Fact-free liberalism

Thomas Sowell's picture

Someone summarized Barack Obama in three words — “educated,” “smart” and “ignorant.” Unfortunately, those same three words would describe all too many of the people who come out of our most prestigious colleges and universities today.

President Obama seems completely unaware of how many of the policies he is trying to impose have been tried before, in many times and places around the world, and have failed time and again.

Economic equality? That was tried in the 19th century, in communities set up by Robert Owen, the man who coined the term “socialism.” Those communities all collapsed.

It was tried even earlier, in 18th century Georgia, when that was a British colony. People in Georgia ended up fleeing to other colonies, as many other people would vote with their feet in the 20th century, by fleeing many other societies around the world that were established in the name of economic equality.

But who reads history these days? Moreover, those parts of history that would undermine the vision of the left — which prevails in our education system from elementary school to postgraduate study — are not likely to get much attention.

The net results are bright people, with impressive degrees, who have been told for years how brilliant they are, but who are often ignorant of facts that might cause them to question what they have been indoctrinated with in schools and colleges.

Recently Kirsten Powers repeated on Fox News Channel the discredited claim that women are paid only about three-quarters of what a man is paid for doing the same work.

But there have been empirical studies, going back for decades, showing that there is no such gap when the women and men are in the same occupation, with the same skills, experience, education, hours of work and continuous years of full-time work.

Income differences between the sexes reflect the fact that women and men differ in all these things — and more. Young male doctors earn much more than young female doctors. But young male doctors work over 500 hours a year more than young female doctors.

Then there is the current hysteria which claims that people in the famous “top one percent” have incomes that are rising sharply and absorbing a wholly disproportionate share of all the income in the country.

But check out a Treasury Department study titled “Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005.” It uses income tax data, showing that people who were in the top one percent in 1996 had their incomes fall — repeat, fall — by 26 percent by 2005.

What about the other studies that seem to say the opposite? Those are studies of income brackets, not studies of the flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving from one bracket to another over time. More than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005.

This is hardly surprising when you consider that their incomes were going down while there was widespread hysteria over the belief that their incomes were going up.

Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time.

All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians’ warning that correlation is not causation. For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers — and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks.

But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites — and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites.

When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans — and no one thinks that is racial discrimination.

Facts are not liberals’ strong suit. Rhetoric is.

[Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.] COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM

conditon55
conditon55's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2010
counterpoint

This is a propoganda piece.

There is not a single line in this article or the 2 that follow that is worth remembering.
This article is like toxic waste deliberately designed to pollute the minds of Americans.
It is like a sad and cheap Jedi Mind trick gone off the rails.
You can go to the IRS website and get the real stats based on filed income tax returns.
You can go to the bureau of the census as well.

The fact is that America is strong because of the working man. It is the working man does the fighting and dying for his country, not the rich guys. And yeah, a lot of them killed, were union men, who struck the coal mining industry to break the cycle of expliotation that held them captive robbing them of their dignity.

So any time you read a piece about how the rich guys has it so bad a red light should start blinking in you mind thinking 'bull crap'

All of American history is the story on common working men and women fighting for this rights for a honest wage for an honest days work. And If you enjoy a 40 hours work week, a safe work environment, a decent working wage and acouple of weeks vacation a year. Thank a union man or woman. Because without the power of collective baragining, and people willing to fight and die for these things in the past in the USA, you wouldn't have any of those things.

Moses in PTC
Moses in PTC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/06/2012
In fact, I do exist.

This is the lefties conundrum... I grew up a racial minority, in a fatherless home with several children, at times on the dole, from age 14 left to my own devices in a New Orleans gambling den, had 2 sisters become single mothers in their teens, graduated from a high school ranked in the top 50 (over 90% of us graduates were either a national merit finalists or semi-finalists), went to an ivy league school, then proceeded forward to 2 masters from schools everyone reading this, as well as most of the planet, will be quite familiar with. There was/is no such thing as passing the entrance exams to these schools. But there is such a thing as crushing them and that is what I did. I have spent many thousands of hours in my adult life volunteering my time to assist young people with a background similar to mine. It is with no small amount of experience that lefties hate to face the reconciliation of my background with who I am right now.

Lefties take personal insult to their dogma in the same fashion as many religious zealots take umbrage to any questioning of their faith. The liberal thing to do would be to divorce the two and give an honest examination. And that is the gap between modern leftist politics and liberalism, the bravery and integrity of analytic thought.

So to answer your question, I have a lifetime of experience with poor women and poor people struggle. Academics aside I am constructed of the experience that researchers write about. Is that close enough for you?

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Congratulations Moses

You are to be congratulated on such fine accomplishments and service to your fellow citizens.

Your insight into the inflexibility of "lefties" appears to be just as true of fundamentalists of any persuasion: political "righties,, "lefties," religious zealots, etc. True analytic thought requires questioning of all assumptions; this is impossible when one's dogma rejects questioning any point as heretical.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Moses - Congratulations

Congratulations, on your individual accomplishments in spite of personal barriers to success. I am certain that you are an inspiration to those that know you personally.

It's interesting that you point out an essential quality of the left, that they take personal insult as dogma.

As a matter of fact socialists require an enemy or envy to sway their minions to believe that they can justify theft. It's the first thing they did when they took power in Germany. Whether it's religion, race, wealth or gender, those classifications posed against a "vision" of how things should be if we simply force people into that vision, is the hallmark of socialism.

Congratulations again and for your continued voluntary good work in the community.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Moses
Quote:

I have spent many thousands of hours in my adult life volunteering my time to assist young people with a background similar to mine. It is with no small amount of experience that lefties hate to face the reconciliation of my background with who I am right now.

Moses - share your success story! That is what this country is all about! Separating us into lefties/righties; male/female; minority /majority is taking advantage of our Achilles Heel. What opportunities did you take advantage of? There are those who may have had a similar background but have a different political/ social theory for the reasons for their success. Those who are secure in their own skin don't need to denigrate others. If this country was truly united - no one / no ideology/ no enemy could defeat the United States. We've seen the decline that divisions have caused. The country (the people) are moving towards moderation rather than left and right division. MLK in his quest to help the poor reached out to all citizens of the world, regardless of their political/social stance in order to solve a problem. He looked for areas of agreement without denying the individual their dignity in search for solutions. Contrary to some of the ideas expressed here, including mine, all women, all blacks, all whites, all Hispanics, all Asians do not have the same reaction to their experiences in these United States. Looking forward to your sharing.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

What are you asking me to 'prove'? Solutions? You evidently don't see the consequences of denying the voting privilege in our country. As I stated before, this is a basic disagreement that is IMO insurmountable .

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DN - No

No, I am asking you to prove that you think.

Provide your solutions to all the things that you constantly complaint about.

AND

Remember, insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. So, pour more money into government isn't going to do the trick DM.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

I have expressed my approval of many social changes that I have witnessed in this country. The complaints I have expressed is the arrogant ignorance expressed by those who feel skin color or gender or status of birth gives one an automatic superior
status. Now I feel that your comprehension is of a level that you understand my concerns. You don't agree with me - that is a given. I have faith in the words of our Constitution and the promise of our country. We elect our 'politicians'. If this current crisis causes apathy - and citizens are not informed and do not vote for leaders - we deserve what we get. ...politicians who sign a pledge to a financial advisor who pays for their campaigns.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish. Government by corporations , for corporations is dangerous.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
So......DM

When you post YouTube videos about unfair wealth distribution and the diminished middle class, you have no solutions to that?

I am sorry DM but your answer is not an answer to my question. Can you think? Can you articulate solutions to your issues and concern? Do you have answers? Or do you want to merely parrot the same Democrat Party line?

BTW, I don't deserve what I get, no one deserves it.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

BTW, I don't deserve what I get, no one deserves it.

I must have 'missed' something. What have you 'gotten' as an American citizen that you don't deserve? Did you make 77 cents compared to every dollar that a male earned in this country? Did you ever have to sit in the back of the bus? Were you forced to attend substandard schools with outdated books under the so- called separate but equal practice? Heaven knows the human condition throughout the globe is not perfect, but with all of the historical imperfections of these United States, we have the freedom to debate, research, protest and CHANGE those conditions that we don't deserve. PTCO, one or two people don't have the solutions to problems. My problem with your reasoning is denying the vote to those who choose to serve the public by working for/in government. You have shared other theories that I may agree with. Too many humans throughout the world have sacrificed for the privilege of voting. It is outward proof that the individual counts. I M O.

As long as citizens cannot listen to Democrat/Republican ideas - our Congress is representing us - and yet we give them low 'marks'. There are 'Republican /Libertarian etc., ideas that should be listened to- but the refusal to listen to ideas because of the label IMO is ignorance.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM

I was referring to the government, I don't deserve what I am getting. No one does.

If you actually believe the 77 cent argument then you are too far gone for any reasoning DM. It's a political ploy nothing more.

Slate.com did an analysis on the supposed wage gap between men and women. It found that the difference is more like 91 percent of what a man makes. However, this gap is narrowed even further if you consider that men more than women are likely to belong to a union that pays more. Men tend to go into higher paying professions and men work more hours than women.

Under federal law there are sever penalties for wage discrimination. In 1963, the Equal Pay Act was passed into law so the feds can punish any American employer who discriminates against women in the pay arena. We have made considerable progress in wages for same jobs DM.

Here's the link for your reference DM.

www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_famil...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO - BECOME INFORMED - IT'S THE 21ST CENTURY - NOT 1963!
Quote:

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.”

No matter how you report the numbers - there is still a gap. Did you read the entire article? I hope you and others do.

Some other interesting reading:
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/lilly-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter (This is a CURRENT reality)

http://www.lillyledbetter.com (This shows that the 1963 Equal Pay Act was not working for women!!) You are too uninformed to reason with IMO.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Propaganda

Is not information DM, Ledbetter....really you can't be serious, Bureau of Labor really.....why should we believe this?

Where's your independent studies DM? Uninformed indeed!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

Cute. Ledbetter is propaganda? Really? Readers can determine that for themselves. Citing action in 1963 as your basis for reality? You seem to have some basic moral foundation - that is why I even bother to answer you. But you are sadly lacking in current legal actions in this country regarding women. My reality: As an educated, degreed human I have worked in privately owned stores; school districts; corporations; private and public universities. Has my gender been considered in promotions and salaries? Yes. Was I always equally compensated for equal ability by receiving equal pay? No. In 1961, in Washington state, the inequality was part of the contract!!!! We have progressed - and for some 'white males' this has caused a 'change'. For women, the change is welcomed - and hold on to your hat - for many white males who worked for this change, their help and expertise is appreciated.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Well thanks DM

for passing judgment on my marginal "basic" moral foundation.....I appreciate it! Don't know that I could have gone on much longer posting here without it.

Now, see what you've done?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO: Quote me correctly - without your 'stuff'

I said:

Quote:

You seem to have some basic moral foundation - that is why I even bother to answer you.

Thanks for the conversation. Bye! What I've done is stated my beliefs. Haven't you done the same? Rhetorical question only.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Sensibilities

I apologize if I have injured your sensibilities this evening. I was perhaps being too glib in my responses, something I hope you find unusual for PTCO. It's sometimes difficult to convey humor in words, when those words could have different inflections when spoken or when their meaning is obscure to the the reader.

Yes, you have posted your beliefs, that's true. Yes, I do know that it was rhetorical but it deserves my response.

Again, my humble apology.

I remain,

PTCO

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

I do accept your apology with respect for your beliefs and your right to express them. I have often said that discussions such as we have should be in person - because words alone do not always convey true meaning. From your many postings, I know you are a sincere, fair and thoughtful person. Believe me, I am not a machine - as a member of the Duck Dynasty has shared. I look forward to your thoughts! (Not about Duck Dynasty - but other issues!!!) LOL

Sincerely, David's Mom

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
ptco

Do You not recognize that you are conversing with a machine? That you assign creditability in this discourse only gives credence to the flawed ideology that you supposedly argue against.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
SPQR - On

On the contrary, flawed ideology is exposed through dialog. If I didn't believe that then I wouldn't waste my time. The question is what philosophy is based on moral principles that make sense to the reader's logic. What philosophy works and what doesn't.

If I touch only one person on these blogs with the Philosophy of Liberty, then all the name calling, character attacks, etc. will have been well worth it. No SPQR, I am not on a mission. I am however more than willing to stand up for individual freedom and let those that read these communications decide what is right and what is wrong.

With that said, I am not here to hurt anyone, including DM. No matter how flawed her thinking. She, like you and all others deserve respect as individuals. We all have a story and we are all different. Thank God.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
PTCO-good

stay on the high road.For myself all I can say is quack quack.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
SPQR - Evil

There are evil people in the world, the test of character is deciding who is really evil vs. someone that follows unwittingly and is simply misguided.

Generally speaking, you can judge this in peoples' actions and the results of their actions. The fact is that socialism has been around a long, long time, it has never worked for the masses, it has only enriched some at the expense of others. The individual and freedom of choice are their enemy, the individual must be shaped into a unified whole or submissive class. Those that attempt to be individualist are scorned, berated, called all sort of horrible things in an attempt to trample out freedom of action. You know a philosophy has failed when it must resort to such tactics. People that follow this philosophy fall into two camps, those that benefit and those that hope to benefit from the forced labor of others. You can be a good person and be misguided, duped if you will. I will let you and other readers decide what camps those posting here fall into.

There is a mighty vested elite that wants to keep things going just the way they are going, and will crush those opposed to it. You can see this happening everyday in the "workings" of our government. Remember this, democracy always leads to dictatorship.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
PTCO

I have friends and acquaintances that I perceive as falling into the "duped" category. Many of them are extraordinarily intelligent and educated, much more so than I. Why they adhere to ultra liberal ideals is beyond my comprehension. Their progressive beliefs are almost religious and are not open to discussion, and if they are broached it is often taken as a personal attack.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
SPQR - I would

I would suggest that you follow the money. Where does their livelihood come from, what's their connection with government? I don't mean are they government workers necessarily, but how about their corporations? Generally speaking if they are not duped, they are complicit in making the whole thing "work". At some level, those that make good livings off of government largess, become "religious" in their belief that government can do no wrong. That we simply haven't put enough money into the effort and "enemies" keep it from working. At another level, usual among the poor, they hope and pray that what they have been "taught" will come true. This latter category is what democracy is built upon, the political elite lives off this hope. If fact, they prosper off this hope. The more successful they become, the more "rabid" they are about their positions.

As far as intellectuals, I would recommend you read Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" 2nd edition. Here's Dr. Sowell talking about how intellectuals use hyperbole to overwhelm their opponents. It's all about mere mortals, like you, and your inability to see the "vision" of the elite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyufeHJlodE

Fred Garvin
Fred Garvin's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2010
Obama is a miserable, lying wretch

Obama's world...
1. I will have the most transparent administration.
2. I have Shovel ready jobs.
3. The IRS is not targeting anyone.
4. If four Americans get killed, it is not optimal.
5. In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died.
6. ObamaCare will be good for America.
7. You can keep your family doctor.
8. Premiums will be lowered by $2500
9. You can keep your current healthcare plan
10. Just shop around, for that healthcare I claimed you wouldn't lose.
11. I am sorry you lost your healthcare, (you know the health care you have to shop around for, ya the same health care I said you could keep, yup, that's the one).
12. I did not say you could keep your health care. (Regardless that 29 recorded videos show I did)
13. ObamaCare will not be offered to illegal immigrants.
14. ObamaCare will not be used to fund abortions.
15. ObamaCare will cost less than 1 Trillion Dollars.
16. No one making under $250,000 will see their taxes raised one dime.
17. It is Bushes fault. (this can be inserted in between every statement).
18. It was about a movie.
19. I will fundamentally transform America. (This one sadly is very true)
20. If I had a son.
21. I am not a dictator.
22. I will put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division, conflict and cynicism".
23. You didn't build that.
24. I will restore trust in Government.
25. The Cambridge police acted stupidly.
26. I am not after your guns.
27. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. The BHO of (2006).
28. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics.
29. "If I don't have this done in three years, then this is going to be a one-term proposition.
30. I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.
31. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
32. The Public Will Have 5 Days To Look At Every Bill That Lands On My Desk
33. It's not my red line it is the worlds red line.
34. Whistle blowers will be protected.
35. We got back Every Dime we Used to Rescue the Banks, with interest.
36. I am good at killing people.
37. I will close Gitmo. (but instead built them a $750,000 soccer field).
38. The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't, but she is a typical white person
39. I am not spying on American citizens.
40. By, on, on, by, Friday uh afternoon things get a little uh, uh challenged uh, uh ( when his TelePrompTer broke and he was left to think for himself).
41. I am a Christian.
42. John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.
43. It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy.
44. UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems. (Attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare).
45. The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

And the biggest lie of all:
I Barrack Hussein Obama pledge to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Fred Garvin, and yet, with

Fred Garvin, and yet, with all President Obama’s faults, (real and mostly imagined,) he beat former Republican Governor Mitt Romney in the last election. It must torture you, eh?

Fred Garvin
Fred Garvin's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2010
Gort

The fact that Romney did not win the last election has no bearing on how much of a lying scumbag Obama is, now does it?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Fred Garvin, come on now, any

Fred Garvin, come on now, any serious person has to admit that most of the stuff on your list is from the “right wing ‘stink’ tank fog machines,” designed to pull the wool over the eyes of gullible voters, that are more interested in justifying their prejudices than having a meaningful discussion on the issues that face the nation. Is this not so?

Fred Garvin
Fred Garvin's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2010
Gort

You can't be serious. Right Wing stink tank? These are Obama's own words, you moron!

Obama, though he pretends not to know anything about it –through his minions, can unleash the Internal Revenue Service against citizens he disagrees with; can unleash his bureaucracy to sell weapons illegally to Mexican cartels; if he can unleash his Attorney General to go after federalism in the states; to eviscerate our immigration laws; to trash the appointments clause in the Constitution; to defy the Commerce clause in the Constitution; to attack the 1st Amendment; the 2nd Amendment; the 4th Amendment; the 5th Amendment; the 9th Amendment; and the 10th Amendment; then, by God, it is time for the Americans to say "We have power, too. We will exercise it to the full extent that we can, and we call this president out of control and any acts that violate the Constitution, from our perspective, are null and void, and we encourage people of these United States not to comply with them."

Obama is an out-of-control egomaniac. His impeachment is on the horizon.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Fred Garvin, you do realize,

Fred Garvin, you do realize, it was people, (talking like you,) that got Pres Obama elected to his second term? (Come to think of it, his first term too.)

Keep up the good work and don’t let anyone stop you from huffing on that right wing fog, puffing out that right wing venom, and scarring the crap out of all those swing voters.

Moses in PTC
Moses in PTC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/06/2012
Liberalism

That leftist politics is tied to liberalism is a farce. This being one of the many reasons I find Mr Sowell to be more more in the business of entertainment than taking part in any meaningful social discourse. He does this in much the same way as Obama plays the role of court jester. The primary difference between them seems to be both the angle of Cheshire cat grin and who has their finger on the button of a hellfire missile. But neither is a liberal.

While in college I happened to enroll in a women's studies class, women and work. My final paper on the class was a compendium of the prior 20 years of bureau of labor statistics and over 100 academic studies. Faced with the fact that the numbers did not agree with the left's convention wisdom I relied almost entirely on math as my form of presentation. There is a point in statistical theory where experts may argue, quite rightly, about what the appropriate approach is to analyzing data. The problem for me was that the data was so overwhelmingly pointed to a debunking of the gender wage disparity that I couldn't present a case otherwise. The best I could do was highlight the narrow areas where a gap could be found if you chose to ignore vast chunks of the work force, and that is with certain traditionally male blue collar jobs. Of course I was crushed by my professor. She did not care for numbers, she wanted devotion to political ideology. The parsing of facts was just too troublesome.

I won't argue the gender gap here as there is not enough room. But anyone who hasn't taken the care to perform their own serious study should probably do so before yakking about it. I urge this in the name of liberalism. Liberalism is a school of thought, not a fashionable political term to be worn like some rotting ermine around the throat of political wonks pointing crooked and jeweled fingers at the seething masses of the disagreeable.

I point this out because of the revolting confusion between the terms "left" and "liberal". When someone like David's Mom asks for studies, or points to studies, and lays out piles of tripe on these pages she is labeled as liberal. Nothing could be further from the truth. She is a contemporary lefty. If she were liberal she would not need someone else's study, she would have done the work on her own. The most vocal of lefties fail on every single issue that they espouse. Why does anyone need to see studies on the Affordable Care Act when they can read it on their own. It is free and is less than 1,000 pages. Most states insurance commissioners and attorneys general have issued opinions. We only have 50 states so how hard can it be to just pick them up and read them? Almost everything about it, except for the meetings between Obama and health insurance company executives, is available and free. Same goes for labor stats and trends. Read them. Analyze them. Do the math. If you are not well versed in statistics then enroll in a class and get good at it. And on almost every topic that inevitably results in an arrows being launched at targets that are alternatively labeled "left" and "liberal" highlight ignorance on the part of the right of just what these terms mean. I am acquainted with some pretty right leaning folks who are actually quite liberal. Being a liberal myself I am horrified with this obfuscation.

And this goes out to everyone looking for some easy to read and thoughtless news snippet. STOP. Read the source material for yourself. Read ALL of it. Think on it. Sweat over it. Be brave enough to allow facts that don't coincide with what was said on Fox or MSNBC to rattle your sense of self.

And on the topic of those best schools in America... While the majority of students at these schools have earned their way in via an academic record, the number of legacy students and racial admissions completely nullifies the reasonable expectation of any individual students capabilities or record of achievement. I went to school with idiots who came from wealthy and storied families. One particular flunky had even established a scholarship in his own name before graduating as he, and lots of other people, doubted he would graduate. His gift was a bit of insurance. Most kids are there for numbers, some for SATs and GPAs, some for guarantees to the university endowment, some for boosting cultural stats. When you meet an ivy league grad you have no way of knowing exactly which numbers got them a seat.

I am not defending any particular political point of view, I am defending what little remains of the honor and integrity of the word liberal. It is the product of thought and effort, not the adoption of a love for bashing the Tea Party or chattering about gay rights or feeling smug about your own misconceptions on the gender wage gap.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Moses

I agree with your concept of 'reading' for information. After one has 'read' - it is important to compare their findings to their own reality. What is your experience with being/understanding a working women in America? How does your experience compare with the 'statistics'? You don't have to denigrate an individual in order to establish your own creditability. Again, I'm a moderate, Democrat, black women, wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother - and yes - a social liberal in issues such as Civil Rights and women's issues.

When reading a well researched paper - filled with current statistics, etc. - one would then look for the authors analysis of their findings.

Moses said about David's Mom;

Quote:

She is a contemporary lefty. If she were liberal she would not need someone else's study, she would have done the work on her own.

It's dangerous to 'assume' without knowing 'facts'. You have the absolute right to feel that what I post is 'tripe'. The marvelous fact is that there are more in this discussion who post articles that contradict my findings.

I doubt that you would have passed the entrance exams to any of the institutions where I read some very interesting, well-researched student 'papers' that included excellent analysis based on observation, documented experience, and video interviews of creditable individuals with differing points of view. (AS WELL AS WELL-RESEARCHED STATISTICAL INFORMATION) A paper with only statistical information is the result of someone sitting in the library or in front of the computer. It is very seldom that one 'reads' such a paper in the 21st Century.
Thanks for sharing - and welcome.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Define

Define "Moderate" in your own words, in twenty five words or less.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

Give me your definition in 20 words or less. (Pithy, pithy) LOL!!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
According to DM

DM,

Now what's yours?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Moses in PTC, welcome to the

Moses in PTC, welcome to the forum and thank you for your thoughtful contribution so carefully written on this fine, cool, sunny, Sunday morning.

I have no doubt the statistics you site added up the way you said. However, in my experience, statistics sometimes don’t tell the whole story. Do your statistics say that ‘no’ women are subject to wage discrimination in the workplace?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Moses - Please

Your personal definition of "liberal" in twenty five words or less, please?

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
“Fact-Free” Sowell

Mr. Sowell describes graduates of America’s most prestigious universities as “educated, smart, and ignorant,” and then he enlightens us with his own superior understanding of American wealth distribution. He claims that suggestions of income inequality are thwarted by statistics from IRS records showing that highest earning 1% in 1996 saw their incomes fall by 26% ten years later. Why should this surprise anyone? People normally top out their incomes in the latter years of their employment. When they retire, their incomes are reduced substantially, but their wealth does not follow suit. Sowell’s damning statistics merely reflect a well-known phenomenon.

Sowell ignores the inconvenient, but more telling, data demonstrating that the bottom half of the wealth distribution remains virtually unchanged throughout their lifetimes. This may be a function of under-education, indolence, family training (or lack thereof), etc. However, it speaks more to the practical issue of wealth stagnation than anything to which he directs attention.

His discussion of the gender income gap was lifted (with few modifications) from PolitiFact. And his warning that correlation does not necessarily prove causation is a staple of the first lecture in virtually every statistics class.

Perhaps the adjectives “educated and ignorant” fairly fit Mr. Sowell, unless he is merely being deliberately disingenuous. Either way, it’s not very “smart.”

Fred Garvin
Fred Garvin's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2010
Wealth is not distributed

That's the problem with the bedwetting liberal left. They try to make people believe that wealth is "distributed" and not earned.

Wealth is earned by those willing to work for it. Those that choose to live off of others through government programs are destined for a life of poverty, as are their children who learn from their parents. It's an epidemic and a vicious cycle in some cultures, yet they choose this lifestyle instead of hard work and earning a decent wage.

Wealth is not distributed, but this is the current cry from the bedwetters.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
"Bedwetter" Paradox

I have noticed the paradoxical nature of the vituperation of people who offer any opinion other than radical right-wing ideology on this blog as “bedwetters.” Assuming that a bedwetter is a disparaging designation for an immature person (one too young to control his bladder throughout the night), the invective is amusing. Fundamentalists on either end of the political, religious, ideological, etc. spectrum cannot tolerate the cognitive dissonance that arises from consideration of the complexity that attends a thorough examination of modern culture and thought. Aspersion of critical thinkers with a term indicating immaturity renders the denunciation laughable to all but the fundamentalists who, unknowingly, are ridiculing no one other than themselves.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
STF, thanks for taking the

STF, thanks for taking the time to clue me in on the ‘Bed Wetter Paradox.’ Stupid me, I thought the term “Bed Wetter” was about all the Republican’s crying into their pillow at night after the last two Presidential elections. ; - )

Bump!

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
What do you consider an

What do you consider an inheritance, earned or distributed?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Inheritance - Gort

Why do you work? Why do you accumulate wealth? To spend it all in your lifetime or to leave it to your family?

You can choose to give your inheritance to you family or government, which would you freely choose to do? It's a personal decision, in that decision you are distributing it.

When the government decides that it should be the primary beneficiary of your wealth accumulation (after tax mind you), and enforces it with law. What is that? Robbery?

If you accumulate wealth for the future benefit of your family or friends then in the latter case, the government deprives you of your property and that of your progeny.

If you have life insurance Gort, why is it not taxed following your death? You pick your family as beneficiary but the proceeds aren't taxed, why is that? Could it be that it helps insurance companies sell insurance?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

Get a good financial advisor. Our current IRS laws almost make it a necessity to 'give away' some of our earnings to charity in order to keep funds for ourselves and our families. The more given to charities of your choice, the less percentage the 'government' gets.

Quote:

If you have life insurance Gort, why is it not taxed following your death? You pick your family as beneficiary but the proceeds aren't taxed, why is that? Could it be that it helps insurance companies sell insurance?

Could be - but at least the family has the funds to clear up bills, pay funeral expenses, etc. The Middle Class and poor seldom have the necessary funds to pay for current burial fees, etc. The cost of 'final arrangements' makes adequate Life Insurance a wise expenditure for most. There are those who have budgeted and saved for final expenses - most have not. Believe me, I for one am glad that those funds are not taxed - every penny was needed.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - I

I am my own good financial adviser.

You are only sheltering the tax you would have paid on the funds donated. So, the government is subsidizing charity. That's why Mr. Obama wants to eliminate the deduction for charity. That and the fact that he believes that the government is better at "distribution" than private charities. Improves politicians' chances of re-election too when they can use your money for these purposes.

BTW, the IRS is a political tool that targets people, so don't "give away" too much.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Obama wants to eliminate deductions for charity?

Maybe. Intersting from the Wall Street Journal:

Quote:

As we noted last year in the Journal, the Obamas gave $172,130, or roughly 21.8% of their adjusted gross income, to charity in 2011, and about 14.2% in 2010. That was up from 5.9% in 2009. The Obamas gave between 4.7% and 6.5% of their income to charity between 2005 and 2008, when their income was typically more than $1 million. From 2000 to 2004, with their income hovering around $250,000 a year, their rates of charitable giving averaged 0.9%.

The average charitable contribution for all households with itemized deductions — about 45.7 million households in all — was 3.8% in 2009

You said:.

Quote:

I am my own good financial adviser.

Of cpurse you are!!!!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - What's your point?

?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO-Point

Just seeing if you have anything to add to your narratives. Obviously there are those who disagree with both of us on certain issues - what would be interesting is a discussion on possible solutions that would help the American people.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, actually, I don’t work

PTC_0, actually, I don’t work any more. I just retired and ‘…layin’ around the shack, 'till that mail train gets back,..’ bring me my first social security check! (Direct deposit actually.)

When I did work, I did it to satisfy my needs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH04OsNuvcw

How about you, why do you work?

I used to have life insurance but starting this year I let it go. The kids are grown and have families of their own. If I die before my wife, she says she is going to become a ‘cougar,’ whatever that means. If my wife dies before me I told here I would never remarry. I would rent instead. Good plan if the plumbing holds up, eh? ; - )

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - nothing

Nothing like being "self actualized"

I work to accumulate wealth and whether or not you admit it, so did you.

Forced work for the collective, is enslavement.

Keep you pipes clean. ;-)

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, it could be you feel

PTC_0, it could be you feel ‘self actualized’ when you’re accumulating wealth. If that is so, than you’re living your dreams, I congratulate you, and as always, wish you well.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Thanks Gort

You too, I am certain that we could have many delightful conversations together, perhaps even a beer or two.

Accumulating "enough" wealth is always an individual decision but it also is balanced with the most important other things in our lives. It appears like you have that in your wife. I congratulate you and wish you well too.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Online
Joined: 01/28/2008
What do you think a Family should do with assets?

Do you think the family should be in control of them?

What are you implying with your query?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Spyglass, when I die, I will

Spyglass, when I die, I will leave what I have to my heirs. My point was the wealth they gained through my death was not earned. It was distributed.

This was in response to Fred Garvin's assertion that wealth can only be earned through hard work. I say it can, and is, distributed all the time. That kind of makes it a fact of life don’t it?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Distributed is still taxable according to Lois Lerner

and her ilk. What a terrible waste of tax dollars - meaning Ms. Lerner and her pension and health care.

Anyhoo, taxing the money your father or grandfather left to you is unconstitutional, illegal and immoral. The kids that have to sell the family farm to pay taxes should get pitchforks and torches and go to Washington and get rid of theses silly and stupid people.

Earned money or property that stays in the family should not be taxable. A person running a family farm that produces food for the nation should not be penalized and have his or her income be redirected to some welfare queen who sits on her butt and produces babies for federal dollars.

In fact, sometimes the farm gets shut down because of the taxes and no food is produced. Sometimes no taxes either. Might need to get Obama's replacement to think this one through,

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Online
Joined: 01/28/2008
Fair enough

But it wasn't distributed at the point of a gun.

But I readily admit I do not want people starving in the streets, some welfare ie wealth distribution is necessary in my opinion.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Spy, distributions are never

Spy, distributions are never handed out at the point of a gun,… the collections, well sometimes! ; - )

Personally, I think the term ‘wealth distribution’ and the mental image it portrays is partly to blame for the divisiveness of the issue. The term was created for just that purpose.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Spy - And

you think the government is the best way to get this done? They can't even run a spy agency right.

Why don't we ask Bill Gates? Maybe he'll just turn all of his money over to the government.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SPY!!
Quote:

What do you think a Family should do with assets?

According to the study that I shared - for Middle Class families in 2014 - what assets? The answer years ago would be to 'invest'/ 'save'/etc.. What are you assuming in your query ? And please correct my misinformation. Thanks.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
STF - That's

Doctor Sowell.

Just reference your extensive work in this area, then perhaps we may allow you the diagnosis of "not very smart" based on your work in economics.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
An interesting video

From Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ

This is what some see as the reality in our country. Is there a study that contradicts this?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO/FRED GARVIN - PLEASE HELP

No comment to the video regarding the reality of wealth in our country? Surely you have your expert references that would help the rest of us to understand our erroneous thinking. We need your input so that we can become as learned as you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Pay close attention

Pay close attention to this DM, I don't disagree with the video. The question is why is there an apparent distortion with wealth in America?

Have you ever considered why things have changed over the last 30 to 40 years in wealth distribution? Do you see any correlation at all with the growth of government? Do you understand that when you attempt to "redistribute" it cause economic distortion?

Now consider this DM, crony capitalism, do you know what this term means? Neo-capitalism is not free market DM, it is an outgrowth of political favor and protection of vested interests.

Corporations learned a long time ago, that is much easier to gain control over the government apparatus for protection of markets, than it is to compete in a free market. Corporations, line not only politicians pockets but the owners and CEO's as well. They could never survive in a free market. History is replete with examples DM.

That DM, is the reason for the wealth distortion. Give me an example of any large corporation that isn't in bed with the government. There are only a few exceptions.

Now, who pays for this? Well it's the middle class, and as you inflate prices for everyday products, you suppress the middle class and it gets smaller. You may rail against corporations and the unfair nature of wealth distribution DM, but unless you free markets to operate without government interference, the middle class is doomed. Oh yes, Obamacare is a great example of how the middle class will pay for every new government "invention".

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

DM, but unless you free markets to operate without government interference, the middle class is doomed. Oh yes, Obamacare is a great example of how the middle class will pay for every new government "invention".

Tell us what you see as the consequence of freeing the market to operate without government interference.

There are those in the new class of the 'working poor' who are grateful for the government invention of Social Security; Medicare; and Medicaid. Interesting and challenging dilemma.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

What is your solution? Citizens of our great country look forward to your answer!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Solutions

Here are my solutions that I have posted here before on numerous occasions. I am sure you disagree with most if not all. Now where's yours? Don't give us your kumbaya speech, it's dull.

So, what can we do? Well there are a number of things that can be done but it takes an educated and informed citizenry to demand them. Unfortunately, government run schools have destroyed the ability for most people to think independently. Believe me even the teachers believe the stuff they are teaching because they too were educated in government schools. Sadly most are simply unable to see beyond this propaganda. So here are things that can be done, no matter how unrealistic they may seem at the moment, there will come a time when people will be looking for different answers.

1. Above all else, restrict the vote to those that create wealth. If you work for the government, or derive your income in any way from the government, you can't vote. It is a conflict of interest.

2. Limit the terms of government officials, six years for Senators and two terms for Representatives. Define a limit for all others. Eliminate the professional political class.

3. Dramatically reduce central government spending; at a minimum significantly reduce the rate of spending increase.

4. Reduce taxes just above the rate of reduction in spending – net result is to reduce spending more than taxes thus reducing the national debt.

5. Recognize and reward risk taking, savings and capital formation –
a. Incent innovation by giving tax credits on R&D expenditures, possibly 110% of expenditures.
b. Reduce capital gains taxes to zero
c. Eliminate inheritance taxes
d. Overhaul patent laws that are outmoded.
e. Eliminate taxes on savings interest

5. Attack the problems related to Trial Lawyers – Tort reform in every sector of the economy – key provision is to make the loser pay the bill.

6. Minimize government regulation and thus unleash the full intellectual capacity of the country. Remember that regulation does two things to make the country less competitive; a. it drains resources away from productive effort, and b. it comparatively puts the US at competitive disadvantage to those countries that have no such regulations. Pass legislation to toughen penalties on defective products, and negligence by unprincipled businessmen. Throw the book at them when they are guilty no matter how wealthy they are.

7. Drive government decision making to the local level and give local authorities more say on how they use the people’s money. It makes no sense to send money to the central government and have them give it back to local government. It is not efficient from a economic standpoint.

8. Reduce military spending as a percentage of GDP – we don’t need to be the world’s police. Protect our boarders and our people at home. Build the wall on the southern border or whatever it takes to protect our national sovereignty

9. Eliminate corporate welfare – we need to stop protecting unproductive neo-capitalists.

10. Get out of Banking & “private” business – initial efforts to inflate the money supply following the collapse of weaker institutions was the right thing to do to avert a panic and the FED may need to do this again, but government needs to let weaker banks and other companies fail no matter how big they are. If they can’t compete they can’t compete, just that simple.

11. Incent legal immigration of scientists, physicians, nurses, mathematicians, and wealthy individuals to the United States.

12. Slowly dismantle the Federal Reserve Bank (a private bank that controls the money supply). Bitcoin may be a good option.

13. Return to a gold standard or something like it. For those that don’t understand this notion, the reason we have major cycles in our economy is due primarily to the FED trying to manipulate the money supply. Tie the currency to a precious metal and currency can’t inflate because you can increase the supply of the metal quickly.

14. Require the Senate to confirm judicial appointments within a session or the appointee gets a pass into the court system without a Senate vote. If the appointee is appointed late in a session they have until the end of the next session.

If we do these things at a minimum, we will ignite the mighty engine once again. Fail to do these things and we will fall into the dark abyss of financial collapse.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Some Great Ideas

Some of these suggestions are wonderful, but I'd like the line-item veto. It would be great to implement 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 14 today!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Thanks STF

At least there's some support, but it's best implemented and most effective as a package deal.

I would suppose DM is happy I am not king! ;-)

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Your Solutions

You're right! I disagree when one limits citizen responsibility to participate in governance by not following/ignoring key elements in the United States Constitution. (Sorry - a little over 20 words-but I'm sure you get the point)

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - US Constitution

please refer me to the section that gives us the "right" to vote?

The vote, in a Republic is limited. I am suggesting a way to limit it and thereby eliminate the raiding of the treasury by those that directly benefit from government largess.

One chooses to be employed by the government DM, no one forces you.

Your solutions?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO - your're wakina a big giant. Thanks!

There are others in our country who are aware of the tactics of those who would try to limit the right to vote in this country. You and your kind are identified and will be fought in every state in this country. Hopefully, this will not be tied to the Republican Party - for if it is, there goes the minority and women's vote. Citizens will vote in 2014 if the right to vote is threatened. I have the RIGHT to work where I am deemed qualified - without losing my right as a US Citizen to vote.

We're not asleep!

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/component/flexicontent/item/64196-pro...

Other solutions that you mentioned - some have merit - but when you tackle the right of a citizen to vote because of where they work - there are families in this country that have lost relatives and friends to assure that all citizens in this country had the right to vote in every state - regardless of their politicall affiliation or where they 'work'..

LongTimer
LongTimer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2013
DM - No Right to Vote, its a privilege!

Sorry but no where does it state that we have the Right to Vote. Its a Privilege.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/may/30/mark-pocan/us...

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Long Timer - "Right" to vote

It is interesting that nearly everyone in the country believes they have the "Right" to vote. The fact that the Constitution was amended to prohibit discrimination based on gender and race was an indication that voting should not be prohibited based on the nature of birth. This is consistent with the aims of the foundation philosophy of liberty. If voting was a primary Right, then this "Right" would have been enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which it was not. Clearly, the founders did not want slaves or women to have this right and in fact most states limited voting further to those who owned tangible property. The idea was those people with property were less likely to want to give it up to the general citizenry.

The issue of "one man one vote" does not restrict a state's ability to limit the vote, The Supreme Court most notably in the Wesberry v. Sanders case merely ruled that in elections for the US House and for state legislative districts the populations had to contain roughly the same number of people. The issue here is that state legislatures also elect the electors for the Electoral College. There were no limitations on who could vote other than those prohibited by the Constitution.

Thus, my proposal has as it's central intention to limit the power of the political class by reducing the redistribution of wealth from one class to another. It is the vested interest of the political class that citizen should fear most. It has nothing to do with DM's assertion that it restricts voting based on color or gender. That would be unconstitutional and just wrong based on individual Rights.

The problem is as the political class becomes larger in numbers, it comes less likely that this can be turned back. The political class by its nature has greater incentive to vote than the non-political class. Small concentrated groups that are highly energized by plundering the middle class, will always vote in higher numbers. Unless those that are actually creating wealth stand up for their property Rights, I am afraid that it will end poorly for everyone.

Who do you want running your affairs, you or the mob?

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers." - Aristotle

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Don't try to limit the privilege

Trying to base the privilege on skin color or gender will not be acceptable in the 21st century. Sorry (some) fellas!

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
wakina?????

I didn't understand the meaning of DM's new word "wakina" so I Googled it!!! WOW

wildcat
wildcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/12/2006
"Wow" is right!!

That is too funny!!!

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
G35, thanks, I just pulled a

G35, thanks, I just pulled a muscle in my back!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Deleted

by poster

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Are

Are you not paying attention on purpose?

1. It has nothing to do with race, gender or political affiliation.
2. You have the option to apply anywhere you choose to apply for work. If you are offered a job, you are free to work anywhere.
3. You have no right to vote simply because you are a citizen.
4. You do not have to apply for work for the government.

"wakina a big giant"? Yes, I suppose there are a lot of people that rely on the government for work. That's the problem. You know what? They'll just keep voting themselves more plunder from the middle class. You know those people that you harp about caring about?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO - WAKE UP!
Quote:

1. It has nothing to do with race, gender or political affiliation.

Really? Check the demographics of government workers. You look at what you consider your common sense solution. Others look at the consequences of your common sense solutions. WAKE UP PTCO! You are being used!

But please keep posting. People/voters are carefully listening as they did in the last election. Huckleby and Rand are setting the stage. Interesting.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - What do you

mean DM?

Are you saying that government workers are biased by race, gender and political affiliation? Government should be blind DM, so it shouldn't matter. Government workers should look like the typical cross section of the American population based on age, gender and race. After all that's what the government preaches on a daily basis..... equal unbiased opportunity.

Right?

The consequences of my common sense solutions will result in a stronger more vibrant economy, plenty of jobs and most importantly a much smaller government. Those things will engender personal responsibility and stronger family ties. Thanks for calling it "common sense" because it is indeed common sense.

“Common sense ain't common.” ― Will Rogers

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

The consequences of my common sense solutions will result in a stronger more vibrant economy, plenty of jobs and most importantly a much smaller government. Those things will engender personal responsibility and stronger family ties. Thanks for calling it "common sense" because it is indeed common sense.

If the libertarians/republicans use this as their platform, the democrats have national elections sewed up for generations! Not allowing citizens to vote if they work for government! Job discrimination in the US! Common sense? The elected leaders, who are paid by 'government' couldn't vote. .?????? LOL

To arrive at ideal 'should be's', we first have to be honest about 'what is'.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Politicians DM

Politicians, having the character and motivation that they have, you have nothing to worry about DM, nothing will change. What "is", is what you seem to complain about, what "is" will not change as long as we have vested interests in the pockets of the country's citizens.

If you really want change for the better, you had best change your philosophy. I am sure that franchise "entitlement" doesn't allow for this however.

BTW, elected leaders especially couldn't vote as well as their staffs. There is no job discrimination in my proposal, anyone can freely decide to apply for a job with the government, they would have the foreknowledge that they couldn't vote before they did so.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

you have nothing to worry about DM, nothing will change.

For over 50 years, I have seen great change in this country. I worry when change stagnates because of ideas of those who are afraid of 'change'.

The attraction of our governance has been the opportunity of the 'unwashed' to advance through education, hard work, and belief in the human spirit regardless of color, station of birth, gender, religion, etc. if you want to see a revolution in this country- try to take away the privilege of the vote. Maybe that is your purpose, and the not so hidden purpose of the racists who are jumping on the bandwagon.

Denigrate progress in relations in this country - and that denigration has the power to divide this country beyond repair. Celebrate the diversity and inclusion that this country professes-and worldwide respect for Americans will continue. IMO.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Now

what exactly does all that mean DM? You want to keep things status quo. For over 50 years I have seen great change too. Some very good changes, many not so good. Those things you complain about, erosion of the middle class for example, are caused by the rise of the political elite and their minions

You defend the very thing that cause the things you complain about, so be it. No one is "denigrating" anyone with this proposition, unless you consider that it may degrade your ability to vote to take property from others.

As to my purpose, I have made that clear on numerous occasions. It is a revolution of sorts, it's a revolution of ideas DM. An effort to entice people to think. Something that you not surprisingly reject given your egalitarian ideals. You know, it's important to think from time to time. You should open you mind and try it. If you're able.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

You know, it's important to think from time to time

No, we must think all the time! DM wants to maintain the status quo? Really? Progress is achieved through change, building on the success of the past, learning from past mistakes. Denying a citizen the 'privilege' of voting has proven to be a mistake in government. There are countries where some form of your idea is in operation. How are they doing?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Well

prove it.

Where's your solutions?

Better start it at the top of this string because we're going single column again.

Recent Comments