Warren's World

Warren reminds me of a chicken when she talks.

 

I’m practically a socialist. You are the one that needs to think this through. And the common good is bunk anyway from a humanistic standpoint because humanism is the pinnacle of oxymoronic thought.

 

The above in red is really 'n truly "bunk". Otka, BS.

Oxymoron means: A figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction. And so "humanism" is oxymoronic?

Where in hell did YOU learn English?

We evidently don't speak the same version of English. Enough of this nonsense. You go on "Ignore" ...

 

Or we could quit spending so much money making sure people stay poor...

 

You’ve supposedly put me on ignore before. It’s a shame you aren’t able to actually ponder and debate ideas at their core. You may learn something. I guess your emotional attachment to your preconceived notions is that right wing brain functions we see threads about all the time. Fight or flight. And you “flight”. Cool.

 

There is a vast difference between entitled wealth and earned wealth. The first is unfair- the second is totally fair.
In America, like everywhere, there will always be some corruption, some seeking to become rich by manipulating the rules and deals. That is something to be dealt with by law and regulation.
However to consider wealth as something we are all entitled to equally, is a foolish and destructive notion. America's vision was to provide opportunity open to everyone- which was something absent in France's revolution, the Russian's revolutions, and is common to most uprising of that nature.

The opportunities that have made many people fabulously wealthy in America- are open to anybody. They are not easy, not guaranteed to succeed- but open to all. This can be proven by looking at those who have achieved it, and see where they came from. A very large number of our huge successes started in garages. Often started by people with limited education, and no advantages. Wal-mart for example started when Sam Walton made a deal to acquire a small 5&10 store in Bentonville, Arkansas in 1960 that he called Waltons. In 1962, he changed that to Wal-Mart. By 1995, he had stores in every state- and now. world-wide. Huge successes don't pop into existence by entitlement- but by our effort, and by the lack of entitlement which encourages efforts and makes it possible. Unearned entitlement stifles ambition, and insures there will be no success other than survival on what a domineering government will allow you to have.

There will always be people who see no need to plant their own garden, because somebody else's is available to steal from. The key is they DO have the right to plant their own; they are not excluded from that opportunity. That does not mean they will take advantage of it- and the weaker will always believe that if their neighbor wasn't rich, they wouldn't be poor... thus they can comfortably believe themselves victims, never holding themselves responsible for their own decisions. The message should be that you CAN, not that someone else will do it for you or provide for you.

Shall we pay those who don't earn for not earning by taking wealth from those who have? Shall we pay criminals not to do criminal acts? Those things are indeed core parts of the democrat/socialist agenda right now. America became great by performance. Not a single dollar of wal-marts revenue is taken by privilege- but by the choice of customers who feel they found a deal worth buying. Same is true for Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and a host others. Anytime the public feels a price is not fair- they can go elsewhere. If all sellers are over-pricing any product- that is opportunity, and somebody with ambition will step in to take advantage of it- and their competition drives the price down. That is the way capitalism works; it is self-regulating because it is open to all citizens.

We have to recognize the difference between privileged wealth and earned wealth. Earned wealth proves anyone can become wealthy; it is the proof that the American dream is legitimate. NOT easy or granted only to the few- but open to all. The fact that so many lack the desire to build it is nobody's fault but their own.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong- and any philosophy that endorses the idea that you can that is a gift-wrapped turd that appeals to people who believe they are entitled and should not be required to pay their own way. A nation of such people- is hardly great. It's people, all dependent, are not free. Their spirits are not strong, their hearts are not happy, and they trade all that for the privilege of tearing down our wealth, so we can all be equally poor and pitiful.

NO, thank you.

 

You can try to justify your Robin Hood motivations all you want, but you desire to forcibly take something that isn't yours. Calling them greedy has no bearing. You justify theft.

You are a collectivist that lives in a utopian alt-reality where people are not inherently selfish. They are. You live in fantasy land.

 

Did you go to school in France and never study US civics and government? Else where did you learn that a non-existent "national popular vote" can be "stolen" by the Electoral College?

 

They that to the Pilgrim's. Tell that to all the Immigrants who Europe to come here to seek their success. They didn't do it because of "communal wealth".

 

The Economic Analysis undertaken regularly by the OECD is linked above to a previous response similar to that which you give (of the same infantile nature), but here it is again linked here.

If you live in America, then you do so in one of the most economically unfair developed nations on earth!

If you want to discuss the matter in terms of the economic studies into the matter of National Income Inequality, then I invite you to research the facts first. Then do tell us how the economic analysis that pictures the US as one of the most unfair countries in terms of Income Disparity is all-wrong, all-wrong, all-wrong ...

I just can't wait to see your reply ... !

 

You have just stated that all people should be basically equal in benefits, without regard to their productivity.
That means you think productivity is irrelevant, and either that should all be able to sit on our asses and live well off magic money, or that the people who don't want to be productive should be allowed to hold those who are productive hostage, with their efforts dedicated to support those who choose not to make any effort. You think that should get some kind of applause?

That pretty well sums up your conclusions- which tells me you are one of those who thinks that the world owes them a living, and you are only poor because others are rich. You are a victim of the industrious, the people who have created the bulk of the quality of life you already benefit from. Jealous of their success- but not motivated enough to build your own.

Wealth- is kind of like fruits of the garden we plant. So If I plant a big one and work everyday to nurture and maintain it, while you throw a few seeds on the ground and water if you remember it-
The fact your garden produces a tiny fraction of what mine does is just- Bad luck? Of course you think that. So therefore, you are entitled to a share of the crop my garden produced.

The volume of a crop is not limited except by our efforts. Money is the same way- it's not a finite thing in any way. The fact I make money does not diminish the potential for others to make money- it enhances it.
Only a fool thinks that the success of others is the cause of their failure.

IF our system allowed no opportunity for some and gave it selectively to others, your perception would have some accuracy. But that is not the case.

My first business started in 1968 with an old pickup truck, a few tools and less than $100. I talked people into giving me credit, even renting me a store with no money in advance.
It's been done with less than that. Opportunity is everywhere, both to build your own business or help someone else build theirs and share in the reward. Businesses are always on the lookout for the right kind of people- and not just those with particular skills or degrees. Every employer looks for certain fundamental qualities which anyone who wants to can deliver, and make themselves instantly more employable, more valuable. Most of those qualities come under the category of Attitude- eagerness to learn, to be reliable, honest and do all they can to benefit the company who hires them. Such people are unfortunately rare, but do not think they are entitled to a job; they do not think they are doing you a favor by accepting a job- they know that employment is a business deal; that their employer is their CUSTOMER, and that their future with that company depends on their performance for that customer- just as the customers of their employers look for the best performing companies. These are the people who advance quickly and become very well paid, because they deliver value.

One one hand- this is reality, it only works when it's done right. The perception we are seeing from those favoring socialism in some form is an illusion- it's what they would like to be true, and actually think it could be because of the limits of their perception- just no understanding the larger picture. It makes no difference that a great many people agree, that does nothing to change fact. People used to agree the world was flat, and that persisted for centuries- because with the limits of a single person's perspective, not being able to grasp the larger picture- it Looked flat. They knew the were right. Most of the people in the world were sure about that, even to the point that they imprisoned people who disagreed at times. Nothing new about the phenomenon of the majority being totally wrong.

If you care anything about the welfare of people in general, you don't make them dependent; because that is devastating to spirit and self-esteem. Instead, you encourage them to be all they can. You don't stand in their way- but you know you cannot do it for them. You point out it's possible, perhaps point our how. BUT the minute you decide to do for them what they could and should do for themselves- you tell them they are helpless, and dependent on you... and you have helped make or keep them weak. Government's tend to like weak people, they are more pliable and less demanding that strong people are. Free men despise the concepts of socialistic systems- because if they allow it, they are no longer free men.

 

Which is a great reason to support Yang's UBI. You give up all other government support in order to qualify for the 1,000 a month no strings attached money. His cam say that more than 1/2 of the people would give up the public assistance that they now receive. It m,akes sense in that a couple can live together and make a go at it rather than parents living apart in order to qualify for benefits.

 

The defense dept gets even more that what they ask for! Congress pads it so that their constituents benefit more. The military tries to shut down programs and congress keeps them open because it would hurt certain constituents.

And what to you mean about our budget. Are you saying it is not 5 trill or that private sector insurance is 2 trill?

 

Nonsense by the time inflationary Pressures generated by this rear their ugly head anyone drawing the UBI will be doing good if it covers the price increases.

 

Just an observation. The DOD money is not to fight an ongoing war- it is to keep us strong enough that we do not have to fight that war.
When your defenses are weak, you get slapped around- or more.
When you are the strongest, you don't get messed with.

Worst thing we could do is not be ready when we live in a world with the kind of aggression this one has.

 

I am a combat vet, you have to tell me why we spend 10X more than our enemies? We spend 6 trill fighting wars in the Mideast over the last 15 years, How has that made us stronger or more secure in our homes? If we just stood away from those barbarians and let them live their lives as they see fit and sell their oil as they see fit we would be great friends.

 

France. France bailed us out during our Revolution, we bailed out France in WWII. Fair exchange, I think. Now we have some very serious domestic problems which you outlined most depressingly. I am mindful of Crane Brinton's Anatomy of Revolution. It puts America on a razor's edge. Those that cry out that there are makers and takers and the rich deserve what they have "earned" are missing the lessons of history. Great disparity in wealth is the stuff of, if not revolution, then of political violence.

 

No, I did not say that. Like most on the Rabid-Right, you warp whatever is "said" in order for it to be convenient for rebuttal.

I underscored the fact (according to the Census Bureau) that America's Poverty Threshold ($25K for a family of four) incarcerates around 38 million fellow Americans. See here.

And I have said the only way to get people out from under that societal oppression into which they were born is to educate them out of it. Which is going to take literally a generation.(that is, 25/30 years). So, we need to start Very Soon!

Get it? Or, perhaps you are too "spiritual" to understand fundamental economics? Or too spoiled by the "American Dream" of Muney-Muney-Muney and lots of it for me, me, me ... !

PS: Which was also the singular-most reason why the Roman Empire imploded. So, never say you "were not warned".

 

Watch that go-away when donations for elections are limited to $2000 per voting-age individual!

There are only three national budgets! From here: Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go (Federal Budget 101) - excerpt:

Need more be said ... ?

 

A SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY

I don't mix "revolution" with "evolution". It seems that those who want to keep their billions think they earned them "honestly". They think also they deserve their Wealth, because they "worked hard" to generate it. (Of course, the fact that they made a fortune in a robust-and-large market-economy is only a "given" to them.)

They also fear that their "money-money-money" will be taken from them. Well, yes, that did happen as a result of the Russian Revolution - that is, plenty of rich-Russians ended up living in Paris or elsewhere in France. In fact, anywhere to get away from the "Red Revolution".

Well, there are revolutions-and-revolutions and, then, there are evolutions. The one I keep harping about is our economic income-disparity in the US. Yes, that deserves an evolution. In upper-income taxation, that is. And why?

Because low taxation everywhere in the world means that the very-rich become extremely rich - and the poor are left without a pot-to-pee-in! Because, supposedly, "that's the way the system works". Or some blarney of the same sort, uttered by very selfish people.

The money that the Ultra-rich are making are of two/three kinds. Business Income and Interest on capital-investments (and for some lucky ones) high-risk re-investments that pay-off (if they pay-off). If they don't pay off, they are useful in reducing their income-taxation!

Which is all fine were it not that America has a PROVEN higher-than-need-be rate of Income Disparity compared to other (higher-taxing) companies. Which means what? That the really poor can go to hell and the rich to a summer-vacation in St. Tropez, France.

And, believe me, that cleavage between the two is NOT MINIMAL! See here (for OECD countries who are not really that poor:


Look at all those countries at the bottom - that is, with smaller Income Disparity. How is it that they are all in Europe? And how is it that they are, today, every bit as developed as the US - and where their lifespans are four-years longer than in the US?

The Answer: A political philosophy called Social Democracy. Which in two words means "Higher Taxation".

And to where are the taxation-revenues mostly applied? In Europe, not to a DoD - that's for sure! The tax-revenues are employed to provide key societal-objectives - like a National Healthcare and Free Post-secondary schooling. (And a host of others more or less important*.)

From Wikipedia, here:

*But the most important of which, to my mind, is Education. That is, getting people out of high-school and on to a post-secondary education - for a minimal fee. (And not the $14K-a-year that a state postsecondary education costs today today!) Only then will the have the knowhow that has become fundamental for this New Age of ours. The one called the Information Age.

 

I understand the budget, I don't understand your post and how it relates to mine. to recap- we have a 5trill budget, and two trill in private medical insurance. that is 7 trill. we raise almost 1 tril in other means, corporate taxes, excise, import duties, fees, etc. That means we need to raise 6 trill to balance the PRESENT budget and provide medicare for all. We have 20 trill in income. After a deduction for the poverty level for family size we need a fed income tax rate of 33% to pay for everything. right now we run a 20% deficit after the latest rd of tax cuts.

 

The aggression in the world towards us is our own fault. What are we doing in the mid east anyway? If we didn't place the shah on the throne in 54, Iran would have no reason to hate us. If we and the brits did not create a state of Isreal we would not have the problem there either. If we didn't kill Quadaffi we could get somewhere if North Korea, If we didn't make central America into a hell hole they would not be coming here by the thousands. Our Military is to keep us safe, not to make the world safe for American Corporations to make money. We invaded Iraq and caused the death of almost 600,000 Iraqis, now how many people in those families now hate America?
Where is that 6 trill dollars? Do you think America would have been better off and stronger if the 6 trill was invested in the US instead?

The threat to America as the preemptive power in the world is not military, it is economic. Do you see the Chinese Navy in the gulf? Where does china get their oil, the gulf!
Who protects the gulf, we do- Please tell me how that makes one bit of sense.

 

And I can't disagree with you view here. I think our policies have never been wisely considered, and have been wasteful in both men and money. I do think there are times and places where a nation must stand with allies, but I disagree even then that we should fight their war for them rather than with them. None of that means we should not maintain a strong military- but that we should be much wiser in how and when we use that power. Government has scored very poorly in that respect in my opinion.

 

gg

and nobody wants a military strong enough to deter aggression from any two potential foes more than me. And again, who are our allies and for what purpose are we alied with them and how does that make America and Americans more safe. How does having that number of American Military in Europe keep us safe and from whom? If Germany, France, and Italy were really afraid of Russian Invasion, they would be spending 2x of what they are spending now on defense. Tell me why we have US Army bases all over the US, are we scared of an invasion of The US from Mexico or Canada, Same with the Airforce, what the hell is the airforce doing in Colorado? Or Kansas, are the Indians on the warpath again? Tell my why 3/4s of the nations east coast navy is in Norfolk VA, now they actually patrol 5000 milies of coast in the Atlanitic coast and gulf of Mexico.

Military spending in the US has less to do with keeping America strong as it does with pork barrel legislation. that is why the military gets more money than what they ask for.
do you think the center for disease control or the FDA or the consumer protection agency get more money than what they ask for? The military budget IMO can be cut by 25% over the next 5 years with no loss of American Safety.

 

Those were not your words- they were the implication of the message, with the fluff blown off. The fact you choose to use the term "rabid right" tells me a lot, that you dismiss disagreement as stupidity and never question your own conclusions. That guarantees you will be in the wrong frequently.

Being born to "societal oppression" intrigues me. Since we do not have nobility, a caste system, or nobles and commoners, or any of the systems that dictate one's limits- it would appear that you think being born to poor parents that lack motivation is "societal oppression" rather than miserable parentage. That brings us right back to socialist entitlement- that not being given wealth is some kind of discrimination. Of course, the less motivated a person is, the more they like that idea because it frees them from the responsibility of being accountable for themselves.

Do you think they can be "educated" out of that? If you do- you are generally wrong. I taught this very thing for several years- classes in self-development, teaching people how to re-program the fundamental Principles of their thinking that they were given as children- which are the keystone that decide everything else. I know it can be done, because I did it, on my own- and I've had many professionals come to my classes to learn it, including practicing psychologists and corporate executives as well as recovering addicts and others. I know how to do that because I understand the mechanism behind the issue. However, knowing it and teaching is only a part of the issue- and it's not enough.

A good teacher is one side of the educational process- the other is a student who WANTS to learn. The difficulty here is not learning the new principles, they are simple and easy. The hard part is learning to divest yourself of the old ones that control your thinking now, and they DO control. They also ferociously reject any effort to revise them. I had a psychologist who came to my class ask to do some interviews with me, and on the third one, he asked "But how did you get from where you had to be to where you are now? I told him that I had been seeking the answers since I was in my teens, and just refused to give up. He said "who helped you?" I explained that nobody had, that while I had read many books, I'd never seen any professional or followed one. Then he said- " That's impossible. Can't be done." I asked- Why? His answer- "Because that would take courage bordering on heroism sustained for years." That is a mouthful, and I couldn't agree then. But over time as I taught, I came to agree that such a change is impossible for most of those who need it, because they cannot risk what little security they rely on now- no matter how bad the situation. To make this change, you have to let go of what you believe in order to learn a new set of principals, and come to believe them so solidly you can live by them without exception. You cannot have two masters at once, and the process of transition create a gap, where you cannot use the old beliefs for security- but you are not in functional possession of the new. This feels like a no-mans land, and it does terrify most people. But if you cannot do that, cannot find the courage to stay the new course- you cannot change yourself. You can learn the process. Hell I have lived by three rules I can write on a business card for 40 years now, and they work every time. They have made me successful, happy, comfortable, confident and reasonably wealthy. The key is LIVED BY. It;'s not enough to know, you must believe and use them. I know anyone could make that change- but I also know the vast majority of those needing it the most never will, and there is not a damn thing you can do to make them. Knowing them does not change anything- It is believing them and living them that changes your whole world. The only person who can make that happen is the individual- you cannot give them that, by gift, by law, by charity, by anything. It is up to them- and while it is possible for all, few will rise to the challenge and see it through.

I encourage people in every way I can to find the courage to do that. It's not absent in anyone, it is just buried by the endless BS. Now you can blame society for that garbage, but again- you can't change society without changing the people in it. I've tried very hard to help that happen- but learned that until a person is dedicated to helping themselves, there is nothing I can do. It's not the hand you are dealt that determines your destiny- it's the way you play it. You have to start where you are at, but that is not a limit on your potential. The limit is what you think it is.

Look up the history of Oprah Winfrey. What she was born to, how she was abused as a child. Then figure out how someone from that misery rose to the level she is today.
I would wish all people the security and strength that this change offers, and it is available to anyone who refuses to settle for less. When does that commitment exist?
When a person can say that "This change may kill me- but if I die, then I die; I'm going anyway" When you are willing to bet your life on yourself- Then you have a winner.