The Repub Debate

[BigRedBuster]

America didn't always have a system where consolidating wealth was such a dominant force, and vaulting up the socioeconomic ladder for those not already there or well-positioned. It's hardly indisputable that this is the way it is today, right? And the GOP's plan is further deference and tax cuts to enable even greater consolidation.

 

Their promise is that this will unleash a torrent of economic growth that will be to everybody's benefit. It's a nice argument; increase the size of the pie and trickle down and so on. It's also a fantasy to all but the most credulous.

I'm not going to defend the Republicans. But, not sure what you mean by the bolded part. I understand the part about the problems with wealth consolidation but not sure I understand the part after the comma about "vaulting up the Socioeconomic ladder for those not already there or well positioned". Maybe I'm just not understanding the way it's worded.

[Moiraine]

 

 

I think a lot of you are missing my point. My grandpa's parents were both dead by the time he was 5. He had to beg the red cross for shoes when he was 16 and they wouldn't give him any. He died a millionaire. He was from a different era and is anecdotal evidence. All previous people are talking of moving from one end of an income bracket to another end of it. Trump didn't have to move income brackets.

 

Also, all of those examples show is that quite a few people can do what he did and it wasn't that amazing.

I apologize if I am not getting your point. I understand that can be frustrating sometimes on a message board.

 

But, you first said:

The absolute most important factor in becoming that rich is how much money you start out with. This is a statistical fact. People believe in meritocracy at high percentages in America but it's a fallacy. There is an extremely small chance of moving up to a higher SES bracket than the one you were born into.

 

 

Then you said:

I think a lot of you are missing my point. My grandpa's parents were both dead by the time he was 5. He had to beg the red cross for shoes when he was 16 and they wouldn't give him any. He died a millionaire. He was from a different era and is anecdotal evidence. All previous people are talking of moving from one end of an income bracket to another end of it. Trump didn't have to move income brackets.

Also, all of those examples show is that quite a few people can do what he did and it wasn't that amazing.

 

Pardon me if I'm confused because it sure seems like you contradicted yourself.

Not really. I said those people probably didn't move up income brackets and neither did Trump and all these anecdotes seem to be saying it's not a big deal. It wasn't very eloquently stated so I'll try to state the original point again:

 

What Trump did wasn't amazing and doesn't prove he's smart. He didn't move into a higher SES bracket. The amount of $ you start out with is the most important factor in determining how much you end up with.

 

Zuckerberg is an anomaly. Trump is not.

[B.B. Hemingway]

America didn't always have a system where consolidating wealth was such a dominant force, and vaulting up the socioeconomic ladder for those not already there or well-positioned. It's hardly indisputable that this is the way it is today, right? And the GOP's plan is further deference and tax cuts to enable even greater consolidation.

 

Their promise is that this will unleash a torrent of economic growth that will be to everybody's benefit. It's a nice argument; increase the size of the pie and trickle down and so on. It's also a fantasy to all but the most credulous.

 

Growth is important, to be sure. But the world's wealthiest nation has far more of an economic injustice problem than it does a growth problem. And the idea that ignoring this will result in growth is far closer to discredited than demonstrable.

 

I'm not going to pretend the wealth gap doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that the capitalist model doesn't work. Capitalism can be credited, in part for this country's history of ambition, innovation, and pioneering mentality. So where do we turn? Is the answer to do a 180* and adopt a socialist economic system that endorses public ownership of means of production, and would almost certainly cripple the attributes I already listed? (ambition, innovation, pioneering).

[zoogs]

I'm not going to defend the Republicans. But, not sure what you mean by the bolded part. I understand the part about the problems with wealth consolidation but not sure I understand the part after the comma about "vaulting up the Socioeconomic ladder for those not already there or well positioned". Maybe I'm just not understanding the way it's worded.

I think it's what Moiraine was mentioning before about moving up income brackets. Large scale, the people who are really down, stay down. There's little opportunity for them. And honestly, a lot of resentment at the idea that these people might deserve to be helped.

 

There's more opportunity for others (Hey, it's not all bad, right? Some of it is pretty good!) but nothing like the top.

[Moiraine]

I happen to believe that money and happiness are fairly mutually exclusive. There are a lot of people with a decent amount of money who still get divorced due to money issues. There are miserable people who are both rich and poor. There are extremely happy people in both classes also.

Agreed. And I'm guessing the super rich argue about $ just as much or more than the super poor. I'd have to actually see data on divorce rates based on wealth. I kinda doubt there's an association.

[zoogs]

I'm not going to pretend the wealth gap doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that the capitalist model doesn't work. Capitalism can be credited, in part for this country's history of ambition, innovation, and pioneering mentality. So where do we turn? Is the answer to do a 180* and adopt a socialist economic system that endorses public ownership of means of production, and would almost certainly cripple the attributes I already listed? (ambition, innovation, pioneering).

Capitalism is a broad term. To credit it historically, you must recognize differences between today and decades past. Since the time of FDR up until the Reagan era the U.S. was at the forefront in combating social inequality; of course we do not characterize this as abandoning capitalism. From The Guardian, on historical marginal tax rates:

 

From 1930 to 1980 – for half a century – the rate for the highest US income (over $1m per year) was on average 82%, with peaks of 91% from the 1940s to 1960s (from Roosevelt to Kennedy), and still as high as 70% during Reagan’s election in 1980

Another example is the federal minimum wage, which dates back to at least the 1960s. The U.S. today is more wealthy, and yet minimum wage hasn't kept up with even inflation.

 

Wealth distribution did not used to be this concentrated in an America that you might fairly say was always and still is capitalist.

 

Actually, I see it as a violation of those old-fashioned free market principles when wealthy institutions dominate the landscape and pull up the ladder from under them. Much of America does not have access to first-class internet speeds, because the few telecomm giants don't need to compete. For the most part, we're stuck with this racket and whatever prices and service they're willing to give us. Where is the innovation? Where's that pioneering spirit? But a small class of Verizon and TWC executives and shareholders have made off handsomely for this and will continue to do so -- so bully for them.

 

So, our current system is a little broken, I would say. As for how to fix it, I think I see it this way: it's the government's duty to protect people from economic subjugation -- even if it's coming from the private sector. There are a lot of fronts and I can't claim to have obvious solutions, but as a broad outline, I think that's why these injustices and inequalities are worth fighting against. I'm *not* suggesting communism, of course, and I think 'socialism' has been largely miscast as a bad word. Remnants of McCarthyism and a lengthy era of Cold War propaganda, I suppose (granted, the USSR was not unfairly seen as an existential threat).

 

The status quo isn't sacred. Not that it's been a huge gift to everyone, but a lot of us have benefited a little more than our fair share, and a few have benefited a lot more. At the other end of the spectrum are people kept down from opportunity in the wealthiest country in the world because the middle class has been sold a bill of goods saying that they don't deserve it like we do. But I wonder, what's the point of being an economic powerhouse if it's necessary for so many of our population to be relegated to invisible, Third World quality lives?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

I think a lot of you are missing my point. My grandpa's parents were both dead by the time he was 5. He had to beg the red cross for shoes when he was 16 and they wouldn't give him any. He died a millionaire. He was from a different era and is anecdotal evidence. All previous people are talking of moving from one end of an income bracket to another end of it. Trump didn't have to move income brackets.

 

Also, all of those examples show is that quite a few people can do what he did and it wasn't that amazing.

I apologize if I am not getting your point. I understand that can be frustrating sometimes on a message board.

 

But, you first said:

The absolute most important factor in becoming that rich is how much money you start out with. This is a statistical fact. People believe in meritocracy at high percentages in America but it's a fallacy. There is an extremely small chance of moving up to a higher SES bracket than the one you were born into.

 

 

Then you said:

I think a lot of you are missing my point. My grandpa's parents were both dead by the time he was 5. He had to beg the red cross for shoes when he was 16 and they wouldn't give him any. He died a millionaire. He was from a different era and is anecdotal evidence. All previous people are talking of moving from one end of an income bracket to another end of it. Trump didn't have to move income brackets.

Also, all of those examples show is that quite a few people can do what he did and it wasn't that amazing.

 

Pardon me if I'm confused because it sure seems like you contradicted yourself.

Not really. I said those people probably didn't move up income brackets and neither did Trump and all these anecdotes seem to be saying it's not a big deal. It wasn't very eloquently stated so I'll try to state the original point again:

 

What Trump did wasn't amazing and doesn't prove he's smart. He didn't move into a higher SES bracket. The amount of $ you start out with is the most important factor in determining how much you end up with.

 

Zuckerberg is an anomaly. Trump is not.

How much of that is because it's just impossible to do and how much is because their parents, freinds...etc constantly tell them they aren't going to live up so why try?

 

I know many kids that grow up with not much but their parents promote the idea that they can get an education and earn a good living and they do. I also know many kids that their parents and freinds raise them with the idea that those big mean rich people won't let you succeed ...and...guess what....they don't.

 

The statistics you're talking about are very complex. It's not always because the rest of America is so screwed up that you are doomed to poverty.

[zoogs]

How much of that is because it's just impossible to do and how much is because their parents, freinds...etc constantly tell them they aren't going to live up so why try?

That's a REALLY broad brush. I think it's more accurate to say and the data would bear out that access to the sort of quality, enabling education you are talking about is disproportionate. That is something we, as a nation, can actively address.

 

It won't fix bad parenting, but the argument that addressing it would create more bad parenting is specious. Parenting is up to the individual. Combating weaknesses in the system, and fixing the places where it's broken, that's worthy of fixing.

 

It's a given that individuals must cope and overcome whether the deck's stacked against them, or not. It's the opposite of a given that keeping the deck stacked against people is necessary for their motivation and betterment.

[Danny Bateman]

I'd like to add that any anecdotal evidence about past successes of ANYONE financially need to be viewed thru the lens of THAT era. The money and company Trump inherited from his father in the late 60's/early 70's were worth a hell of a lot more back then. When he talks about "a small loan of a million dollars," is worth about $7 million today when you adjust for inflation.

 

I have tremendous respect for anyone who has bettered themselves through schooling and/or hard work to earn financial security in life. But to act like everyone has the tools to do so, or whether Donald Trump is some kind of financial savant for how he's grown his wealth, is legitimately absurd.

 

Zoogs is trying to argue that not everyone has the tools and support they need to thrive or even live a decent quality of life. I'm by no means an uneducated or blue collar guy-- I work hard and I'm going back to school in the fall to get my doctorate-- but I definitely think not everyone has the same opportunity to pursue education and are instead thrust into working multiple dead end jobs to try and support themselves and their families.

I just think those people deserve a decent life, too.

[Moiraine]

 

I think a lot of you are missing my point. My grandpa's parents were both dead by the time he was 5. He had to beg the red cross for shoes when he was 16 and they wouldn't give him any. He died a millionaire. He was from a different era. All previous people are talking of moving from one end of an income bracket to another end of it. Trump didn't have to move income brackets.

 

Also, all of those examples show is that quite a few people can do what he did and it wasn't that amazing.

 

What did your grandfather do for a living, if you don't mind sharing?

 

 

He started working on farms when he was 10 and convinced the school to let him attend 4 days a week so he could keep working and he graduated high school (although not graduating wasn't rare in 1935). Eventually he worked at an auto parts store and ended up owning it. He didn't speak to my uncle for 2 years because he dropped out of high school.

[HuskerShark]

 

If you read Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki, you will begin to understand that.

 

This book has been debunked by:The Wall Street Journal

 

The Motley Fool

 

Forbes

 

Smart Money

 

Etc, etc, etc.

 

 

 

That's... embarrassing.

Yikes... So their complaints about the book or Kiyosaki are that he's very vague (which admittedly, he is), he won't disclose his net worth (who cares, he probably doesn't even know exactly), he apparently insulted the guy from the WSJ with his content (cry me a river), a few people speculate that his rich dad never existed but can't prove anything, one guy writes a smear blog on the book in order to promote his own books, and a couple say he gives tax advice that they claim is bad (it's not - I just read the irs tax code about a lot of the things they say are bad tips, and Kiyosaki has it totally correct). The book isn't meant to be a step by step guide to financial success. It's a book to open people's minds and get them to start thinking differently if they desire to generate true wealth. Not sure how you can "debunk" that. Gimme a break.

[knapplc]

"Kiyosaki's material is almost completely devoid of specific financial advice. Further, his material on making money in real estate appears to be little more than repackaged hype from the "no money down" real estate hucksters of the late '80s (you know, the Carlton Sheets of the world)."

 

"Kiyosaki was one of the small-time wealth guru mountebanks who made it to the big-time in the aughts by telling his forever falling behind audience that they could get ahead, they just had not learned how. The schtick behind the Rich Dad books was that Kiyosaki was sharing secret money-making strategies of the wealthy with his wage slave readers. The tips ran the gamut from ridiculous to illegal and downright hurtful and included advocating for insider trading, arguing for the purchase of multiple real estate properties with little or no money down and telling followers they could purchase stocks on margin via unfunded brokerage accounts."

 

"Rich Dad, Poor Dad is one of the dumbest financial advice books I have ever read. It contains many factual errors and numerous extremely unlikely accounts of events that supposedly occurred."

 

"Kiyosaki is a salesman and a motivational speaker. He has no financial expertise and won’t disclose his supposed real estate or other investment success.

 

Rich Dad, Poor Dad contains much wrong advice, much bad advice, some dangerous advice, and virtually no good advice."

 

"Let’s face reality folks. Rich dad, aint so rich anymore.

 

In fact, he is really in foreclosure on 27 homes, is cash poor, going through a divorce, drinking heavily and his flip this house real estate buying advice and books suck!

 

My Rich Dad was really a greedy real estate speculating liar and my Poor Dad was the man who got it right."

 

The book isn't meant to be a step by step guide to financial success. It's a book to open people's minds and get them to start thinking differently if they desire to generate true wealth.

No. It's a scam, it gulls the unwitting, and it preys on people prone to believe without rational thought. Reading it doesn't open your eyes to any method or concept of generating wealth.

[BigRedBuster]

 

How much of that is because it's just impossible to do and how much is because their parents, freinds...etc constantly tell them they aren't going to live up so why try?

That's a REALLY broad brush. I think it's more accurate to say and the data would bear out that access to the sort of quality, enabling education you are talking about is disproportionate. That is something we, as a nation, can actively address.

 

It won't fix bad parenting, but the argument that addressing it would create more bad parenting is specious. Parenting is up to the individual. Combating weaknesses in the system, and fixing the places where it's broken, that's worthy of fixing.

 

It's a given that individuals must cope and overcome whether the deck's stacked against them, or not. It's the opposite of a given that keeping the deck stacked against people is necessary for their motivation and betterment.

 

Of course it's painted with a broad brush. So is the narrative "our society is so screwed up nobody can improve their SES from their parents".

 

I have absolutely no idea where you come up with the idea that I said or even implied that addressing improvements in education would some how create more bad parenting. And, I'm not just talking about parenting. I'm talking about entire attitudes in communities. And, before someone jumps the gun, I'm not talking about just minority communities either. I know people in my own town with the same attitude. Not meaning to throw someone under the bus from the board, but look at the thread about commuting and the comment about how you should stay in a community similar to where you grew up. I know he didn't mean it in the manner I'm using it here, but that attitude builds on what I'm talking about.

 

Look, when I grew up, not just from my parents but from society, I heard messages of...."You can do what you want". "You can be successful if you work hard". "There are ways you can go to college if you are serious about going".

 

Now days, I see the general message being...."the world is stacked against you". "The ruling class will keep you down". Rich people are taking everything and you have no chance at it".

 

Meanwhile, the nurse I mentioned in post #560 was able to go to college and not pay for anything. She got decent grades but she wasn't at the top of her class. But, she worked hard and went out and found funding through grants and scholarships to pay for college. She graduated from a HS that doesn't give her nearly the opportunities that, for instance, the HS in Pennsylvania that my nieces graduated from. But, she can still be successful.

 

My point is, yes, there are issues we can improve on to make it easier for some people. But, this narrative that the world is so stacked against people they can't succeed is just not true. It gets promoted due to politics. No politician is going to come out and say..."Hey parents (or society in general, not just parents), why aren't you raising your kids to realize they can succeed".........It's much easier to get votes by saying...."Hey....we feel your pain. We understand it's virtually impossible for you to succeed in life. I can help you if you only vote for me." Guess what...that person 4 years later is still in the same crappy situation and the politician is back saying the same thing and still getting their vote.

 

It doesn't have to be one or the other. We can continue to improve life for people while at the same time not convincing everyone America is so horrible you have no chance to be happy in life.

[knapplc]

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.

[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.