Government Should Teach Traditional Values

[NoNukes]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

I believe that the same was said back in the 80s. What you have to realize is that people want to have fun.

Thank you, Cyndi Lauper.

You are welcome, Anne.

 

[Samson]

"We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's."
This is so much of an aberrtion that it is unfair to even consider them when trying to understand American dynamics.

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are first generation affluent. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The vast majority of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Today, a "multi-millionaire" really isn't all that rare a bird, and it is no surprise to me that less than 10% site "inheritance" as their source of wealth: If I inherited $10 million, and turned it into $20 million, my "source of wealth" would be whatever I did to double my money.

Abberations seem to be "exceptions to whatever PoliticalChic believes."

It would serve you well to prove, rather than simply claim, that the USA has no Elite Wealthy Class.

No prob.

There is no perpetual 'Elite Wealthy Class' in America.

There is no 'Rich Class.'

The hypostetical construct is a useful image ginned up by the Left.
You seem to have fallen for it.

25 percent of the “super-rich” in 1996 remained in that category in 2005.

Um......how have I "fallen for" anything?

Your own (sanitized to remove the subjectivity) quote demonstrates that there is a "Super-Rich" class, and that 25% the perpetuated itself over the past decade.

I'm not certain what happened to the other 75% (oddly omitted) however, I doubt they qualified for food stamps. My guess is that for convenient statistical reporting purposes (about which you seem oblivious), they slipped into either the "Super-Duper Rich" class, or into the "Not-so-super Rich" class.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Regarding caste in America:

The book The Invention of the White Race by Theodore W. Allen gives an interesting insight into how the demographic group we now call'white' emerged. He writes: "Until the 17th century, the white skin privilege was recognized neither in the law nor in the social practices of the labor classes. But by the early decades of the eighteenth century, racial oppression would be the norm in the plantation colonies, and African Americans would continue to suffer under its yoke for more than two centuries…African bond-laborers were turned into chattel slaves and were differentiated from their fellow proletarians of European origin. Rocked by the solidarity across racial lines exhibited by the rebellious laboring classes in the wake of the famous Bacon's Rebellion, the plantation bourgeoisie sought a solution to its labor problems in the creation of a buffer control stratum of poor whites, who enjoyed little enough privilege in colonial society beyond that of their skin color, which protected them from enslavement…Such was the invention of the white race."

America's color-coding was based on the category of labor that one was placed into. This is further elaborated in the book How the Irish Became White, written by Noel Ignatiev, a lecturer at Harvard. He describes how the Irish, who were branded for centuries as the underclass in Europe, came to America and used the labor color-coding system of the American society to get reclassified as the white class. Especially in places where the slaves had been freed, it became important for European immigrant groups to make sure that they were distinguished and protected through labor unions that were racially exclusivist. Blacks often became factory workers in large centralized environments, whereas construction jobs such as plumbing, electrical, masonry, and carpentry became the turf of specific European ethnic labor unions.

Another useful book is How the Jews Became White Folks, authored by Professor Karen Brodkin at the University of California, Los Angeles. A Jewish woman herself, she tells the story of how the Jews started this climb up the caste ladder of America just fifty years ago to reach their present position, mainly by taking control of specific professions.

Is There an American Caste System? : Rajiv Malhotra blogs on sulekha, History blogs, Rajiv Malhotra blog from india

 

[Sky Dancer]

Here's another essay on the New American Caste System:
The New American Caste System

 

[Samson]

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making vis-a-vis my post...
...the 'giving away' being discussed here is to their children.

As an aside...my expericence at Ivy League universiteies is that there are quite a few dolts...but doors will open to them that may not for others.
This has nothing to do with any reputed caste system....which I deny exists in the United States.

Yes, the wealthy use their money to improve the chances of their children GROWING their inheritances AND MAINTAINING A CASTE SYSTEM. They do not sit their kids in front of Spongebobsquarepants for 18 years, then simply hand them a check for $100 million!

The blessings of liberty the Founders gave us were intended to replace the caste system with no limits leaving each of us to make of that what we can. Many make the most of what they can; others coast; others sit on their hands and resent what others have. That is why the poorest of the poor so often rise to that 'elite class' and why some born into the 'elite class' wind up bankrupt or in prison or otherwise in less than noble circumstances than their parents.

Nobody is required to stay where they are. The fact that some choose to do so does not create a CASTE system.

The founders wouldn't have let you vote, and it would be very unlikely that you would be allowed to work outside the home, so don't begin the "blessings of liberty the Founders gave us" routine.

True, there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone "stay where they are."

But its a little silly to expect most of the wealthy to try to leave their class, or to throw their children into the public school system to try to give them a better chance of living like Archie Bunker.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Another writer sees it this way:

Royal Line (Elite): This is the class of leisure wealth and all-star status. It’s where our CEOs, professional athletes, Hollywood actors, mainstream musicians, congressmen and senators reside. These are the people the rest of us write about, read about, watch on TV, and emulate in fashion and culture.

MacWealthy (Privileged): This is the class of well-educated professionals. These are where the lawyers, doctors, scientists, technologists, and consultants come from. These are the high-level business people who live in the MacMansions in our teaming suburbs.

White Fence (Middle): The unique thing about the United States is our ability to delude ourselves. This is the class where the workers reside and all of them think they are in the middle class – no matter what they’re income level. This is where janitors, clerical workers, fire fighters, construction workers, craftsmen, retail salespeople, waitresses, line cooks, and garbage men fall.

Forgotten (Poor): The unemployed, drop-outs, illegal immigrants, and those who live below and around the poverty line reside here.

DaRK PaRTY ReVIEW

 

[Foxfyre]

Today, a "multi-millionaire" really isn't all that rare a bird, and it is no surprise to me that less than 10% site "inheritance" as their source of wealth: If I inherited $10 million, and turned it into $20 million, my "source of wealth" would be whatever I did to double my money.

Abberations seem to be "exceptions to whatever PoliticalChic believes."

It would serve you well to prove, rather than simply claim, that the USA has no Elite Wealthy Class.

No prob.

There is no perpetual 'Elite Wealthy Class' in America.

There is no 'Rich Class.'

The hypostetical construct is a useful image ginned up by the Left.
You seem to have fallen for it.

25 percent of the “super-rich” in 1996 remained in that category in 2005.

Um......how have I "fallen for" anything?

Your own (sanitized to remove the subjectivity) quote demonstrates that there is a "Super-Rich" class, and that 25% the perpetuated itself over the past decade.

I'm not certain what happened to the other 75% (oddly omitted) however, I doubt they qualified for food stamps. My guess is that for convenient statistical reporting purposes (about which you seem oblivious), they slipped into either the "Super-Duper Rich" class, or into the "Not-so-super Rich" class.

Still a CASTE SYSTEM suggests that people are stuck with the circumstances they are born into. I don't think you believe that Americans must forever endure the circumstances they are born into, so I don't know why you seem to be arguing for that point of view. Our Constitution was intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity meaning that it protects our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The intention was that each individual would then make of that whatever they chose to do. The fact that so many immigrants arrived here with little more than the shirts on their backs and prospered beyond anything they could expect in their home countries is proof of the lack of a caste system in this country.

 

[Si modo]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

So, would you be in favor of legislating morality? If so, how would one reconcile that view with the TP's tenets?

"So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?"

And you gleaned that from the OP....where?

Ummm, that's why it was a question? I could guess what your answer is, but I prefer to ask.

 

[Sky Dancer]

New York Times has written a series of articles on the topic of class:

And new research on mobility, the movement of families up and down the economic ladder, shows there is far less of it than economists once thought and less than most people believe. In fact, mobility, which once buoyed the working lives of Americans as it rose in the decades after World War II, has lately flattened out or possibly even declined, many researchers say.

Mobility is the promise that lies at the heart of the American dream. It is supposed to take the sting out of the widening gulf between the have-mores and the have-nots. There are poor and rich in the United States, of course, the argument goes; but as long as one can become the other, as long as there is something close to equality of opportunity, the differences between them do not add up to class barriers.

Over the next three weeks, The Times will publish a series of articles on class in America, a dimension of the national experience that tends to go unexamined, if acknowledged at all.
Shadowy Lines That Still Divide - New York Times

 

[Sky Dancer]

It is always the priveleged that say class can be overcome. It can be overcome, but not everyone is able to overcome it. That's the American Myth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, would you be in favor of legislating morality? If so, how would one reconcile that view with the TP's tenets?

"So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?"

And you gleaned that from the OP....where?

Ummm, that's why it was a question? I could guess what your answer is, but I prefer to ask.

Exactly what do you mean by morality?

 

[Samson]

White Fence (Middle): The unique thing about the United States is our ability to delude ourselves. This is the class where the workers reside and all of them think they are in the middle class – no matter what they’re income level. This is where janitors, clerical workers, fire fighters, construction workers, craftsmen, retail salespeople, waitresses, line cooks, and garbage men fall.

Forgotten (Poor): The unemployed, drop-outs, illegal immigrants, and those who live below and around the poverty line reside here.

DaRK PaRTY ReVIEW

Um...what does "The Dark Party Review" blogger mean by "ability to delude ourselves?"

I suppose the implication is that members of the "middle class" in a very widely defined class, and it includes members at either end of a spectrum. Sorry, Mr. Blogger, but there are going to be a certain proportion at the bottom of whatever "caste" you want to define. They are not "deluded." They usually have the same lifestyle as those with the median income of their class.

 

[Samson]

No prob.

There is no perpetual 'Elite Wealthy Class' in America.

There is no 'Rich Class.'

The hypostetical construct is a useful image ginned up by the Left.
You seem to have fallen for it.

25 percent of the “super-rich” in 1996 remained in that category in 2005.

Um......how have I "fallen for" anything?

Your own (sanitized to remove the subjectivity) quote demonstrates that there is a "Super-Rich" class, and that 25% the perpetuated itself over the past decade.

I'm not certain what happened to the other 75% (oddly omitted) however, I doubt they qualified for food stamps. My guess is that for convenient statistical reporting purposes (about which you seem oblivious), they slipped into either the "Super-Duper Rich" class, or into the "Not-so-super Rich" class.

Still a CASTE SYSTEM suggests that people are stuck with the circumstances they are born into. I don't think you believe that Americans must forever endure the circumstances they are born into, so I don't know why you seem to be arguing for that point of view. Our Constitution was intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity meaning that it protects our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The intention was that each individual would then make of that whatever they chose to do. The fact that so many immigrants arrived here with little more than the shirts on their backs and prospered beyond anything they could expect in their home countries is proof of the lack of a caste system in this country.

Here we go dragging out the "Blessings of Liberty" routine, and the constitution, and our "Inaliable rights"

Let's get real, shall we?

Strictly speaking a "Caste System" doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS that you will remain in whatever socioeconomic condition into which you are born for the remainder of your life. The USA doesn't have a cast system that fits this STRICT definition, nor does France, or Victorian England, or even India.

In the USA, it is easier to move between socioeconomic conditions, but to believe that there are simply NO BARRIERS is absolute foolishness. Our Consitution (sort of) claims that our GOVERNMENT will not create any barriers, but that doesn't meant they won't happen, or that a government program will effectively prevent them from occuring.

Strictly speaking, a CASTE SYSTEM doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS

 

[Si modo]

"So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?"

And you gleaned that from the OP....where?

Ummm, that's why it was a question? I could guess what your answer is, but I prefer to ask.

Exactly what do you mean by morality?

The dictionary definition, but I'll make it more specific pertaining to the OP: "traditional values".

I honestly didn't think it was a complicated question and meant nothing by it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Um......how have I "fallen for" anything?

Your own (sanitized to remove the subjectivity) quote demonstrates that there is a "Super-Rich" class, and that 25% the perpetuated itself over the past decade.

I'm not certain what happened to the other 75% (oddly omitted) however, I doubt they qualified for food stamps. My guess is that for convenient statistical reporting purposes (about which you seem oblivious), they slipped into either the "Super-Duper Rich" class, or into the "Not-so-super Rich" class.

Still a CASTE SYSTEM suggests that people are stuck with the circumstances they are born into. I don't think you believe that Americans must forever endure the circumstances they are born into, so I don't know why you seem to be arguing for that point of view. Our Constitution was intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity meaning that it protects our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The intention was that each individual would then make of that whatever they chose to do. The fact that so many immigrants arrived here with little more than the shirts on their backs and prospered beyond anything they could expect in their home countries is proof of the lack of a caste system in this country.

Here we go dragging out the "Blessings of Liberty" routine, and the constitution, and our "Inaliable rights"

Let's get real, shall we?

Strictly speaking a "Caste System" doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS that you will remain in whatever socioeconomic condition into which you are born for the remainder of your life. The USA doesn't have a cast system that fits this STRICT definition, nor does France, or Victorian England, or even India.

In the USA, it is easier to move between socioeconomic conditions, but to believe that there are simply NO BARRIERS is absolute foolishness. Our Consitution (sort of) claims that our GOVERNMENT will not create any barriers, but that doesn't meant they won't happen, or that a government program will effectively prevent them from occuring.

Strictly speaking, a CASTE SYSTEM doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS

So you are contradicting yourself.

Yes some people do have barriers. Some people are too big to be fighter pilots. Some people are born with physical or mental handicaps that prevent them from qualifying for certain occupations or that will prevent them from achieving certain goals. Some are too heavy to be jockeys or too short to play professional basketball or lack the aptitude to be a rocket scientist. Such circumstances of birth are simply the luck of the draw, however, and not a result of any system that puts up barriers for whole groups of people by virtue of their parents, race, ethnicity, or whatever. An enforced 'caste' or 'class' suggests something people do to other people. I think that is very very rare in this country. So rare that it isn't really even a factor.

The fact that some are gifted with more advantages than others is the luck of the draw and not some impossed system of class or caste. And we all have the same choices to benefit or not from the ability to change our circumstances.

 

[Samson]

Still a CASTE SYSTEM suggests that people are stuck with the circumstances they are born into. I don't think you believe that Americans must forever endure the circumstances they are born into, so I don't know why you seem to be arguing for that point of view. Our Constitution was intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity meaning that it protects our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The intention was that each individual would then make of that whatever they chose to do. The fact that so many immigrants arrived here with little more than the shirts on their backs and prospered beyond anything they could expect in their home countries is proof of the lack of a caste system in this country.

Here we go dragging out the "Blessings of Liberty" routine, and the constitution, and our "Inaliable rights"

Let's get real, shall we?

Strictly speaking a "Caste System" doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS that you will remain in whatever socioeconomic condition into which you are born for the remainder of your life. The USA doesn't have a cast system that fits this STRICT definition, nor does France, or Victorian England, or even India.

In the USA, it is easier to move between socioeconomic conditions, but to believe that there are simply NO BARRIERS is absolute foolishness. Our Consitution (sort of) claims that our GOVERNMENT will not create any barriers, but that doesn't meant they won't happen, or that a government program will effectively prevent them from occuring.

Strictly speaking, a CASTE SYSTEM doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS

So you are contradicting yourself.

Yes some people do have barriers. Some people are too big to be fighter pilots. Some people are born with physical or mental handicaps that prevent them from qualifying for certain occupations or that will prevent them from achieving certain goals. Some are too heavy to be jockeys or too short to play professional basketball or lack the aptitude to be a rocket scientist. Such circumstances of birth are simply the luck of the draw, however, and not a result of any system that puts up barriers for whole groups of people by virtue of their parents, race, ethnicity, or whatever. An enforced 'caste' or 'class' suggests something people do to other people. I think that is very very rare in this country. So rare that it isn't really even a factor.

The fact that some are gifted with more advantages than others is the luck of the draw and not some impossed system of class or caste. And we all have the same choices to benefit or not from the ability to change our circumstances.

If you mean by "contradicting" that I don't subscribe to the strictest definition of a "Caste System" then I'm guilty. However I don't believe you can find anywhere where I've claimed there is any such system in the USA, or anywhere else.

I'm pleased we have moved past waving the US Consitution around as if it is some magic wand that prevents any form of socioeconomic class system from happening, and if you choose to believe that only "some" Americans remain within the class into which they are born because they are short, or handicapped, or heavy, or stupid, then that certainly is one theory.

The more realistic theory for me is that socioeconomic barriers are, by definition, difficult to overcome, and that most people don't bother to try. The fact that a few do try, and an even fewer break through, does not serve as an illusion that NO BARRIERS EXIST, and encourage me to begin singing the National Anthem.

 

[Samson]

Ummm, that's why it was a question? I could guess what your answer is, but I prefer to ask.

Exactly what do you mean by morality?

The dictionary definition, but I'll make it more specific pertaining to the OP: "traditional values".

I honestly didn't think it was a complicated question and meant nothing by it.

HA!



I don't believe you!!!


You are teh Debil!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Today, a "multi-millionaire" really isn't all that rare a bird, and it is no surprise to me that less than 10% site "inheritance" as their source of wealth: If I inherited $10 million, and turned it into $20 million, my "source of wealth" would be whatever I did to double my money.

Abberations seem to be "exceptions to whatever PoliticalChic believes."

It would serve you well to prove, rather than simply claim, that the USA has no Elite Wealthy Class.

No prob.

There is no perpetual 'Elite Wealthy Class' in America.

There is no 'Rich Class.'

The hypostetical construct is a useful image ginned up by the Left.
You seem to have fallen for it.

25 percent of the “super-rich” in 1996 remained in that category in 2005.

Um......how have I "fallen for" anything?

Your own (sanitized to remove the subjectivity) quote demonstrates that there is a "Super-Rich" class, and that 25% the perpetuated itself over the past decade.

I'm not certain what happened to the other 75% (oddly omitted) however, I doubt they qualified for food stamps. My guess is that for convenient statistical reporting purposes (about which you seem oblivious), they slipped into either the "Super-Duper Rich" class, or into the "Not-so-super Rich" class.

1. Well, since we agree that at least 3/4 of the "elite wealthy class" ceases to exist as such, it pretty well destroys you premise.....
....whether you admit it or not.

Nor do the stats suggest that the remaining 1/4 is perpetual...it suggests that of a period of times 3/4 of that group moves along the economic ladder, etc., etc.

Drag your feet as you may, I'm sure that you see that.


2. "how have I "fallen for" anything?"

By continuing to imply that the above concept has no moment.

3. "I doubt they qualified for food stamps."
Why? You just admitted "I'm not certain what happened to the other 75%."

4. "sanitized to remove the subjectivity" and "oddly omitted" and "about which you seem oblivious"
These petulant little digs are the clearest indicia that you know that your argument has been defeated and you don't like it one little bit.

Poor baby.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, the wealthy use their money to improve the chances of their children GROWING their inheritances AND MAINTAINING A CASTE SYSTEM. They do not sit their kids in front of Spongebobsquarepants for 18 years, then simply hand them a check for $100 million!

The blessings of liberty the Founders gave us were intended to replace the caste system with no limits leaving each of us to make of that what we can. Many make the most of what they can; others coast; others sit on their hands and resent what others have. That is why the poorest of the poor so often rise to that 'elite class' and why some born into the 'elite class' wind up bankrupt or in prison or otherwise in less than noble circumstances than their parents.

Nobody is required to stay where they are. The fact that some choose to do so does not create a CASTE system.

The founders wouldn't have let you vote, and it would be very unlikely that you would be allowed to work outside the home, so don't begin the "blessings of liberty the Founders gave us" routine.

True, there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone "stay where they are."

But its a little silly to expect most of the wealthy to try to leave their class, or to throw their children into the public school system to try to give them a better chance of living like Archie Bunker.

The Founders included the mechanism which allowed those of us of the distaff persuasion to change the condition to which you refer.

That foresight is a major part of the equation that is America; why do you ignore it.

 

[Samson]

3. "I doubt they qualified for food stamps."
Why? You just admitted "I'm not certain what happened to the other 75%."

If your idea of critical thinking is to wonder if the 75% of the "super rich" fell from that category into qualifying for food stamps then there's not much hope for you.