Elimination of Poverty, the Re-establishment of the Middle Class

Aunt Spiker · Jul 31, 2011

There wil always be poverty - and people in the middle - and people on top. Even if you don't abide by a class system.

:shrug:

Leave the people in the middle ALONE becaues the icon if being IN the Middle is that you're left ALONE - it's a perk . . . people come aroudn ot help me out and I'll tell them to **** off.

MusicAdventurer · Jul 31, 2011

LesGovt said:
I will agree that times are not good today or for the past two or three years. Prior to that, they were fine and they will be fine again. Advancement is still there in companies. People have always left employers or retired opening up positions. People get advancements and that opens up their positions. The opportunity is still there.

I thought we were talking about equal opportunity .. were we not?

LesGovt said:
They can and my son validates that and my daughter will, in time.

If he has and if she indeed does, you are very lucky, as living in a world that still needs work in the equal opportunity department, they will have beaten the odds (again not a sign of equal opportunity).

LesGovt said:
Opportunity is tougher during tough times and that is pretty much equal to all. However, you should not make these last three years the period for your judgment. Life is much longer than three or four years. Think how long the Great Depression lasted and people became successes who lived through that era.

Again, I agree with you that times have been tougher recently, however, things have gotten progressively worse(over many years) in terms of the spread between the wealthy and the poor (a sign of class immobility and a lower level of equal opportunity). Finally, you have still failed to prove equal opportunity.

We are clearly defining equal opportunity differently. You refuse to see that simply because a select few become wealthy who were once poor, does not mean that there is equal opportunity. Additionally, simply because a handful of people can make it from lower class to upper class, does not prove equal opportunity. We have explained this in previous posts (which you have failed to address). If you are not for everyone starting out on relatively the "same starting line" or close to it; you are not for what we consider equal opportunity. See, the key words here are equal and opportunity.

Equal defined: Evenly or fairly balanced http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=equa...gc.r_pw.&fp=4127f87725335d53&biw=1366&bih=643

Opportunity defined: A set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...gc.r_pw.&fp=9568cf83227661aa&biw=1366&bih=643

Now, if we put these two words together we come up with the following:

A set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something in an evenly and fairly balanced manner.

This is how we have been defining the term - it appears this is not how you have been defining the word

Therefore, we are not arguing over the same things - there was a disconnect in our communications. What we really are arguing is whether our version of the definition (see above) is what we should attempt to approach in society, or whether it should be your version of the definition. Clearly we disagree on how things should be in our society .. you think things should stay the same (hmmm.. a conservative thinking that .. how interesting) and we think a change is needed (hmmm .. progressive thinking wanting change .. how interesting) ...

LesGovt said:
Remember the glass is nearly full and not empty.

Actually, a glass that is half full is also half empty. Both are true .. neither is wrong, therefore the correct statement is "the glass is half full and half empty". There is nothing wrong with being a realist, as one can see the positive in things and see the things that need work all at the same time. However, it does take a certain level of maturity to handle such truths.

LesGovt said:
You are entitled to your opinion. I just hope you don't harm others who have a more positive outlook.

As are you .. and I hope your philosophy of ignoring things that need fixing does not end up resulting in the downfall of our society .. as many great visionaries have seen, change is inevitable, so why not make positive change

MusicAdventurer · Jul 31, 2011

Aunt Spiker said:
There wil always be poverty - and people in the middle - and people on top. Even if you don't abide by a class system.

:shrug:

Leave the people in the middle ALONE becaues the icon if being IN the Middle is that you're left ALONE - it's a perk . . . people come aroudn ot help me out and I'll tell them to **** off.

Agreed, we will never ride ourselves of those in the lowest ranks .. however, we may be able to lessen the hardship of those less fortunate than us

LesGovt · Jul 31, 2011

MusicAdventurer said:
You assume I take offense when I have not. I was simply referring to the neat, yet flawed, one-liner logic you were using.

Flawed? ROFLMAO!!! Sorry, but that one struck me as quite funny.

LesGovt · Jul 31, 2011

MusicAdventurer said:
I thought we were talking about equal opportunity .. were we not?

We are. Not sure why you think otherwise.

MusicAdventurer said:
If he has and if she indeed does, you are very lucky, as living in a world that still needs work in the equal opportunity department, they will have beaten the odds (again not a sign of equal opportunity).

Ah, beat the odds. Nope. I'm not lucky nor are my children. They are doing the right things.

MusicAdventurer said:
Again, I agree with you that times have been tougher recently, however, things have gotten progressively worse(over many years) in terms of the spread between the wealthy and the poor (a sign of class immobility and a lower level of equal opportunity). Finally, you have still failed to prove equal opportunity.

Not counting the current economic fiasco, times have not gotten worse and I hope you don't think your life is even close to those of the Depression Era. They are not. And, many of the men of that Era had to go fight a long war and then return home and make a success of it and they did. As I said previously, times today are not the best, but they were fine before and they will be again. Your glass is not have full or half empty. In this discussion, your glass is empty. As for proof, I am walking proof.

MusicAdventurer said:
We are clearly defining equal opportunity differently. You refuse to see that simply because a select few become wealthy who were once poor, does not mean that there is equal opportunity. Additionally, simply because a handful of people can make it from lower class to upper class, does not prove equal opportunity. We have explained this in previous posts (which you have failed to address). If you are not for everyone starting out on relatively the "same starting line" or close to it; you are not for what we consider equal opportunity. See, the key words here are equal and opportunity.

Yes, we do define equal opportunity differently. I did not bring up wealthy as the criteria nor did I really use it as a criteria. I believe that success is being self-sufficient and providing your family with all of their needs and some, if not all, of their wants. No one is guaranteed they will achieve millions and no one should be jealous or envious of those who do achieve it.

Equal defined: Evenly or fairly balanced Google

Opportunity defined: A set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something Google

Now, if we put these two words together we come up with the following:

A set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something in an evenly and fairly balanced manner.

This is how we have been defining the term - it appears this is not how you have been defining the word[/word]

I gave you my definition. It is the same definition that Americans have used for a couple of centuries. It probably has changed since the liberals began telling people that the deck is stacked against them and that they will not nor cannot achieve success. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

MusicAdventurer said:
Therefore, we are not arguing over the same things - there was a disconnect in our communications. What we really are arguing is whether our version of the definition (see above) is what we should attempt to approach in society, or whether it should be your version of the definition. Clearly we disagree on how things should be in our society .. you think things should stay the same (hmmm.. a conservative thinking that .. how interesting) and we think a change is needed (hmmm .. progressive thinking wanting change .. how interesting) ...

Of course you are a progressive. :roll:

MusicAdventurer said:
Actually, a glass that is half full is also half empty. Both are true .. neither is wrong, therefore the correct statement is "the glass is half full and half empty". There is nothing wrong with being a realist, as one can see the positive in things and see the things that need work all at the same time. However, it does take a certain level of maturity to handle such truths.

I did not say that your glass was half-full. I said it was empty.

MusicAdventurer said:
As are you .. and I hope your philosophy of ignoring things that need fixing does not end up resulting in the downfall of our society .. as many great visionaries have seen, change is inevitable, so why not make positive change

I ignore nothing. I know that equal opportunity exists and that it is up to the individual to make it happen. There is nothing that needs to change; except one little, but very important detail. People have to know that it is possible and ignore the nabobs of negativity, and practice the virtues that lead to success. It can happen, even if it might not happen for you.

MusicAdventurer · Jul 31, 2011

LesGovt said:
Does equal opportunity exist? You bet it does.

According to your definition of what equal opportunity should mean, sure it does.

LesGovt said:
Now, again, there are those who say that equal opportunity means that everyone has to start on the same line in order for equal opportunity to exist. Sorry, but that is hogwash.

According to you it is "Hogwash" and this is simply because you think that a society that tries to near equal opportunity is not one that starts everyone on the same relative line. So why would that be bad again .. starting everyone on the same starting line? Isn't that how they do it in the races? Perhaps you should start a motion to start allowing racing teams with more money to start ahead of all the other cars? What do you think? Would you support that? Why? Or Why not?

LesGovt said:
However, if you wish to tell yourself that the deck is stacked against you, I am convinced that you will prove yourself to be a psychic.

I think you are attempting to call up what is known in psychological jargon as a "self-fulfilling prophecy". There is something very real about such prophecies. However, if one were to fall prey to a self-fulfilling prophecy after realizing that the deck is stacked against them, there would almost certainly be more factors contributing to them not achieving wealth than simply acknowledging that the deck is stacked against them.

The reason for this is simple; many have the ability to see reality,i.e. acknowledge what is good as well as seeing what needs changing, become an advocates for change and still and at the same time do their best to better themselves, these people will have the best effect on society.

This is because they will have bettered themselves, become self-sufficient, enjoyed the positive things in life and become a contributing member of society, while at the same time fighting for more equality. Many successful people see that there is not equality and that is why they lobby against it. Did they fall prey to a self-fulfilling prophecy which says "everyone is doomed"? No they did not, this is because some people can understand that things aren't always black and white. The mature person realizes that most of life is grey and two sided. The strong person, pushes through and fights the bad without putting their head in the sand and takes the time to enjoy the good.

LesGovt said:
On the other hand, if you tell yourself that equal opportunity exists and that you can succeed, the chances are good that you will succeed. You may not succeed too; however, your real chances of succeeding come from a positive and not a negative outlook.

For some, this may be true. Some are happy with the status quo and unwilling to open their eyes. Also some can have a negative outlook and suffer as a result. However, there is another way (thank goodness, lol

) and that is as explained above; the strong person who fights for injustices, betters him/her self and enjoys the positive things in life. Things do not have to be black or white; but it may be easier for people to think that way.

LesGovt said:
I have told my children [now both are adults] that the world is theirs. They can have whatever part of it they wish to have. All they need to do is practice the positive virtues of self-discipline, personal responsibility, hard work, honesty, tenacity, frugality, etc. I told them not to listen to the naysayers and become familiar with what it means to have PMA.

I agree with these sentiments; I have been told this and I tell my children this, but I also try not to shield them from reality too much as they will one day have to live in it. However, if they come to see the world as it really is (gray or two-sided, not black and white), there will be a painful process they will have to go through to reconcile new information. I have seen it many times; its what psychologists refer to as a change in world view, i.e. they come to see the world in a different light. Some who run into challenges to their black and white thinking cannot handle it and shut down (put their head in the sand) and others decide to rethink their world view and continually change the way they look at things as new information is retrieved from the world. Change in society usually rests on those who see the world for its good and its bad things. This is not an easy path though. As a wise person once said "ignorance is bliss".

LesGovt said:
So far, my son is doing quite well and loves what he is doing. My daughter is struggling a bit, but she is close to graduating summa laude from a local university and years of night school and raising two kids on her own while working. I anticipate her career to take off soon. Incidentally, she has known poverty too. She has the virtues to make a success of herself and my bet is that she will one day outshine her brother.

I am sure they will both do fine. It seems like you have taught them what they need to better themselves. I am sure you will love them even if they do not meet your expectations. From what I can tell so far, you seem like someone who has great intentions and any child should be lucky enough to have a parent who thinks so highly of them and has such faith in them. My parents were the same way with me and my siblings and we have all bettered ourselves significantly. I think the most important ingredient is simply showing our children that we love them by doing the best we can do raise them right and with warm affection and pride.

LesGovt said:
So, again, I say to you, "Don't tell me equal opportunity does not exist." It does. As you have probably figured out by now, you cannot convince me otherwise. So, with that in mind, I might stick around to take on my detractors immediately after this posting, but soon I will depart from this discussion. If you want to argue against equal opportunity, I will let you, but I want no part of it.

Yes, I have figured out that we are viewing the word equal opportunity in different ways. I think you see now that no one was saying that there should be equal results; we were only saying that we should try to make a push toward equal placement on the starting line. Clearly you do not agree that his should be; I am still waiting for the rationale as to how anything else (other than our version of equal opportunity) would be fair.

I noticed that you are stating that you do not want to discuss this anymore (what equal opportunity means and which of our different definitions of it should be what we push for in society). I hope there was nothing that was said that offended you; I know I certainly was not trying to offend you. I can sometimes get a bit witty when debating, but I think that is O.K.

Finally, there is also the possibility that you do not have a rational explanation for why you do not want people to start at least on similarly place starting lines; I hope this is not the case, as I am interested in the rationale for your steadfast refusal to support a movement to progress into a society that favors equal starting points for all.

Patrickt · Jul 31, 2011

Government funded higher education just as other industrialized nations do

Oh, that's wonderful but for how long? I have friends who've been going to school for 20 years and don't seem to have any intention of stopping.
In what fields? A friend of mine has a Ph.D. in French Literature and hasn't worked in years. Another friend has a master's degree and hasn't had a steady job in 45 years.

Cut out tax loopholes for the rich to benefit the lower and middle class

It took me a minute to realize what you're saying is "Raise taxes on them and give to me." Seems I've heard that before.

Start disallowing outsourcing to other countries for lower wages

And what if they were moving because of oppressive and unnecessary regulations? Do you still force them into slavery? What if they're moving because they would like to work where the King isn't allied with criminal organizations bent on their destruction? How about they want to be in a country where the King doesn't brag about his intention to bankrupt them. Would you just force them into servitude based on wages?

Institute a flat tax
Fantasy.

Disallow those in poverty to have children
I understand the liberal desire to control, well, everything but I don't see how this is possible. Most of us were, at one point, poor. Some of us got a job and quit being poor. Some don't. So, a permanent solution to no kids wouldn't work. And what about people who weren't poor but the Democrats drove them into poverty? Do they have to surrender their children or do we suddenly discover that post-natal abortion is in the Constitution?

This is not possible; we will always have poverty and no middle class

Obviously, as long as poverty is defined as a certain percentage at the bottem, even if the "poor" have nice homes, lovely electronic appliances, cars, and excellent medical care they will still be "poor" and we will still hear rhetoric about starving children and we will still be taxed to help them. We already have some poor people on the dole living better than some people going to work every day.

There should always be poverty
Only if you're a liberal. Liberals need poverty.

cpwill · Jul 31, 2011

MusicAdventurer said:
Agreed, we will never ride ourselves of those in the lowest ranks .. however, we may be able to lessen the hardship of those less fortunate than us

if you take the money spent on poverty reduction, and divide it by the number of poor people in this country, you have enough to raise each individual above the poverty line.

i submit that if we aren't seeing those kinds of results with that kind of spending, maybe we aren't doing it right....

earthworm · Jul 31, 2011

36 responded with "disallow those in poverty from having children".
What kind of people do we have here ?
Tea baggers ?

earthworm · Jul 31, 2011

cpwill said:
if you take the money spent on poverty reduction, and divide it by the number of poor people in this country, you have enough to raise each individual above the poverty line.

i submit that if we aren't seeing those kinds of results with that kind of spending, maybe we aren't doing it right....

A fool and his money are soon parted....
Solution....education
But it has been demonstrated that education can only go so far..
My solution is a "better people", ones less likely to steal from the poor.
I propose "communications reform"
No more lying, no more small print, forcing advertisers to tell the truth...this includes the politicians.

UtahBill · Jul 31, 2011

earthworm said:
A fool and his money are soon parted....
Solution....education
But it has been demonstrated that education can only go so far..
My solution is a "better people", ones less likely to steal from the poor.
I propose "communications reform"
No more lying, no more small print, forcing advertisers to tell the truth...this includes the politicians.

So the better educated must have ethics? and not use their education against those with less education? Damn anti-capitalist !!!!
that was sarcasm, just in case....
Assuming equal opportunity was achieved, we still have unequal levels of intellect, ambition, etc. People related variables are the hardest to determine.
I think it is safe to say that in the USA nearly all of us can do well in life, if we want to..... and IF the amount of opportunities match the numbers wanting to take advantage of them.Right now, we have fairly equal, but limited opportunites....
Gots to have jobs or there is no moving up the food chain...

cpwill · Jul 31, 2011

earthworm said:
36 responded with "disallow those in poverty from having children".
What kind of people do we have here ?
Tea baggers ?

you appear to have tea party supporters confused with progressives and members of the Obama Administration.

cpwill · Jul 31, 2011

earthworm said:
A fool and his money are soon parted....
Solution....education
But it has been demonstrated that education can only go so far..

actually it's been demonstrated that the government sucks at providing education , especially when it does so with a unionized workforce.

My solution is a "better people", ones less likely to steal from the poor.
I propose "communications reform"
No more lying, no more small print, forcing advertisers to tell the truth...this includes the politicians.

oh yes of course. and then we can press the "no more crime" button and solve that issue as well

.

LesGovt · Jul 31, 2011

MusicAdventurer said:
According to your definition of what equal opportunity should mean, sure it does.

According to you it is "Hogwash" and this is simply because you think that a society that tries to near equal opportunity is not one that starts everyone on the same relative line. So why would that be bad again .. starting everyone on the same starting line? Isn't that how they do it in the races? Perhaps you should start a motion to start allowing racing teams with more money to start ahead of all the other cars? What do you think? Would you support that? Why? Or Why not?

I have no need to propose any measure. The better question would be for you and what equal outcome program do you propose so that everyone is on the same equal result starting line? Do you propose even more coercive transfer of wealth from those who made the most of equal opportunity to give to those who did not?

MusicAdventurer said:
I think you are attempting to call up what is known in psychological jargon as a "self-fulfilling prophecy". There is something very real about such prophecies. However, if one were to fall prey to a self-fulfilling prophecy after realizing that the deck is stacked against them, there would almost certainly be more factors contributing to them not achieving wealth than simply acknowledging that the deck is stacked against them.

I thought psychologists were to tell people how they can become the best they can be and not to tell them, "Sorry, you are not the son of a lawyer. You cannot succeed in life so just lie down and take a break." I'm beginning to think I may have been mistaken.

MusicAdventurer said:
The reason for this is simple; many have the ability to see reality,i.e. acknowledge what is good as well as seeing what needs changing, become an advocates for change and still and at the same time do their best to better themselves, these people will have the best effect on society.

You view telling people that the deck is stacked against them is helpful? Wow!

MusicAdventurer said:
This is because they will have bettered themselves, become self-sufficient, enjoyed the positive things in life and become a contributing member of society, while at the same time fighting for more equality. Many successful people see that there is not equality and that is why they lobby against it. Did they fall prey to a self-fulfilling prophecy which says "everyone is doomed"? No they did not, this is because some people can understand that things aren't always black and white. The mature person realizes that most of life is grey and two sided. The strong person, pushes through and fights the bad without putting their head in the sand and takes the time to enjoy the good.

Yep, saying that you cannot succeed because the deck is stacked against you will cause people to jump with joy and want to better themselves.

MusicAdventurer said:
For some, this may be true. Some are happy with the status quo and unwilling to open their eyes. Also some can have a negative outlook and suffer as a result. However, there is another way (thank goodness, lol ) and that is as explained above; the strong person who fights for injustices, betters him/her self and enjoys the positive things in life. Things do not have to be black or white; but it may be easier for people to think that way.

Unless you go totally socialist, your utopia will never exist, but then your utopia would destroy all motivation to succeed. But, then the lawyer and the ditch digger would be equal.

MusicAdventurer said:
I agree with these sentiments; I have been told this and I tell my children this, but I also try not to shield them from reality too much as they will one day have to live in it. However, if they come to see the world as it really is (gray or two-sided, not black and white), there will be a painful process they will have to go through to reconcile new information. I have seen it many times; its what psychologists refer to as a change in world view, i.e. they come to see the world in a different light. Some who run into challenges to their black and white thinking cannot handle it and shut down (put their head in the sand) and others decide to rethink their world view and continually change the way they look at things as new information is retrieved from the world. Change in society usually rests on those who see the world for its good and its bad things. This is not an easy path though. As a wise person once said "ignorance is bliss".

I am not sure who you think is ignorant, but you have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.

MusicAdventurer said:
I am sure they will both do fine. It seems like you have taught them what they need to better themselves. I am sure you will love them even if they do not meet your expectations. From what I can tell so far, you seem like someone who has great intentions and any child should be lucky enough to have a parent who thinks so highly of them and has such faith in them. My parents were the same way with me and my siblings and we have all bettered ourselves significantly. I think the most important ingredient is simply showing our children that we love them by doing the best we can do raise them right and with warm affection and pride.

"Son, you are not equal to others. You are not the son of a lawyer. You cannot succeed in this life." Isn't this your version of love and affection?

MusicAdventurer said:
Yes, I have figured out that we are viewing the word equal opportunity in different ways. I think you see now that no one was saying that there should be equal results; we were only saying that we should try to make a push toward equal placement on the starting line. Clearly you do not agree that his should be; I am still waiting for the rationale as to how anything else (other than our version of equal opportunity) would be fair.

I understand that you want even more wealth transfer.

MusicAdventurer said:
I noticed that you are stating that you do not want to discuss this anymore (what equal opportunity means and which of our different definitions of it should be what we push for in society). I hope there was nothing that was said that offended you; I know I certainly was not trying to offend you. I can sometimes get a bit witty when debating, but I think that is O.K.

I have a very thick skin and nothing you can say will offend me. I just try to stay away as much as possible from negativity.

MusicAdventurer said:
Finally, there is also the possibility that you do not have a rational explanation for why you do not want people to start at least on similarly place starting lines; I hope this is not the case, as I am interested in the rationale for your steadfast refusal to support a movement to progress into a society that favors equal starting points for all.

I am not for a totally socialist state.

UtahBill · Jul 31, 2011

cpwill said:
actually it's been demonstrated that the government sucks at providing education , especially when it does so with a unionized workforce.

oh yes of course. and then we can press the "no more crime" button and solve that issue as well .

Govt provided education is adequate in most places....crime is low in most places.....
If you live in one of the high crime poor education places, move to a better place as soon as you can....

Povery will never be eliminated, too many people willfully choose to be poor.

Dittohead not! · Jul 31, 2011

OK, so I've been gone a while, and got a little behind on this thread. Skimming some of the posts, reading here and there, it appears that there are some people arguing that we actually have equality of opportunity.

The kid who grew up without a dad, mom on welfare, in the middle of gang territory, has the same opportunity as the one who grew up in a nuclear family with adequate resources to provide food, shelter, education, medical care, perhaps a little entertainment and some travel.

Surely, no one is arguing such a thing, are they?

I must be mistaken.

OhIsee.Then · Jul 31, 2011

UtahBill said:
....
Povery will never be eliminated, too many people willfully choose to be poor.

By willful do you mean obstinate or intentional? And, what % of the poor do you think are willful? thx

OhIsee.Then · Jul 31, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
... it appears that there are some people arguing that we actually have equality of opportunity.
Surely, no one is arguing such a thing, are they?...

Not me................

Alyssa · Jul 31, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
OK, so I've been gone a while, and got a little behind on this thread. Skimming some of the posts, reading here and there, it appears that there are some people arguing that we actually have equality of opportunity.

The kid who grew up without a dad, mom on welfare, in the middle of gang territory, has the same opportunity as the one who grew up in a nuclear family with adequate resources to provide food, shelter, education, medical care, perhaps a little entertainment and some travel.

Surely, no one is arguing such a thing, are they?

I must be mistaken.

No, unfortunately, you are not mistaken.

UtahBill · Jul 31, 2011

OhIsee.Then said:
By willful do you mean obstinate or intentional? And, what % of the poor do you think are willful? thx

OF people I know and have known over the years, many willfully spend their money on too many trips to fast food stores, cases of beer and wine, cartons of smokes, a cell phone for every member of the family over 12, cable or satellite TV, internet, 2 NEW cars, the latest and greatest flat screen TV, myriad electronic gadgets that they don't need, etc.
They are consider poor by too many people, but not me. I have no pity for those who spend themselves poor.
We will never have completely equal opportunity, but we have many options that most qualify for.
Those who CAN'T, we should help, those who WON'T should have to go it alone.

Alyssa · Jul 31, 2011

UtahBill said:
OF people I know and have known over the years, many willfully spend their money on too many trips to fast food stores, cases of beer and wine, cartons of smokes, a cell phone for every member of the family over 12, cable or satellite TV, internet, 2 NEW cars, the latest and greatest flat screen TV, myriad electronic gadgets that they don't need, etc.
They are consider poor by too many people, but not me. I have no pity for those who spend themselves poor.
We will never have completely equal opportunity, but we have many options that most qualify for.
Those who CAN'T, we should help, those who WON'T should have to go it alone.

I agree, but how does one make those distinctions? Should the DHS worker go to people's houses and count who all has cable and flat screens?

MusicAdventurer · Jul 31, 2011

LesGovt said:
Ah, beat the odds. Nope. I'm not lucky nor are my children. They are doing the right things.

No doubt they are .. by the way .. are they among the small group of individuals in the U.S. who own the majority of the country's wealth (i.e. are they multimillionaires or better?)? Probably not, but I could give you the benefit of the doubt. Either way, as I said before it sounds like they are doing things right .. however, they are lucky to have parents who raised them well and they have "beat the odds"; if they are not multimillionaires the odds were still against them, but more in their favor than if they were multimillionaires. I think that if the only people you spend time with are people who have, in your opinion, been successful ... then your data supporting your argument is flawed, i.e. the sample size is too small and you have not sampled any poor or extremely wealthy people. It would take many thousands of people to make a statistically significant argument that cites examples as proof of your argument. As of now, you only have an untested hypothesis. In cases where you have no reliable data, it is always best to speak theoretically rather than bring up sparse examples.

LesGovt said:
Not counting the current economic fiasco, times have not gotten worse and I hope you don't think your life is even close to those of the Depression Era. They are not. And, many of the men of that Era had to go fight a long war and then return home and make a success of it and they did. As I said previously, times today are not the best, but they were fine before and they will be again.

Again, I am not seeing how this is an argument against pushing for equal opportunity as we've defined it. Simply because things were worse at one time does not mean we cannot continue to try to make things better.

LesGovt said:
Yes, we do define equal opportunity differently. I did not bring up wealthy as the criteria nor did I really use it as a criteria. I believe that success is being self-sufficient and providing your family with all of their needs and some, if not all, of their wants. No one is guaranteed they will achieve millions and no one should be jealous or envious of those who do achieve it.

Exactly, no one is guaranteed millions - we never said this is bad. I think this may be another disconnect because I never suggested that people should be "guaranteed" millions. That would be ridiculous .. people do not need millions to live without hardship. Instead, we are saying that people should start off around the same starting line or at least bridge the gap a little so a few do not have such an extremely huge head start.

LesGovt said:
Of course you are a progressive.

Progressive defined: A person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas Google

I like new ideas ..don't you? I am sure the new idea that African Americans were not lesser people was a great thing for humanity. As is the case with many reforms .. didn't people believe the earth was flat at one time?

You know, I don't know about those progressives, their awful unreasonable .. why can't they just stick to the status quo .. no change is good ... LOL!

LesGovt said:
I did not say that your glass was half-full. I said it was empty.

Well that was awful nice of you

... clearly we disagree as I see a glass that has has 50% water and 50% atmosphere in it as being both half full and half empty .. this is the reasonable logical description of what exists .. I do not think any scientist would disagree .. I dunno, perhaps some scientists are not logical in their thinking, maybe it's just me .. who knows

LesGovt said:
I ignore nothing.

Your extremely selective manner of replying suggests that you actually do ignore things, especially those that are hardest to argue against. You see, when one debates, his or her argument is strengthened .. hey I didn't make up the rules, so don't shoot the messenger

LesGovt said:
I know that equal opportunity exists and that it is up to the individual to make it happen.

Of course, your version of what equal opportunity should be exists, no one said that it didn't. Additionally, of course making it as far as one can is up to the individual .. I don't think anyone is implying otherwise .. I think you are mistaking making equal starting points as unfair, when in actuality, the individual would still be responsible for succeeding.

LesGovt said:
There is nothing that needs to change

Wow! I am glad there wasn't too many people with this kind of thinking around when the many helpful reforms were put into place ... the instant we start to become complacent with a system that could improve, we fall behind and miss opportunities to grow

LesGovt said:
People have to know that it is possible and ignore the nabobs of negativity, and practice the virtues that lead to success. It can happen, even if it might not happen for you.

Very true, as soon as people begin to be negative about positive change, we have failed. Practicing virtues when considering social reform is very important. Adequate social reform may not happen during my lifetime; but it is encouraging to see good social reforms succeeding in other, more progressive countries. It appears we agree on more than you would like ...?

cpwill · Jul 31, 2011

evanescence said:
I agree, but how does one make those distinctions? Should the DHS worker go to people's houses and count who all has cable and flat screens?

the census did.

Dittohead not! · Jul 31, 2011

I can't help but wonder, are multimillionaires any happier than those who simply don't have to worry about paying the bills?

Of course, people who can't afford regular meals, can't go off to the mountains for the weekend, can't afford to pay the electric bill, aren't going to be very happy.

But, do we really need a big screen that is bigger than the brother in law has, a house the size of a Howard Johnson's, in a gated neighborhood, a private plane, a 60 foot yacht? Are people who have those things really happier? It is sounding more and more like "success" means having wealth beyond most people's wildest dreams.
What's wrong with just being comfortably well off?

What do we really need?

Aunt Spiker · Jul 31, 2011

cpwill said:
the census did.

Haha.

But you know - it's not that big of a deal. It's like asking who has a bookshelf or owns a bed. TV's have been around for so long and are so common you can walk into any pawnshop and buy one for CHEAPO - that comes with a remote.

do you remember remote TVs and how much they usee to cost when they were new? Holy poo - our kid's game tv finally died when I was 25 years old - we bought one at a pawnshop for $15

They're no longer a top dollar item - and lately I've seen that flat-screens aren't top-dollar, either . . . readily available used as well.

Elimination of Poverty, the Re-establishment of the Middle Class

How To Eliminate Poverty, Re-establish the Middle-Class? Check all you agree with

Government funded higher education just as other industrialized nations do

Cut out tax loopholes for the rich to benefit the lower and middle class

Start disallowing outsourcing to other countries for lower wages

Institute a flat tax

Disallow those in poverty to have children

This is not possible; we will always have poverty and no middle class

There should always be poverty

Cheese

master political analyst

¡Selah!

¡Selah!

master political analyst

Cheese