Let's Hear it for American Rugged Self Reliance

[editec]

What is in my heart is a loathing for people that have a warped perception about the outcomes certain actions should yield. You, for example, seem to be under the misguided perception that simply A job, any job, is supposed to be able to support a family. Well no, it isn't ed. If you believe flipping burgers at mcdonalds or working in a customer service call center, like I do, is going to be enough or should be enought to support a family, you're a fucking moron. Certain skills yield a certain income in the labor market. If what you're doing now isn't enough to support the lifestyle you want or have, YOU need to do something different. Society is under no obligation to bend for you just because you don't want to change or take the extra effort to achieve the lifestyle you want.

Whether you admit it to yourself or not you have a disagreement with employers over their purpose in hiring people. You are working under the premise that your employer's purpose in hiring you is to support you and your lifestyle. NEWSFLASH: Your employer probably doesn't agree with you on that one. His purpose in hiring you is to help him produce something. He pays you based on what the market says the skills you are providing him are worth. What you need to live on is irrelevant to him as it should be. You and a hell of a lot of other people need to stop looking at this problem as 'they' not paying you enough, when the problem really is YOU not DOING enough.

I don't know how old you are Bern but I can remember when the working class needed one income to support a family.

I can remember when a clerk working in department store could support him or herself and didn't have to accept food stamps to feed their families

Americans work longer hours for less purchasing power than ever in my lifetime.

The boomer generation is the most educated generation in history. Additionally they work on average more hours than the WWII generation did.

Yet they are, in relative terms, poorer than their fathter's generation.

With the noteable excpetion of the top tier of the scoio economic class, of course.

They are hands down wealthier than ever.

This trend is now going on over 40 years and it NOT sustainable much longer.

This nation's bandade solutionhas been social welfare programs.

You and I both understand that those solutions won't work in the long run.

But continuing the same policies that created that problem is no solution, either.

There is no policy that did this to people.

Nonsense.

That's the biggest problem I have with you lefties.

The very fact that you think I'm a leftie is really your biggest problem, of course.

You simply refuse to consider that people are the source of their own problems.

On a micro scale that is often true. But to deny that macro-economics is a source of the real problem takea leap of faith that I simply do not have.

What you are implying is that human nature changed over the last fourty years. That's preposeterous on it face. It also denies the obvious reality that macroeconomics effects us ALL, but somewhat differently depending on what we're start out with.

It's not a policy issue. It's a failure to adapt issue.

One's ability to adapt changes over time.

A young man just starting out can adapt to changes far better than a family already committed to a career, and already committed to things like a mortgage.

You talk about these good 'ol days and the way things were.

I give you history to help you understand the way life is changing that is true.

Who promised you things would/should stay that way?

Who promised you the skills back in the good 'ol days that provided a certain standard of living would/should have the same value and provide the same standard of living today? That is stupid to believe ed. Yeah people could make a living off of shoeing horses at one time, too.

If you want to debate a straw man of your own device, you don't need me post, do you?

Address what I write, not the imaginary POVs you are attempting to say I have.

 

[Big Fitz]

Bork, you probably remember, was the Reagan nominee to the Supreme Court who was rejected by the Senate because many felt his views were extremist. If you had any doubt that that controversial decision was a good one, reading this book should convince you how lucky we really were.

The book isn't awful because Bork criticizes university professors (and I'm one), or because Bork criticizes atheists (I'm one), or because Bork criticizes pro-choicers (I'm one of those, too). It's awful because it's illogical, incoherent, uninformed, and inaccurate.

The main thrust of Bork's argument is that two of the most fundamental principles of democracy (namely, egalitarianism and liberty) have been taken to extremes by the bogeyman he calls the "modern liberal", and the very survival of human civilization is threatened as a result. Modern liberalism is a "corrosive agent". According to Bork, "[m]odern liberals ... have a need to lie, and do so abundantly, since many Americans would not like their actual agenda." Chief among the culprits, Bork says, are the universities, feminists, homosexuals, artists, and, of course, atheists and church-state separatists.

Anyone else smelling sour grapes? "I am an example of Bork's criticism in action, therefore my opinion is better because he's wrong cause I don't like what he says". This is equivalent of saying the termite's complaints about the Orkin Man have validity because he exterminates termites and I don't like that.

4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

5. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.


Methinks you confusion is a hand up with a hand out PC, potus's like FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton merely accentuate what every civilized society has to have, a social contract with it's populace

Wow... where in the current lexicon do you see "a hand UP" in action? Where are the programs championed by liberals to get people OFF the government teat? Where is the non-governmental help that gives people struggling an opportunity for being self sufficient? I sure don't see it. All I see are entitlement junkies whining about their social safety hammock being under attack by evil republicans (as their government workers have instructed them to whine about) because of X emotionally inflammatory reason.

The WPA was a failure in comparison to the speed and efficiency of a private contractor. The Great Society has devestated the black family by becoming the surrogate father to millions of children and alternate provider for millions of single moms. It's not just this minority, but is most illustrative in this sub culture of America.

"Total" equality and justice and liberty are incompatible. Why? Because it requires you to be unfair to achieve an end result of equality. Nobody is born with the same circumstances or resources... so to make sure everyone gets the same, they must be treated differently under the law. How is this justice? What happened to all men being equal and justice being blind if one man, because of his income, skin color, sexual proclivities or illness, is given preference over someone who does not have the same problems? If a man has the liberty to achieve and work hard to improve his life, he will gain more than his alloted portion of equality. Therefore his liberty must be curbed lest he become better than another.

Misery and tyranny must be ladled out in heavy portion and to make sure those that do not measure up are equal to those who can and do achieve more. But to make sure you don't run out of mortar, some must be cut down to fit.

6. The accession of these views, equality vs. freedom, means that there can be no free market, for that would always result in inequalities. Compared to nations such as Sweden, the United States will, by the nature of its economic system, have greater differences in wealth and income.

Aren't we convienetly leaving out the fact that said pendelum can easily swing into oligarhy-ville here?

1. Equality is not a viable end for life. It is neither fair nor realistic to anyone.
2. Equality never has, nor ever will be the purpose of work and achievement in the world. It is to do the best possible with what you have to provide for yourself and your family. To insinuate otherwise is disingenuous.
3. The idea that achievement greater than others is an on-balance evil or problem is sophistry at best, blitheringly stupid at worst.

Wealth inequality is as irrelevant a metric as pillow cover threadcount is to the price of a hotel room stay.

You cite Wildavsky? Wildavsky??? The man was the Poli Sci chair at Berkley in the late 1960's and graduate dean of Public Policy throughout most of the 70's! How much more radical left wing an area can you be in? Wow. Next you're going to start citing that utter whackaloon Alan Ginsberg as a moderate. Just reading his bio I can see what a cheerleader this man was for massive government and bureaucracy. No wonder you dislike Bork so much. He was the Orkin man to your termite.

Sour grapes AND protesting too much.

 

[Mr Liberty]

Really? We were doing pretty good in the '50s and 60s.

However, we will see the present trend of the rich robbing the working people of the fruit of their labor end.

We had a much smaller and less costly government then. How exactly are the rich robbing anyone? Only the government has the power to steal from the middle class. This is what needs to be changed. It is the government that robbed us, not the rich.
How is having the government, stealing from the rich, going to help the middle class?

 

[sparky]

Bork, you probably remember, was the Reagan nominee to the Supreme Court who was rejected by the Senate because many felt his views were extremist. If you had any doubt that that controversial decision was a good one, reading this book should convince you how lucky we really were.

The book isn't awful because Bork criticizes university professors (and I'm one), or because Bork criticizes atheists (I'm one), or because Bork criticizes pro-choicers (I'm one of those, too). It's awful because it's illogical, incoherent, uninformed, and inaccurate.

The main thrust of Bork's argument is that two of the most fundamental principles of democracy (namely, egalitarianism and liberty) have been taken to extremes by the bogeyman he calls the "modern liberal", and the very survival of human civilization is threatened as a result. Modern liberalism is a "corrosive agent". According to Bork, "[m]odern liberals ... have a need to lie, and do so abundantly, since many Americans would not like their actual agenda." Chief among the culprits, Bork says, are the universities, feminists, homosexuals, artists, and, of course, atheists and church-state separatists.

Anyone else smelling sour grapes? "I am an example of Bork's criticism in action, therefore my opinion is better because he's wrong cause I don't like what he says". This is equivalent of saying the termite's complaints about the Orkin Man have validity because he exterminates termites and I don't like that.


no, Bork demonizes the majority of the citizenry, because he's a radical nutbag Fitz...

4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

5. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.


Methinks you confusion is a hand up with a hand out PC, potus's like FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton merely accentuate what every civilized society has to have, a social contract with it's populace

Wow... where in the current lexicon do you see "a hand UP" in action? Where are the programs championed by liberals to get people OFF the government teat? Where is the non-governmental help that gives people struggling an opportunity for being self sufficient? I sure don't see it. All I see are entitlement junkies whining about their social safety hammock being under attack by evil republicans (as their government workers have instructed them to whine about) because of X emotionally inflammatory reason.


Applied to wall street, and bailouts,and 'too big to fail' whinebag socialist banksters i totally agree Fitz....






The WPA was a failure in comparison to the speed and efficiency of a private contractor. The Great Society has devestated the black family by becoming the surrogate father to millions of children and alternate provider for millions of single moms. It's not just this minority, but is most illustrative in this sub culture of America.

you just can concieve casino capitalism creating a socalist backlash, can you?


"Total" equality and justice and liberty are incompatible. Why? Because it requires you to be unfair to achieve an end result of equality. Nobody is born with the same circumstances or resources... so to make sure everyone gets the same, they must be treated differently under the law. How is this justice? What happened to all men being equal and justice being blind if one man, because of his income, skin color, sexual proclivities or illness, is given preference over someone who does not have the same problems? If a man has the liberty to achieve and work hard to improve his life, he will gain more than his alloted portion of equality. Therefore his liberty must be curbed lest he become better than another.

Misery and tyranny must be ladled out in heavy portion and to make sure those that do not measure up are equal to those who can and do achieve more. But to make sure you don't run out of mortar, some must be cut down to fit.

you first Fitz....

6. The accession of these views, equality vs. freedom, means that there can be no free market, for that would always result in inequalities. Compared to nations such as Sweden, the United States will, by the nature of its economic system, have greater differences in wealth and income.

Aren't we convienetly leaving out the fact that said pendelum can easily swing into oligarhy-ville here?

1. Equality is not a viable end for life. It is neither fair nor realistic to anyone.
2. Equality never has, nor ever will be the purpose of work and achievement in the world. It is to do the best possible with what you have to provide for yourself and your family. To insinuate otherwise is disingenuous.
3. The idea that achievement greater than others is an on-balance evil or problem is sophistry at best, blitheringly stupid at worst.

Wealth inequality is as irrelevant a metric as pillow cover threadcount is to the price of a hotel room stay.

You cite Wildavsky? Wildavsky??? The man was the Poli Sci chair at Berkley in the late 1960's and graduate dean of Public Policy throughout most of the 70's! How much more radical left wing an area can you be in? Wow. Next you're going to start citing that utter whackaloon Alan Ginsberg as a moderate. Just reading his bio I can see what a cheerleader this man was for massive government and bureaucracy. No wonder you dislike Bork so much. He was the Orkin man to your termite.

Sour grapes AND protesting too much.

PC quoted him, i simply followed up on it Fitz

do keep up, it gets tiresome pointing sorts like you in some manner of sustainable debate

 

[sparky]

Really? We were doing pretty good in the '50s and 60s.

However, we will see the present trend of the rich robbing the working people of the fruit of their labor end.

We had a much smaller and less costly government then. How exactly are the rich robbing anyone? Only the government has the power to steal from the middle class. This is what needs to be changed. It is the government that robbed us, not the rich.
How is having the government, stealing from the rich, going to help the middle class?

Clinton, and his henchmen Robert Riech (for one) resinded Glass Stegal 2 decades ago, this was the begining of wall street's efforts to run capitalism into the ground via weapons of fiscal dfestruction Liberty

even the Gov's ad hoc committee blames wall street, after the fact, and after all the bailout fallout of course....


the latest debauchery would be Citizens United vs. the FEC, allowing those same captains of industry to essentially buy Congress , and thus the populace into a guilded age redux

these sorts have zero allegiance to the USA Liberty

that alone should raise concern

~S~

 

[sparky]

[

The very fact that you think I'm a leftie is really your biggest problem, of course

.

partisan dyslexia happens?


2 lefts make a right?

 

[sparky]

Let's Hear it for American Rugged Self Reliance
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3huJaa0nBqo&feature=player_detailpage]YouTube - Sound of crickets[/ame]

 

[Big Fitz]

no, Bork demonizes the majority of the citizenry, because he's a radical nutbag Fitz...

Really? Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. He at least has the intestinal fortitude to call it as he sees it. The fact he has the temerity to not be scared off his opinion because he's trying to make friends rather than speak truth, quite rightfully scares the shit out of those who he correctly criticized. Not saying I agree 100%, I just deride your 'moderate' stance or self proclaimed normality.

Applied to wall street, and bailouts,and 'too big to fail' whinebag socialist banksters i totally agree Fitz....

I'm sorry. I didn't get that. I had my "Class Warrior Bullshit" filter on. Could you try again while not playing that tired ole saw that hasn't been true since 1941?

Two quick questions, Che. Where does wall street get its money to invest? Where do middle class and union member's pensions and retirement funds get kept?

you just can concieve casino capitalism creating a socalist backlash, can you?

No speakie libberish. For a self proclaimed college professor you sure have difficulty making a cogent point.

you first Fitz....

Oh no. You don't get to weasel out of it that easy. Quid pro quo, Clarice, and you get to pony up first. Answer the question at hand: WHERE do you see any programs being championed by liberals to get citizens off government help and become productive members of society?

Secondly, you want to equate tyranny to freedom. How Orwellian can you get. Freedom is not slavery. If there is one thing that freedom is "slaved" to, is personal responsibility.

PC quoted him, i simply followed up on it Fitz

do keep up, it gets tiresome pointing sorts like you in some manner of sustainable debate

De Toqueville's and PC's credibility does not slop over onto you because you 'followed up'. It is tiresome when you nonchalantly imply impartiality because you quote someone's answer without providing the context in who they are.

You casually imply that conservatism automatically creates an oligarchy when it is in fact a basic tenant of all socialist and collectivist based political philosophy to end up with a strongman or small collection of oligarchs attempting to create a neo-feudalist society with themselves as the new royalty. I've yet to see one that doesn't.

 

[Big Fitz]

Really? We were doing pretty good in the '50s and 60s.

However, we will see the present trend of the rich robbing the working people of the fruit of their labor end.

We had a much smaller and less costly government then. How exactly are the rich robbing anyone? Only the government has the power to steal from the middle class. This is what needs to be changed. It is the government that robbed us, not the rich.
How is having the government, stealing from the rich, going to help the middle class?

Clinton, and his henchmen Robert Riech (for one) resinded Glass Stegal 2 decades ago, this was the begining of wall street's efforts to run capitalism into the ground via weapons of fiscal dfestruction Liberty

even the Gov's ad hoc committee blames wall street, after the fact, and after all the bailout fallout of course....


the latest debauchery would be Citizens United vs. the FEC, allowing those same captains of industry to essentially buy Congress , and thus the populace into a guilded age redux

these sorts have zero allegiance to the USA Liberty

that alone should raise concern

~S~

Once again the left blames wall street for it's failures. The collectivists tempt the moral hazard by creating a set of rules in which investors can play based on the false premise that their potential losses will be protected by the taxpayers in perpetuity.

The removing the walls between types of banking and investment and insurance and other financial institutions was uncategorically a bad idea and undid 7 decades of wise financial rules protecting us from another financial crash.

Combine to this the Housing rules, anti 'red-lining' rules that forced risky loans, sub prime mortgages with flexible interest rates, the government created minefield of bad financial regulations.

When you privatize profit and socialize loss, you remove the moral imperative for good judgment. You take away the risk of failure, and then hand the bill to the sucker who has no real clear say in the matter because you blind them with complex laws and cross purposes till they can't comprehend what you're doing OR say no, lest they be punished and imprisoned for non-payment of their taxes.

This is as much congress's and the last three administrations' fault as it is wall streets. Actually, even moreso.

But yes... seems to the class warrior, it's the ebil reech's fault. Those damn bastards on wall street need to be 'gotten'.

 

[Big Fitz]

Let's Hear it for American Rugged Self Reliance
YouTube - Sound of crickets

Busy having a life. what's your excuse?

 

[sparky]

PC quoted him, i simply followed up on it Fitz

do keep up, it gets tiresome pointing sorts like you in some manner of sustainable debate

De Toqueville's and PC's credibility does not slop over onto you because you 'followed up'. It is tiresome when you nonchalantly imply impartiality because you quote someone's answer without providing the context in who they are.

.

My Post, #54 investigated all 3 of PC's political entities, mainly right wingers, with links and quotes as a courtesy to a sanguine reply

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/166031-lets-hear-it-for-american-rugged-self-reliance-4.html

You immediatley assumed that i dug them up , and dubbed them lefties

that's because you didn't read it Fitz (despite the large pleasantly colored font....)in fact, you exemplify the current gestalt of labeling anything left, or liberal , that you don't understand, in this case not even recognizing a left from a right


ergo, you are free to blather on , and i am free to dimiss you as such

~S~

 

[Big Fitz]

PC quoted him, i simply followed up on it Fitz

do keep up, it gets tiresome pointing sorts like you in some manner of sustainable debate

De Toqueville's and PC's credibility does not slop over onto you because you 'followed up'. It is tiresome when you nonchalantly imply impartiality because you quote someone's answer without providing the context in who they are.

.

My Post, #54 investigated all 3 of PC's political entities, mainly right wingers, with links and quotes as a courtesy to a sanguine reply

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/166031-lets-hear-it-for-american-rugged-self-reliance-4.html

You immediatley assumed that i dug them up , and dubbed them lefties

that's because you didn't read it Fitz (despite the large pleasantly colored font....)in fact, you exemplify the current gestalt of labeling anything left, or liberal , that you don't understand, in this case not even recognizing a left from a right


ergo, you are free to blather on , and i am free to dimiss you as such

~S~

Gort, buddy, the fact that you attempt to come off as an 'authoritah' isn't playing here. I looked at the one guy I did not know and looked him up, saw the guy was a wingeing lefty of the first water and can safely dismiss this information as nothing more than leftist propaganda.

That, if you understood the context of my post was the big point of contention. The assumption of impartiality and appeal to authority you presented as justifications for your response's truthiness. I know PC, and know that she's got a much more scholarly grasp on subjects than most people, and although she's been labeled to be full of it, more times than you can count on your fingers and toes, rarely have the accusations held any water.

And lastly, use the quote function in some form. Cut and paste into quotes, copy the whole thing... but don't insert your words in other colors into the text of other people's words. It gives the false impression that people said something they didn't. I at the very least use that function lest it become confused with my own words. And no I don't give a shit about 'backlinks' before someone pops off on me regarding that. If they make that function easier to use, I'll consider it. Till then the quick response box and cutting and pasting into quote tags is more than adequate for any forum.

But please, throw me on ignore if you are incapable of defending your tired class warrior POV. Your approval is nothing that I desired.

Secondly, your "colorful" response wins the "Mr. Shaman Award of No Merit". Color, moderator red not withstanding, does not denote accuracy, quality or impartiality.

 

[Big Fitz]

So, anyone else want to defend the wealth redistribution scam known as food stamps?