0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 07:06 am
To me, the problem over money is that the rich and most politicians have manipulated the flow of money until it all flows uphill to them. The poor rarely even get a trickle down. I don't mind that there are rich people and poor people. But I want everyone to get their just due.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 07:33 am
A few of you here have contributed some of the least thoughtful and least educated posts that I've bumped into in a while. This is schoolyard level discourse.

How much money a person has doesn't tell us very much at all about that individual. It doesn't even tell us if the person is hard working or not, and it certainly doesn't tell us if the person is wise or would make a productive or fair-minded political figure. And one has to dance a few complicated steps to make a compelling case that held wealth (or lack of it) is deserved - Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon 'deserves' to be wealthier than John McCain?

Wealth is relevant to democracy when only the very few very wealthy can afford to enter and successfully contest high political office. Such a state of affairs encourages oligarchy, which isn't democracy.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 07:34 am
So the rich should do what? Stop working so hard? Stop making wise choices for themselves and their families? Stop working at being a success?

You make a good point about "getting their just due". But I don't think you mean actually "Given", do you? Shouldn't education, work ethic, and job skills have something to do with it?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 08:07 am
McG

I realize you posted simultaneously to me.

"Fairness" and "justice" are often the issues we debate on economic topics. Also, what our individual role might be in relationship to our communities - what 'duty', if any, do we have to our neighbors?

In the west (and in any other culture I know of) there is a clear tradition of caring for those less fortunate. Of course, this doesn't mean ensuring they have all the advantages that the King enjoys, but it does mean that we look to minimizing human suffering where we can. That is not entirely selfless or altruistic - for our own well-being, we wish our communities to be caring places.

And it seems surely 'just' that hard work, prudence, originality of thought and creativeness ought to be rewarded.

But also, there is no question that we are each born with (and raised in situations) of greatly varying potentials for success. This element is completely accidental. We might be unlucky enough to be born with a damaged brain stem, or lucky enough to be born a rich man's son. We might lie swaddled in a blanket held by an insane or alcoholic mother. We might be born with great musical potentials, but into a culture or time where that potential cannot be realized.

It is probably very tempting for George Bush junior (or many others like him) to conclude that he 'merits' his position in life, but as one school friend of his said, "George was born on third base and thinks he hit a home run."

Equality of opportunity is not the situation into which we all arrive. So the real question becomes - if we are trying to formulate some institutional framework for our communities which have as goals the minimization of suffering and the balancing out of inequities of opportunity - how do we best put our shoulders to the wheel for the good of all of us? It does entail that the strongest (or the wealthiest) push harder and give more.

Of course, we can disclaim any such duty to those in our communities less fortunate, but I doubt very much that any of us would like the world that results.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 08:18 am
"All men are created equal"

I think that's been written down somewhere.

How many stories have you heard about people who are born with nothing, yet through perseverence (sp?), hard-work and dedication make something of themselves?

America does try to take care of the less fortunate, thus we have social programs like unemployment benefits, welfare, food-stamps, WIC, HEAP, etc... You make it sound like we should live in a society where the rich should be punished because they have something the poor do not have. That doesn't seem like America to me. Sounds more like Russia under the communists.

Don't get me wrong here, it's not like I am sitting at the trough of success, I barely make it into the second tax bracket and I am angry that some people make the kind of money they do (Mostly sport figures) and think some changes should be made. But, I am training my son to be a pro athelete so he can take advantage of the system that exists.
0 Replies
 
sweetcomplication
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 08:35 am
Blatham: thank you, once again, for really tellin' it like it is!

McG: good grief, Charlie Brown, you can't be serious, now, can you?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 08:56 am
sweet, McG is always serious. His view of things in this real world seems somewhat distorted; he thinks most people think some of the rich like sports figures should be controlled: "Don't get me wrong here, it's not like I am sitting at the trough of success, I barely make it into the second tax bracket and I am angry that some people make the kind of money they do (Mostly sport figures) and think some changes should be made. But, I am training my son to be a pro athelete so he can take advantage of the system that exists." Just goes to show McG has little understanding of supply and demand and the free market place. He wants more government intervention. c.i.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 08:57 am
SC, what did I say that would lead you to believe I wasn't serious?
0 Replies
 
sweetcomplication
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 09:00 am
ci: thanks for the explanation, I think <sigh>

McG: are you still trying to find compassion in your Webster's? I guess I was hoping you were kidding about that and were simply playing devil's advocate about your most recent post here <double sigh>
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 09:01 am
Government intervention, C.I.? ME?! No I want more public intervention. I refuse to watch live sporting events on the pro level because the ticket prices are outrageous to cover the outrageous price entertainers expect to be paid.

Sponsors are just as guilty. They pay a heavy advertising price which is trickeled down to the consumer as higher prices for goods. I am surprised that many of you don't also cry in outrage over such things.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 09:08 am
The majority of the extremely rich people (and conservatives) I know in Orange County do not work especially hard for their money nor have they made many wise decisions for themselves or their families. They are heirs of fortunes and it would take an examination of how those fortunes were amassed to really determine if anyone worked their fingers to the bone achieving that fortune. We shouldn't really be talking about the Middle Class families who have been hoodwinked into believing they are in the league of the 5% of the super wealthy. I'd like to see a family history of those individuals and families to see how that wealth came about. From what I've read, much of isn't something to be particularly proud of.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 09:08 am
But the outrageous payments to Corporate Executives is okay - hmmmm <sigh>

Yesterday was the first payback by the rich to this corrupt regime in power! Which gets us back on topic -

Replace BUSH
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 09:17 am
LW

Yes.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 09:45 am
m
The problem is that the American way of life classically thinks that trying to reach the top is the sole purpose in life. Ideologically, the US is living on the basis of the most primitive form of Darwinism. This is happening in econmics, in politics, in law, in sports, ... in nearly every sector of life: competition as the only basis for life.

Loosing is not an option. Life is a game. Take it to the top. The sky is the limit. American culture will do whatever it takes to keep its position, because it sees life as a match against others. Why? This inflicts harm on the well-being of others. It makes you into a soulless being, who would do anything not to descend to a lower scale of his status.

A more horizontal, connected, yes solidary way of life is warranted. Hapiness lies in simple things, in social friendship, in harmony with your surroundings, in the education of future generations and not in the envious, hyper competitive, and merciless survival over others.

Therein lies the mental rescue for America: when a majorit of its citizens will understand that to be the 'fittest' does not mean to be the strongest, to be the wealthiest, to be the most powerful, to be the winner at any cost -- but that 'fit' means to be adapted, to be cooperative, to be altruistic.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 09:48 am
"Loosing is not an option." Oh brother.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 09:51 am
wolf's quote: " It makes you into a soulless being, who would do anything not to descend to a lower scale of his status." You sure can paint 280,000,000 people with one stroke of your brush. I'm sure none of the adjectives you used for Americans do not apply to anybody else in this world. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 10:12 am
...and the incredibly stupid belief that those executive bonuses and other perks (many of them turning out to be covert) don't raise the prices of the products and services the average citizen must pay. Talk about the price of a ticket -- since these expenditures are amortized over many different consumer products and services we buy, we don't tend to notice them like we do a sports figure getting some obscene salary and passing it along to their fans in the form of ticket prices. Sure, all of this is a necessary evil of the free enterprise system (let the buyer beware) but lack of government oversight lets too many get away with what could be attributed to Tony Soprano.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 11:51 am
LW, The big question is how much government intervention do we really want? c.i.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 11:54 am
Certaintly, not the amount of government intervention we get with the current regime - then again, if they put the resources onto the "executive level" and "corporate malfeasance", that would be money well spent!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 12:04 pm
The "Current regime" is trying to have less government interference in everyday lives while trying to do its best to protect us.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 03:17:21