Was the death of the blue collar class a good thing?

plainoldme wrote:

While it's true that mechanics are blue collar workers, unless said mechanics inherit houses or own their garages, they can not afford to buy a house in eastern Mass.

lol NOBODY can afford to buy a house in Eastern MA!

0 Replies

Tarantulas, i accept your inferential criticism, i was a little het up, and ought not to have assumed you were tarring liberals. This is, however, a topic about which i heard a great deal in the 1960's and -70's, as a result of the increasing burden my mother and other staff faced due to cuts. A narrative of her complaints suggests that courts ordered the release of a handful of patients in the 1960's as families became aware of abuse--and that legislatures took advantage of the situation to cut costs, without necessarily forgoing any revenues which accrue. With the slide of the economy in the 1970's, legislatures began shutting down facilities wholesale. Her contention was that this was happening on a virtually nation-wide basis.

0 Replies

Oh, and i agree that the streets are full of people who ought not to be there. Can you understand why an attitude that those who receive entitlements are lazy and underserving mitigates against finding the budgetary means to ameliorate the situation?

0 Replies

Quote:

I guess I would prefer to live in a society where none go hungry then one where some eat to their death and some starve to their death. I'm a liberal.

And I guess I would prefer to live in a society where all able bodied people, at least the heads of households, were required to work and willing to work to support themselves and their families so that the responsibility of taking care of those who can't work would not fall on so few people. But I'm a conservative.

Every one of us can cite anecdotal evidence of the problems that are out there and can place such anecdotal evidence in a GOP or Democrat controlled area. That is hardly helpful or instructive however.

My heart goes out to those who are forced out of their homes due to rising land costs and taxes. It has happened to dozens of people I know within 60 miles of where I live and it happened in one of the most liberal little cities in the country. In another small town, staunchly Republican, a major employer closed up shop displacing at least half the employed people in town. So what do the displaced people do? They move. Is this fair? No, but life isn't fair.

(As an aside, when one of those 10 most expensive places
to live lists comes out, I wonder what the political makeup is
in these places?)

My heart goes out to those who lose their jobs for whatever reason, go through the fear and uncertainty of a lengthy job search, and finally find work in a strange place far away from where they would prefer to be. This has happened to my own loved ones fairly recently. Is it fair? No. But it happens and we deal with it.

Blue collar work is every bit as valuable and important as white collar work and at least in our area, it usually pays better. Whether the CEO is worth the bizillion dollars he gets and whether the janitor is worth more than the minimum wage he gets is another issue I think. (I would be the first to say many CEOs are overpaid and many janitors underpaid however.)

The issue is whether a person should be guaranteed a certain income in this country whether or not there are jobs available in his area and whether or not he is willing to work at whatever he can get to help himself. If you believe everybody is entitled to an income, how much should that be? Who decides it? What criteria should apply? And how much are you willing to have your taxes raised to do it?

0 Replies

By the way, since this thread turned into a discussion of entitlements, i have been mulling over my recollection of how federal dollars get spent. So, i decided to go the Congressional Budget Office site, and check out just how the money gets spent . . .

(She's so fine
There's no tellin' where the money went
She's so fine
There's no other way to go . . . )

Have a look at Table 9, Outlays for Entitlements and Other Mandatory Spending, 1962 to 2003, which demonstrates, clearly, that Medicare and "Other Retirement and Disability" take up the lion's share of this category. The category "Income Support," which represents more than 10%, but little more than 10% of spending in recent years, includes, and i quote the CBO: "Includes unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, Food Stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care"--which makes it difficult for me to swallow the contention that we have a serious problem in this nation with freeloaders. For example, in 2003, nearly $745,000,000,000 (that's billions of dollars, for the "zero challenged" among us) went to Social Security and Medicare alone. In that same year, in excess of $256,000,000,000 was spent on Medicaid and Income support (which, remember, includes unemployment, SSI and the refundable portion of the earned income credit and child tax credits), while just under $130,000,000,000 went for other retirement and disability programs.

Think to yourself what would happen to any politician who suggested cutting either Social Security or Medicare, and especially based upon a contention that any of the recipients might be undeserving. In 2003, discretionary spending was a whopping $827,000,000,000+. As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, income support in 1962 was 1.1%, and in 2003, 1.8%. This is a growth of 63% in spending for income support over a period of more than 40 years. In the same period, spending for other retirement and disability remains steady at 1.2% of gross domestic product, as Social Security spending in the same period grew by about 72%.

Here is the link for the Historical Data Page[/b] at the CBo for those willing to do the math themselves.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Oh, and i agree that the streets are full of people who ought not to be there. Can you understand why an attitude that those who receive entitlements are lazy and underserving mitigates against finding the budgetary means to ameliorate the situation?

I can understand that, sure. People receiving public assistance aren't all lazy bums. But the other side of the coin is the attitude that everyone has the "right" to be wherever they want to be, even if they're using their own clothing as a bathroom. Freedom only goes so far before "the state" has to step in and protect you from yourself.

0 Replies

No one is argueing that everyone be guarenteed an income.

But a strong case can be made that we should fund states to cut the recent college tuition hikes, increase funding to organizations that train people and help them find jobs, assist them in sending their kids to day care so they can work (like the recent bill that congress approved despite Bush's strong statements against it), increase funding to organizations that in one way or another serve to help people get back on their feet.

As Setenta pointed out, the vast majority of the meager percent of our budget that we spend on aiding the less fortunate goes to Social Security and Medicare. And both are on the verge of exploding to unprecedented levels.

Our national debt just crossed the 7 trillion dollar mark.

We spend billions upon billions to maintain aircraft carriers that we have never used, and construct more carriers that will never see battle (each bomb dropped in Iraq costed us a million dollars) and other far more wasteful expenditures.

As McCain pointed out, we spent 2 million to do a study on mapping genes of bears, we spent 50 million to build an indoor rainforest in Iowa.

We gave millions upon millions in tax cuts to people who already have billions of dollars. How can any one argue that Microsoft with well over 50 billions, several of these billions in liquid capital be inspired to launch a new branch and hire more people because of a few extra hundreds of millions that it recieved from Bush's tax cuts!! No, that money is going to end up in a bank somewhere.

We have more important things to spend money on than giving tax cuts to the extreme wealthy so they can buy a bigger yacht.

CEOs do make too much money. The former president of ATT was fired after working for three months because he was deemed to be not smart enough to do the job. He recieved a 20 million dollar severence package for three months of work.

So I laugh at conservative claims that business are better able to decide how to spend money.

But like fisccal conservatives, I do believe that our government is just as wasteful and Bush's administration has been the worst infractor of this.

Critical areas such as federal loans and schlorships for college, organizations that successfully train and help people find jobs all go underfunded. Lets invest our money there. I think these areas would be lead to a lot more growth in productivity than meaningless tax cuts to the rich that so far have only succeded in doing jack.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

But a strong case can be made that we should fund states to cut the recent college tuition hikes, increase funding to organizations that train people and help them find jobs, assist them in sending their kids to day care so they can work (like the recent bill that congress approved despite Bush's strong statements against it), increase funding to organizations that in one way or another serve to help people get back on their feet.

My first question that I always ask when I hear proposals like this is "Who pays?" When you say "we" should fund states, who is "we?"

Centroles wrote:

We spend billions upon billions to maintain aircraft carriers that we have never used...

Huh? Which unused carriers are we maintaining? As a former Navy man, you have my interest here.

Centroles wrote:

As McCain pointed out, we spent 2 million to do a study on mapping genes of bears, we spent 50 million to build an indoor rainforest in Iowa.

I agree with you here. There is a lot of waste in government. A million here, two million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. I don't know how to solve this because it appears to be some kind of a tradition that ridiculous projects are funded in the home states of Congress-critters. If we cut off all of this we could fund the college tuition and all the other human interest projects.

Centroles wrote:

We have more important things to spend money on than giving tax cuts to the extreme wealthy so they can buy a bigger yacht.

I have a big problem with this statement. Here's an owner of a small business who makes enough money to put him into a higher tax bracket. Congress cuts his taxes and allows him to buy more equipment and hire more workers and increase the amount of health care benefits he provides to those workers. Now here comes a guy like John Kerry who wants to jack up the taxes on these people again, just because their corporations earn more than a certain amount every year. These people are paying their employees and buying raw materials for their companies - they aren't all buying yachts and diamonds and Hummers.

Centroles wrote:

But like fisccal conservatives, I do believe that our government is just as wasteful and Bush's administration has been the worst infractor of this.

Well you do understand that it's Congress that votes in the budget, not the Executive Branch, right? So the "Bush administration" doesn't really spend any money - he just approves the spending bills that Congress writes.

Centroles wrote:

Critical areas such as federal loans and schlorships for college, organizations that successfully train and help people find jobs all go underfunded. Lets invest our money there.

There are lots of areas that are underfunded. I believe that police and firefighters are underpaid. So are teachers. So is everyone in the military. Many people have a personal agenda for areas they would like to expand. I don't happen to agree with all of yours, but I'll defend your right to publish your opinions online as long as I draw breath.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

No one is argueing that everyone be guarenteed an income.

No. But we have people like pistoff on the first page of this discussion getting snide when others comment that things like a tropical vacation or a new car aren't entitlements.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Blatham writes:

Quote:
Citizen A is born with fetal alcohol syndrome, or with an IQ of 80, or with schizophrenia, or with serious physical malady, or into a poorly functioning family, or into severe poverty.

Citzen B is born golden, with great mental and physical attributes, and into a wealthy and well-connected family.

If my post is read objectively, one will see that I was quite specific that a moral society takes care of those who cannot care for themselves through no fault of their own. I also left room for voluntary charity toward those who need a leg up after they screwed up.

But I really would appreciate anybody explaining to me how it is moral, ethical, or just for the government to take the honorable and lawful earnings of Citizen A to give to Citizen B who made choices that made him far less well off?

You limit your concern to "those who cannot take care of themselves" (it seems you'd allow taxation and income redistribution in this case). You do not address the more complicated (and far more common) problem of disparity through fortune/misfortune. In that 'moral society' you mention, ought Al Gore to consider he has some moral connection to Bill Schwatz who was born into poverty and with far fewer natural gifts than Gore? Or does he have no moral relationship to Schwatz, who lives thirteen miles away? Perhaps it's merely a moral responsibility such as portrayed in 'Emma'...bring over some cakes and class patronage?

0 Replies

I'm pretty liberal on most issues, but a lifestyle just isn't a gaurentee anymore. I lived through recession crises with my folks, who had to sell their house to get by, and I am self-employed. There have been times where I would have qualified to accept welfare, but screw it. The last thing I need is to be beholden to the government. I plug along. Luxuries come when times are good, and they are passed over when times are lean. If money needs to be shared, I'd rather keep it in the family. I don't feel I'm entitled to anything I haven't worked for and accomplished myself.

0 Replies

cav

Willingness to put one's shoulder to the communitarian wheel, and the underlying appreciation of a moral duty to do that, must be part of the mix too. But you're a capable guy, and not everyone is.

dyslexia makes a wonderful observation above...how communities often function where wealth is very rare and the prospect of it negligible...they are often far more willing to take food from their own table to give to those less well off, than are wealthy communities like ours where more dollars are spent on pet psychologists than some nations' GDPs. It's a moral worldview that has very little connection to the Christian values commonly espoused.

0 Replies

Quote:

But a strong case can be made that we should fund states to cut the recent college tuition hikes, increase funding to organizations that train people and help them find jobs, assist them in sending their kids to day care so they can work (like the recent bill that congress approved despite Bush's strong statements against it), increase funding to organizations that in one way or another serve to help people get back on their feet.

I would support such a program that helps people help themselves. But I think it's important to draw a line on those who would perpetually remain on such a program milking it for as long as they can. What do you think would be a good time limit? I think 2 years is plenty to get someone back on his/her feet. After that, you're on your own.

Quote:

We spend billions upon billions to maintain aircraft carriers that we have never used, and construct more carriers that will never see battle (each bomb dropped in Iraq costed us a million dollars) and other far more wasteful expenditures.

As McCain pointed out, we spent 2 million to do a study on mapping genes of bears, we spent 50 million to build an indoor rainforest in Iowa.

While I'd agree there is a lot of waste in government, I don't consider military assets a waste at all.

Quote:

How can any one argue that Microsoft with well over 50 billions, several of these billions in liquid capital be inspired to launch a new branch and hire more people because of a few extra hundreds of millions that it recieved from Bush's tax cuts!! No, that money is going to end up in a bank somewhere.

Even if does just end up in a bank, that bank will loan that money to someone who will buy a house, buy a car, start a business, etc. It won't just sit their doing nothing.

Quote:

We have more important things to spend money on than giving tax cuts to the extreme wealthy so they can buy a bigger yacht.

I wonder how many people are employed to design, manufacture, sell, and maintain one of those yachts.

Quote:

giving tax cuts to the extreme wealthy
meaningless tax cuts to the rich

Have you ever been hired for a job by a poor person? I haven't.

0 Replies

Well, on that post blatham, I wholeheartedly agree. Even in the relatively affluent area I live in, my neighbour regularily brings me bits of parsley, sour cream, whatever she won't use, and I pop by with some food once in a while. She and her husband are retired, they have 'grandparent' duties for their wayward daughter, and to share with them is a very nice thing.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
giving tax cuts to the extreme wealthy
meaningless tax cuts to the rich

Have you ever been hired for a job by a poor person? I haven't.

This is a meaninless rejoinder. I've done lots of work for poor people, and lots for very rich people, and charged them according to what they could pay. Everyone has been quite happy with this arrangement, likely because wealthier group doesn't know.

What is the premise here? That the wealthy are not doing well because they don't have enough money, and the poor are doing poorly because they have too much?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Willingness to put one's shoulder to the communitarian wheel, and the underlying appreciation of a moral duty to do that, must be part of the mix too.

This, methinks, is close to if not the crux of the overall "dilema".

The question that springs from it is "Does society have the authority to force that moral duty on someone?" (How many times have we all heard "You can't legislate morality!"?)

Is a "moral society" a collection of people with similar morals or a collection of people forced to accept a given morality?

0 Replies

Quote:

What is the premise here? That the wealthy are not doing well because they don't have enough money, and the poor are doing poorly because they have too much?

No, the premise is that if one wants to create jobs, then one should make it easier for the people who create jobs to create jobs. I'm not saying to never help the poor. As my post indicates, I support programs that help people help themselves; but I also support letting people (everybody- rich, middle class, and poor) keep more of what they earn than they currently do.

0 Replies

fishin

Your penny-pinching ass had to cut corners with 'dilema'? Typical republican construction. Weeks from now, we'll find your shoddily built sentence falling around the ears of some innocent readers.

0 Replies

Quote:

but I also support letting people (everybody- rich, middle class, and poor) keep more of what they earn than they currently do.

To what end? Personal happiness? Justice?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

fishin

Your penny-pinching ass had to cut corners with 'dilema'? Typical republican construction. Weeks from now, we'll find your shoddily built sentence falling around the ears of some innocent readers.

So what your saying here is that you've got nothing? You can't address the questions? I'm sure you can manage to think past something as minor as a mis-spelled word.

0 Replies

Was the death of the blue collar class a good thing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know