part of the statistic that accomplish it. Lucky me.

 

Maybe you should explain exactly what you mean by "moving up to a higher SES". Are there some type of official levels you are looking at? Are you specifically looking at lower income levels?

 

If you come from a family where the parents make from...let's say....$50,000 to $150,000 per year, I would agree that their chances of all of a sudden making $500,000 to $1,000,000 per year are probably pretty small. However, honestly, I'm not too concerned about that group.

 

I would assume you are more concerned about the people who would make less than $50,000. And, your post somewhat implies what I'm saying. It starts at birth in the family and community. A parent doesn't need a college education to sit down with their 2 year old and start teaching them how to read so they are ready for school. It doesn't take a college education for the parents to get involved with the community schools in a productive manner to improve them.

Yes....funding is an issue that needs to be looked at. I started a thread on that last week and there are serious issues right here in Nebraska and I'm sure elsewhere.

 

However....like you said....it starts in the family with the issues both you and I have said.

 

You keep doing the bolded for some reason.

 

I'm talking about all SES brackets. It's the case for every one, included the poorest. Anecdotes do not trump data.

 

Do you think most poor people who don't improve upon the income of their parents are not trying or not working hard enough? You've accused me of implying things just by stating a fact. So I have to say that's what it seems you're implying.

 

I believe there is a significant number of people in this country that aren't raising their SES due to the fact the THINK they can't. They very well may be working very hard. But, maybe they are in a job where they (because of how they were raised or what society is telling them) they don't think they can go get that promotion or go take some classes to improve their income thus improving their SES.

 

Now, maybe they are getting that idea from their parents, friends, school, community...what ever....But, I believe that number is significant.

[BigRedBuster]

I don't think it is the same kind of 'broad brush' to say there are barriers in the system. Nor is that negated by people who overcome it. The issue I took with the earlier statement is that I often see an idea similar to that used to advance the idea that we don't need to, or shouldn't, do anything. My apologies if I've misunderstood.

 

Partly this is a question of scale, and perception. What's a bigger deal that we are plagued by? Socioeconomic programs that have people far too dependent on the government to do anything for themselves, or rising inequality that vastly exceeds most of our own impressions?

 

The median American estimated that the CEO-to-worker pay-ratio was 30-to-1, and that ideally, it’d be 7-to-1. The reality? 354-to-1. Fifty years ago, it was 20-to-1.

Here's an illustration from the WSJ:

 

 

From Pew:

 

 

So income has been growing since the Reagan years began. At a trickle for almost everybody; in leaps and bounds for a select few. This has been allowed by policy that wasn't there before and doesn't have to be there today. It isn't even a matter of choosing which people to be concerned with. The existence and trending of this gap affects the shape of the entire country. To quip the Scientific American article from earlier, "Americans actually live in Russia"; we just think otherwise. A pertinent passage:

 

...Americans widely believe that success is due to individual talent and effort.

 

...By overemphasizing individual mobility, we ignore important social determinants of success like family inheritance, social connections, and structural discrimination. The three papers in Perspectives on Psychological Science indicate not only that economic inequality is much worse than we think, but also that social mobility is less than you’d imagine. Our unique brand of optimism prevents us from making any real changes.

 

Nobody is arguing that there are extremely wealthy people in America and poor people. Also, nobody is arguing that that gap has widened. Also, nobody is arguing that there aren't some issues that can be improved on to make it easier for people to rise out of being poor to a higher SES.

[teachercd]

 

These posts seem way off topic.

Trump just dominated in Nevada and if you are a Rubio fan you need Cruz to drop out very soon. I think it will be Rubio and Trump in the end.

I like Sanders personality, the guy cracks me up..I bet he would be fun to get a drink with...except for the fact that you know he would stick you with the bill.

 

Cruz has lots of money behind him and I could see him continuing the delusion that he can actually win for quite a while. CNN was saying this morning that apparently he's reached a boiling point and will now aggressively go after Trump instead of "not responding in kind." So, that could be interesting.

 

Screw that, Bernie would try to put the bill on the tab of the 1%.

Ha!

 

I wonder if Cruz might stay in it if he has money to burn.

[TGHusker]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/10/a-broadway-star-and-entrepreneur-jenny-dare-paulin-s-next-act-is-to-change-the-world.html

 

Article states that Trump is a virtual lock on the nomination unless their is some consolidation over the week and for sure wtin the next 2 weeks. The only way Cruz or Rubio can beat

Trump is if it is a 2 man race. So for the sake of the country - I wish these guys would get off of their high ego horse and consolidate - build a coalition to beat Trump.

[B.B. Hemingway]

Table 4: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in theUnited States, 1922-2010.

Bottom 99 percent Top 1 percent 1922 63.3% 36.7% 1929 55.8% 44.2% 1933 66.7% 33.3% 1939 63.6% 36.4% 1945 70.2% 29.8% 1949 72.9% 27.1% 1953 68.8% 31.2% 1962 68.2% 31.8% 1965 65.6% 34.4% 1969 68.9% 31.1% 1972 70.9% 29.1% 1976 80.1% 19.9% 1979 79.5% 20.5% 1981 75.2% 24.8% 1983 69.1% 30.9% 1986 68.1% 31.9% 1989 64.3% 35.7% 1992 62.8% 37.2% 1995 61.5% 38.5% 1998 61.9% 38.1% 2001 66.6% 33.4% 2004 65.7% 34.3% 2007 65.4% 34.6% 2010 64.6% 35.4%

Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996). 1992-2010 data from Wolff (2012).

Figure 5: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in theUnited States, 1922-2010.

 

 

Both of these graphs seem to be depicting the same thing as the graphs that Zoogs posted (wealth, over income) but with very different results. More then anything it probably shows that you can always find some kind of statistical evidence to support your argument on the internet. However, according to these graphs, the numbers dont' see to vary a whole lot over the years (the wealth gap peaking in the 70's).

 

As I've stated before, I believe that success is for everybody in this country. The playing field is not level, or fair, but that doesn't change the fact that you can still be whatever you want to be, if you're willing to work for it. It's a shame that supposed areas of support (parenting, schooling) are making the path harder for a lot of people, but the path is still there. A lot of people, face a lot of disadvantages, sure. But there is an abundance of people out to cheat the system, and looking for a free ride. I seen it first hand in my time working in the manufacturing industry. People working the required amount of time to once again qualify for unemployment, and then doing whatever they can to get fired. I don't know what a lot of you do for work (obviously), but I think you have to be around the 'poor' class, like often found in manufacturing, to truly understand how big of a problem it is. Maybe it was my time in the manufacturing industry that hardened me to their sometimes self-inflicted struggles.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

Does this make anyone else uncomfortable? What he is basically saying is, if you spend money against me, I will drag you through the mud and make your life miserable.

There is something about that that is simply just wrong.

 

 

I hope you realize that he exposes peoples' lies like no one else. In turn, that leaves him susceptible to a counter-attack from other candidates, and the only response anyone can seem to muster against Trump is "He's so rude!" Gimme a break.

 

Ummm....no. You obviously haven't paid attention then.

 

He is a hot head that will say whatever he thinks the crowd standing in front of him wants to hear. Heck, he has changed his stance on issues since he even started campaigning in THIS election. I'm sure that's dependent on who he is talking to. He has not put out any detailed plan to do anything other than build a wall and make Mexico pay for it and don't let China screw us.

 

Wow....that's some great in depth plan there.

 

The guy is an empty suit with a loud mouth. And, no, that is not saying I don't like him "because he is rude". He simply never says anything.

I have listened to some of his speeches and all they are is..."Hey....I'm so great. I'm the greatest in all the world....We are going to win...bla bla bla..."

 

Sorry if that doesn't impress me at all. It might get your heart pumping faster but it is empty and has absolutely no substance.

 

Yep- I find it unbelievable how shallow voters can be. Imagine this guy at the time of WW 2. He preys on the nationalistic / patriotic attitudes we all have which could lead us down the road of destruction in this not so simplistic world we live in. I'm about to refer to the 1930s - so let me say upfront - Trump is no Hitler and the USA is not Germany of 1930s. Put lets look at some similar traits that I don't like. There is a fanatical group of Trump supporters who feel threatened on by the establishment in DC, the open trade environment, inclusive big govt's immigration policy, and the loss of jobs overseas. Trump preys on all of these real issues and puts himself forward as the savior who can deliver America back to America. Think of Hitler in the 1930s - Germany was squashed by restrictions of the surrender deal from WW1, the economy was a wreck and Hitler appealed to their nationalistic pride and promised he'd make them great again. I don't trust Trump to restrain himself from political dirty tricks, or worse if he became president. He paints himself as a strong man but strong men don't act and talk like him. The worse men to fear are weak men with power - think Nixon.

 

Here is a Harvard professor who seems to agree wt my post above (is it OK to quote one self???) I just found out about his article today - Feb 24th.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/harvard-professor-compares-donald-trumps-164327594.html

 

Quoted in part:

 

A Harvard University professor published an editorial in The Washington Post on Sunday that compared the surprising rise of Republican presidential candidate to Adolf Hitler seizing power in Germany.

 

"Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I have spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany," professor and political theorist Danielle Allen wrote.

"Watching Donald Trump's rise, I now understand," she added.

She then went on to explain "how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country." She urged Trump's critics not to stand by passively as he gains support among Republican primary voters.

Allen wrote:

Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country. The truth is that the vast majority of voting Americans think that Trump is unacceptable as a presidential candidate, but we are split by strong partisan ideologies and cannot coordinate a solution to stop him. Similarly, a significant part of voting Republicans think that Trump is unacceptable, but they too, thus far, have been unable to coordinate a solution. Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across our ideological divides.

Hitler rose to power on a nationalist message. He told the German people that they were exceptional and played on feelings of disenfranchisement.

[QMany]

 

This is entertaining. Just a dumpster fire.

[knapplc]

"Donald Trump is not a politician."

[BigRedBuster]

 

This is entertaining. Just a dumpster fire.

Lord help me if this appears I'm defending Trump.

 

But, I'm wondering what evidence this person has that this was the "trump campaign" instead of someone on the fringe who supports him that had some extra time.

It's not like this would have taken a bunch of money to do.