Editor's note: Roland S. Martin is a syndicated columnist and author of "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for TV One cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, "Washington Watch With Roland Martin."
(CNN) -- When the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week that a record number of people were living in poverty, Republicans were quick to attach the figures to President Barack Obama, desperately trying to lay them at his feet.
But anyone with common sense knows that someone doesn't just fall into poverty overnight. The deplorable economic conditions that led to today's poverty numbers began in 2007. Republicans often ignore such facts.
Yet when you start digging deeper into the Census Bureau report, what stands out is that of the 10 poorest states in the country, most are the reddest in the nation -- solidly GOP states.
The most impoverished state is Mississippi, and it's followed by Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama and North Carolina.
Obama won North Carolina by 14,000 votes in 2008, and although West Virginia is considered a Democratic state, in presidential elections it usually goes for the Republican candidate. There is no doubt that in 2012, the GOP expects to lock up all 10 states in the presidential campaign.
Thus it would make sense that the GOP candidates would at least spend some time in the presidential debates debating the issue of poverty in these red states, and explaining what they plan to do about it.
Yeah, right.
At the June 13 CNN debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, the word "poor" was never uttered, and the only time poverty came up was when former Sen. Rick Santorum discussed his work for welfare reform.
At the September 17 debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, Rep. Ron Paul brought up the poor, and that was in the discussion about getting rid of the minimum wage (he thinks it will lead to more jobs) and how he opposes welfare.
During the CNN/Tea Party debate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney managed to speak the word "poor," but that was only when it came to America being an "energy-poor" country.
Republicans will quickly say that their economic agenda is the best way to get people back to work and a job is the best way to get people out of poverty. But it's also true that the poverty issue extends beyond employment -- to education and health care.
Voters in these traditional red states should be demanding that the GOP candidates banking on their votes say and do more than they are doing. Scarcely mentioning the poor or poverty is insufficient.
Maybe part of the problem is the poor don't have lobbyists. There aren't any Super Pacs being formed to raise millions of dollars to demand accountability on the issue. Even right-wing Christian leaders such as Ralph Reed and his Faith and Freedom Coalition are quick to condemn Obama's plan to tax the rich but say nothing about the poorest states in the country, or even demand a poverty plan from the GOP candidates.
If I were a poor person in a red state, my primary issue would be which candidate, including Obama, speaks to my needs. If a candidate spends more time defending tax cuts for the wealthy and saying nothing about the poor, including the growing number of children on the poverty rolls, that candidate would be hard pressed to get my vote.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland S. Martin.
So the ten most impoverished states are solidly Republican-- what exactly would/should the Republicans do to try to fix this... if anything? Your opinions on the statistics and opinions brought up here?
If I were a poor person in a red state, my primary issue would be which candidate, including Obama, speaks to my needs. If a candidate spends more time defending tax cuts for the wealthy and saying nothing about the poor, including the growing number of children on the poverty rolls, that candidate would be hard pressed to get my vote.
[i]The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland S. Martin.
I think this speaks volumes. WHEN I WAS A POOR PERSON, my thoughts were never about how will politician A B and C help me, it was how do I save myself. I find it terrible that people always look for someone else to solve their issues. Unless these people are disabled, veterans, or something else major they can rise above if they so choose. I have been there, and I took myself out of it without aid or help.
BTW I belong to no political party and dislike all politicians regardless of party.
Not everyone can "pull themselves up by their own boostraps". I have a friend who would be unable to push himself out of poverty without the help of federal financial aid to try to get himself a degree, for example-- otherwise he'd be stuck working in an Albertsons grocery store (or equivalent) all his life. There's not enough jobs out there, so he's trying to improve his lot in life through college.
Let's say a place has 50 people hired. Even if merely a tenth of them want to raise to management level to earn more money (and are willing to accept the responsibiltiy, there might be only one management position at a place that small. So only one of them gets to advance past the lowest level of jobs. Kudos for the guy/girl who makes it, but the other four are still stuck at a dead-end job.
But even getting a degree isn't a guarantee you'll actually get a job, because there's always a limited number of jobs available. Even in nursing here, despite the national shortage, there's so many nursing students that they've actually had to put a 4.0 requirement on enlisting in the nursing program, and there's not necessarily a guarantee you'll get hired afterwards even then unless you manage to work with a hospital or something during your classwork and get a leg in the door that way.
Melissia wrote:Not everyone can "pull themselves up by their own boostraps". I have a friend who would be unable to push himself out of poverty without the help of federal financial aid to try to get himself a degree, for example-- otherwise he'd be stuck working in an Albertsons grocery store (or equivalent) all his life. There's not enough jobs out there.
I was easily able to qualify for student loans from banks when I went back to school. Also there are almost an infinite number of scholarships from non profit organizations available. Many go unclaimed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Melchiour, that's the difference between the mindsets of the two parties.
Agreeing with a mindset does not a party member make.
I am appalled by their tactics, ethics, work level, ability to lie, and general idiocy.
Melissia wrote:
Let's say a place has 50 people hired. Even if merely a tenth of them want to raise to management level to earn more money (and are willing to accept the responsibiltiy, there might be only one management position at a place that small. So only one of them gets to advance past the lowest level of jobs. Kudos for the guy/girl who makes it, but the other four are still stuck at a dead-end job.
Non management doesn't mean a dead end job. If your current job has no way to move up and it doesn't pay enough its time to move on. Plenty of places hire "low level" employees who make good money. I am no where near management and I make plenty to support my family.
My lack of compassion probably comes from the fact that I was in poverty and worked my ass off to fix it. The job market isn't great, but people can find work.
Melchiour wrote:Non management doesn't mean a dead end job. If your current job has no way to move up and it doesn't pay enough its time to move on. Plenty of places hire "low level" employees who make good money. I am no where near management and I make plenty to support my family.
My lack of compassion probably comes from the fact that I was in poverty and worked my ass off to fix it. The job market isn't great, but people can find work.
So? That just means you got lucky and found a job that worked. Not everyone can, try hard or not.
I worked my ass off getting a pharmacy technician license-- and then spent two years trying to find pharmacy technician job across the entirety of fort worth and the surrounding suburbs and other nearby cities (but not Dallas, as I don't have a deathwish). Thousands of applications sent out, no response except for automated email responses-- because there were too many people applying and not enough positions.
Hell even getting a job at friggin' wal-mart or mcdonald's is a matter of luck these days. I try to apply for ANY job during the summer break between semesters, and I'm usually turned down from every single one because I'm "overqualified"...
Assuming it's factually true it is quite sad. I do find it odd that it's liked to politiical climate. I cannot see how the Ameriancs do it - having only 2 major parties.
Phototoxin wrote: I cannot see how the Ameriancs do it - having only 2 major parties.
I think that the two party system works to polarize America into two distinct groups which is sad. There are more than two ways to look at an issue, but only 2 are usually discussed.
I do hope that the current state of distaste in America leads to new parties.
The article should be entitled "What I Think Republicans Should Be Talking About." Which, given that he is apparently a huge fan of President Obama, is some issue that would present the President in a less flattering light.
Also, blame Bush, because that's always a big seller.
A lot of the recent political commentary I've seen is that the President is appealing to his liberal base (see e.g. American Jobs Act) rather than moving towards the center. I think this means that he (or at least his political advisors) sees a need to appeal to these voters to get them to the polls. This doesn't bode well for reelection.
I was easily able to qualify for student loans from banks when I went back to school. Also there are almost an infinite number of scholarships from non profit organizations available. Many go unclaimed.
When did you go to school? One of the things about economic depressions is that they aren't always and sometimes you have it easier then others because you did gak before gak went down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melchiour wrote:
Phototoxin wrote: I cannot see how the Ameriancs do it - having only 2 major parties.
I think that the two party system works to polarize America into two distinct groups which is sad. There are more than two ways to look at an issue, but only 2 are usually discussed.
I do hope that the current state of distaste in America leads to new parties.
It's not going to with the current American populace. They're too easily led. The biggest group of disenfranchised crazies ever assembled into a political movement (tea partiers) are just republican stooges. We'll never get a third party without serious reform in national voting laws or the removal of yellow journalism from legal press.
What does it mean to be "poor" in America? For the average reader, the word Poverty implies significant physical hardship -- for example, the lack of a warm, adequate home, nutritious food, or reasonable clothing for one's children. By that measure, very few of the 30 million plus individuals defined as "living in Poverty" by the government are actually poor. Real hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity.
The average person identified as "poor" by the government has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. According to the government's own surveys, the typical "poor" American has cable or satellite TV, two color TVs, and a DVD player or VCR. He has air conditioning, a car, a microwave, a refrigerator, a stove, and a clothes washer and dryer. He is able to obtain medical care when needed. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not affluent, it is far from the images of dire Poverty conveyed by liberal activists and politicians.
Various government reports contain the following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau:
Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.
Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.
The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from that of children in the upper middle class. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age were in the late 1950s. They are a full inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy during World War II.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We have it good in America. Our "poor" are very rich. Giving them "stuff" works for the select few of those who are experiencing a very dark time in their lives. But for the majority of the "poor"--well, what government provides will not fix their problems.
Its painfully obvious when you think about it, but nobody likes to mention the R word.
Ask yourself this, do most Mormons vote for Mitt Romney given the chance?
The ten poorest states are the ten most Religious states.They are the poorest, the fattest and the least well educated.
They wont vote for the best person for them, indeed, there is solid evidence that the less well educated you are, the more likely you are to be Religious, so they probably have little interest in politics/economics but they like it when "that there Mike Huckerby feller plays his geetar and talks about Jesus!"
Muslims almost always vote for other Muslims. Go to Bradford and the Muslim vote goes to another Muslim, never to the white guy who isn't one.
Its the exact same thing. It is utterly laughable that crushingly poor people would choose republican over democrat, but choose them they do, thanks to the fact that the average Joe knows feth all about politics.
gak, you could even kick the Religion thing out of bed and the point would be the same. But Religion is an incredibly powerful motivator and as a result its nailed on.
Think about it. Many people vote purely on personality. My missus Grandparents did. I asked them why they voted for Obama and they said "He seems nice"
If they like the candidate, and he is pious and likeable and refers to their God alot. Then that is ample reason for them to vote for him.
Mike Huckabee.. Jesus. Like anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size would vote for that guy!
People vote for the same Religion/belief system and we all do it. Even me, If two candidates where more or less identical in view, but one of them seemed to have more in common with me (was agnostic and not a Catholic like the other bloke) then that would swing the vote.
Its painfully obvious that Jesus in involved, but nobody likes to say it.
Tigerone wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: We have it good in America. Our "poor" are very rich. Giving them "stuff" works for the select few of those who are experiencing a very dark time in their lives. But for the majority of the "poor"--well, what government provides will not fix their problems.
Tell that to the 11% of the population classified as "food insecure". Ideology is nice and all but your entire post smacked of tamany hall ignorance about the demographics of the U.S. and what currency is.
Tigerone wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: We have it good in America. Our "poor" are very rich. Giving them "stuff" works for the select few of those who are experiencing a very dark time in their lives. But for the majority of the "poor"--well, what government provides will not fix their problems.
Tell that to the 11% of the population classified as "food insecure". Ideology is nice and all but your entire post smacked of tamany hall ignorance about the demographics of the U.S. and what currency is.
Yeah my missus is stunned at how much better off people here are than In California, and its not like in the UK we give everyone a castle.
Seriously some of the people in the US are staggeringly poor. I watched a 60 minutes with her about it and it beggared belief that in a country like the US you take so little care of people. Something like 20% of School children were homeless and this show was following all these kids around who have to sleep on relatives floors and peel the rats off before they go to school!
And gak, im a proper bastard! Im all for giving poor people less over here, but the fethers need some help in the states. When you have an entire family living in a garden shed, something is fethed up.
Tigerone wrote:What does it mean to be "poor" in America? For the average reader, the word Poverty implies significant physical hardship -- for example, the lack of a warm, adequate home, nutritious food, or reasonable clothing for one's children. By that measure, very few of the 30 million plus individuals defined as "living in Poverty" by the government are actually poor. Real hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity.
The average person identified as "poor" by the government has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. According to the government's own surveys, the typical "poor" American has cable or satellite TV, two color TVs, and a DVD player or VCR. He has air conditioning, a car, a microwave, a refrigerator, a stove, and a clothes washer and dryer. He is able to obtain medical care when needed. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not affluent, it is far from the images of dire Poverty conveyed by liberal activists and politicians.
Various government reports contain the following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau:
Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.
Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.
The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from that of children in the upper middle class. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age were in the late 1950s. They are a full inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy during World War II.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We have it good in America. Our "poor" are very rich. Giving them "stuff" works for the select few of those who are experiencing a very dark time in their lives. But for the majority of the "poor"--well, what government provides will not fix their problems.
The message I take from the above is that what government provides did fix their problems.
In another thread, I posted an article that showed that quite a few people were pushed OUT of poverty by the government, so Kilkrazy is essentially correct.
Personally, I don't think the government should help people who aren't trying to help themselves too. If someone is impoverished, but trying to improve their situation then they should get a helping hand. Key word there is trying since I understand sometimes there isn't much you can do besides hooking or selling drugs. The poor people that just stand there and say, "woe is me, I have no money, boy it sure would be nice if the government would throw money at me" get zero sympathy from me.
In the U.S. there are two measures for poverty. The first is the traditional one, a measure of absolute deprivation. The second is measure of relative deprivation. There are several genuinely impoverished people out there, and it's unfortunate that the "relatively impoverished" have the opportunity to gain access to the some of the assistance that should be reserved for really poor people. But there is another viewpoint on what it means to be poor. Some social welfare poverty specialists have pushed the idea of poverty as a matter of society's standard of living. According to this idea, what were luxuries only a couple of decades ago, such as microwave, and cell phones, should now be considered necessities that all people are entitled to.
Many low-income people feel impoverished because they can't help but compare their possessions and lifestyle with those of other Americans, especially as seen through the media. And while that may be understandable, I don't think it justifies any potential automatic entitlement to the luxuries they may crave.
There is a drastic difference between living with a low income and living in real poverty
Pardon me for going on a tangent buuut... I certainly think a fridge, electricity, running water, and air conditioning are a necessity here in Texas, and at least some kind of oven even if it isn't a microwave...
For the fridge: the main reason is... it's cheaper to buy food in bulk. Thus, the fridge-- buy food in bulk, save it, and eat the bulk food in proper meal-sized portions until you have to buy again. This is a necessity for those of low income, and while it's possible to buy items which don't require refrigeration in bulk, it's VERY unhealthy to live off of them (like living off of ONLY bulk ramen noodles), and lack of health leads to being poor far quicker than being healthy.
On air conditioning: people die here every year from not having proper cooling. It's especially necessary for those with children, or the elderly-- but not exclusively so. Being hot all the time also leaves one exhausted and unhealthy, thus it reduces their chance to rise out of poverty.
On running water: necessary to stay healthy (and alive), and it's more expensive to get bottled water. With refrigeration, also helps with the heat wave problem.
On an oven of some (any) sort: necessary to actually cook the food. Living off of pre-cooked, ready to eat food is generally unhealthy outside of the military. Unless the US government set up MRE stocks in every city and you were forced to eat those if you're on food stamps (and since MREs are often more expensive, they're not necessarily the best choice for food stamps), it's healthier to buy in bulk, refrigerate, and cook when needed.
On electricity: necessary for the rest of these to work (non-electrical grills are often more expensive to use).
If someone's lacking these, I'd say they're in poverty, and quite probably their lives are in real jeopardy-- if not their lives, certainly their health, which only leads to further poverty and thus a further drain on the system.
We've suffered plenty of record heat waves since then. It's actually a bit hotter than it used to be, especially in cities with all of the concrete and asphalt.
Tigerone wrote:So it was not hot in Texas pre 1970?
Air conditioning didn't come standard in every two bit economy apartment in America before 1970. Please use at least a bare amount of logic when assembling your trains of thought.
Melissia wrote:Also, quite a few people in said two-bit economy apartments died from heat. It was a very, VERY unhealthy place to live, and often still is.
A statistically irrelevant number of people died from heat stroke. That is a bad and illogical argument countering another bad and illogical argument. You two are running in bad circles.
Melissia wrote:Also, quite a few people in said two-bit economy apartments died from heat. It was a very, VERY unhealthy place to live, and often still is.
A statistically irrelevant number of people died from heat stroke.
A statistically irrelevant amount of people die in plane crashes, too, but we still have regulations enforcing safety there.
Tigerone wrote:There is a drastic difference between living with a low income and living in real poverty
That depends on what you define as low income. Personally I find incomes lower than sixty grand a year to be pretty low (then again, I really don't want to live off of 30 grand a year so I'm using government assistance to help get a college degree without burdening myself with too many loans)... course, you might think that someone has to earn 12 grand a year or less to be "low".
It all depends on what your definition of poor is. My definition is you do not have enough to eat and no place to sleep not I can’t afford hot pockets and gears of war 3.
Automatically Appended Next Post: WOW! Youth at its best!
Melissia wrote:That depends on what you define as low income. Personally I find incomes lower than sixty grand a year to be pretty low (then again, I really don't want to live off of 30 grand a year so I'm using government assistance to help get a college degree without burdening myself with too many loans)... course, you might think that someone has to earn 12 grand a year or less to be "low".
Wait, 30 grand per year is low? Holy cow!
I lived on ~$15k/year while I was in college (exempting tuition) and that was maybe 5 years ago. Still had money to go to the bar (occasionally) and waste money on frivilous things (like toy soldiers).
Of course, I didn't have a cell phone, internet connection, cable, or a lot of other 'necessities.'
Tigerone wrote:So it was not hot in Texas pre 1970?
Actually, air conditioning is a warranty of habitability requirement in Texas, similar to heat as a requirement in the north. Its uder the theory that if you don't have it, you die. That may have changed since the Millennia since I was in law school.
Tigerone wrote:There is a drastic difference between living with a low income and living in real poverty
That depends on what you define as low income. Personally I find incomes lower than sixty grand a year to be pretty low (then again, I really don't want to live off of 30 grand a year so I'm using government assistance to help get a college degree without burdening myself with too many loans)... course, you might think that someone has to earn 12 grand a year or less to be "low".
You think 60 is "pretty low"? You realise thats a good wage for a family right? I make less than that and I can own a home, 2 cars, take care of 3 kids and go on 2 vacations a year and still have 0 debt.
Low income is sub 20k to me. Even at 30k people can make due IF THEY SO CHOOSE.
Tigerone wrote:There is a drastic difference between living with a low income and living in real poverty
That depends on what you define as low income. Personally I find incomes lower than sixty grand a year to be pretty low (then again, I really don't want to live off of 30 grand a year so I'm using government assistance to help get a college degree without burdening myself with too many loans)... course, you might think that someone has to earn 12 grand a year or less to be "low".
You think 60 is "pretty low"? You realise thats a good wage for a family right? I make less than that and I can own a home, 2 cars, take care of 3 kids and go on 2 vacations a year and still have 0 debt.
Low income is sub 20k to me. Even at 30k people can make due IF THEY SO CHOOSE.
Those states aren't Conservative, and therefore likely GOP voters, because of GOP influence. They are Conservative, and therefore likely GOP voters, because they are poor. In the developed world Conservatism tends to follow from relative poverty, in the developing world this also holds true, but not in the sense we normally associate with political spectra.
Frazzled wrote:
Actually, air conditioning is a warranty of habitability requirement in Texas, similar to heat as a requirement in the north. Its uder the theory that if you don't have it, you die. That may have changed since the Millennia since I was in law school.
It is, as far as I know, the same way in AZ and NM. Though, strangely, water rights do not fall under the same classification; at least in AZ.
In my best 13 years old whinny voice…But I want it now! Sacrifice and work for something?!?!? No Mommy (government) gives it to me right now! I NEED a new Xbox and plasma in my room!
biccat wrote:
Wait, 30 grand per year is low? Holy cow!
I lived on ~$15k/year while I was in college (exempting tuition) and that was maybe 5 years ago. Still had money to go to the bar (occasionally) and waste money on frivilous things (like toy soldiers).
Of course, I didn't have a cell phone, internet connection, cable, or a lot of other 'necessities.'
30k per year would be grazing the poverty line everywhere I've ever lived barring my current residence.
Melchiour wrote:Taco Bell down the street has a sign hiring full time at 15 an hour.
Lucky you. Here, Taco Bell and other fast food joints hire for six bucks an hour. Wal-Mart might hire for seven (that's how much I was paid, anyway).
Oh, and usually only twenty to thirty hours a week, not fourty. No opportunity for extra hours or overtime. Quite a few people have to hold down two jobs just to break 20k a year.
Tigerone wrote:In my best 13 years old whinny voice…But I want it now! Sacrifice and work for something?!?!? No Mommy (government) gives it to me right now! I NEED a new Xbox and plasma in my room!
But seriously, that's a lame argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melchiour wrote:
Taco Bell down the street has a sign hiring full time at 15 an hour. That's 31k a year.
Do you think that, because its Taco Bell, they would hire anyone?
Besides, according to them, I'm overqualified so they won't hire me. Wal-Mart has no problems with hiring college students, so I worked there instead. For seven bucks an hour.
Melissia wrote:Besides, according to them, I'm overqualified so they won't hire me. Wal-Mart has no problems with hiring college students, so I worked there instead. For seven bucks an hour.
Wal-Mart isn't a bad gig as long as you know its temporary, or you're "retired". Their bad customer service works in favor of the peons. Target is better, though.
Not long enough. When there's no opportunity, there's no opportunity. Big companies aren't hiring right now, they're just sitting on their money waiting for it to get better despite the government practically licking their boots. Small businesses are still being neglected by Washington, especially Republicans whom have fought tooth and nail against any small business packages.
Melissia wrote:Yeah, I'd rather work at Albertsons or Target, myself. Both have a far more pleasant and laid back attitude in the store.
There's a store by my parents' spot, Woodmans' I think, that's ostensibly employee owned ("employee" being people in the corporate office). Best grocery I've ever been in, their baggers make something 225% minimum, it pays to pay.
dogma wrote:30k per year would be grazing the poverty line everywhere I've ever lived barring my current residence.
Largely irrelevant. I've been able to live comfortably on far less than that (as a single person), so I'm not sure how you could make the claim that $30k/year is "impovershed."
Sure you have to put up with roommates and eat a lot of cheap food, but it's not as if you're lacking in basic necessities.
Melissia wrote:especially Republicans whom have fought tooth and nail against any small business packages.
I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but could you let the rest of us know?
dogma wrote:30k per year would be grazing the poverty line everywhere I've ever lived barring my current residence.
Largely irrelevant. I've been able to live comfortably on far less than that (as a single person), so I'm not sure how you could make the claim that $30k/year is "impovershed."
Sure you have to put up with roommates and eat a lot of cheap food, but it's not as if you're lacking in basic necessities.
I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but could you let the rest of us know?
So... you're saying that if people can have room mates they aren't poor because now they can afford basic neccessities?
I'm pretty sure your argument defeats itself here....
If you can't be independent of a govt, or any other person (room mates) you're pretty much poor....
Tigerone wrote:There is a drastic difference between living with a low income and living in real poverty
That depends on what you define as low income. Personally I find incomes lower than sixty grand a year to be pretty low (then again, I really don't want to live off of 30 grand a year so I'm using government assistance to help get a college degree without burdening myself with too many loans)... course, you might think that someone has to earn 12 grand a year or less to be "low".
below 60 grand a year may or may not be low income depending on how many people you are supporting.
Lets assume you are making 50 grand.
If you are single or married without kids and just lived in an Apartment you would be doing pretty good. You could even add 1 or 2 kids and you would be doing just fine.
If you are married, have 4 kids, and have a morgage you would just be squeeking by.
Your income number alone is useless in detemining if you are low income or not.
A better indicator is what is left over after all bills are paid and basic needs have been met.
biccat wrote:
Largely irrelevant. I've been able to live comfortably on far less than that (as a single person), so I'm not sure how you could make the claim that $30k/year is "impovershed."
Sure you have to put up with roommates and eat a lot of cheap food, but it's not as if you're lacking in basic necessities.
I mean, if we're considering collegiate experience, I've lived on ~9k per year with plenty of comforts (private school cafeterias are sweet). But in terms of the working world, 30k is a rough living in any major city, and anywhere near 20 is impoverished.
I mean, living in Chicago (granted, my lifestyle is probably more effete than most) my cost of living was near 55K per anum after business costs (needed a cell, and mobile hot spot) housing (had to live in walking distance of my employer) and research costs (J-Store and pop-culture databases).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tigerone wrote:
Sorry luck had very little to with it. Hard work long hours and dedication got me there and it will keep me there.
Those numbers don't really compute very well with the average incomes, which is to say, the average/median American makes ~25-30k (source: 2006 census).
Hm. I guess they can work if so many of them that make 30k think they're middle class?
frgsinwntr wrote:
If you can't be independent of a govt, or any other person (room mates) you're pretty much poor....
You hit on a big part of the argument here, in that "poor" is very contentious as a term.
Tangentially, ~70% of Americans refer to themselves as "middle class", with the range encompassing 30k per anum and 350k per anum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tigerone wrote:It is rather large.
So is mine, but I have the courtesy to admit I have been quite lucky.
I will admit I have been blessed by coming from a home that gave me a great start in life. I know alot of people that came from the same type of background that I did and they made nothing of themselves.
Luck may get you to the top, but it will rarely keep you there.
Hard work isn't a sure path to success, but it is certaintly the most likely.
If someone is looking for a job, but can't find one. they deserve wellfare.
if someone has stopped looking for a job or just doesn't want one, they do NOT deserve wellfare. No burdons on society can be allowed to take money away from someone who actually deserves it.
This is one reason I won't give money to panhandlers, but I will give money to reputable charity organizations. Many Panhandlers do genuinely need help, but many are also Drug Addicts or simple Freeloaders. I want my money to go to help the people that actually deserve the help, not to fuel someone's addiction or ability to just mooch off our good will.
Grey Templar wrote:Luck may get you to the top, but it will rarely keep you there.
Hard work isn't a sure path to success, but it is certaintly the most likely.If someone is looking for a job, but can't find one. they deserve wellfare.
if someone has stopped looking for a job or just doesn't want one, they do NOT deserve wellfare. No burdons on society can be allowed to take money away from someone who actually deserves it.
This is one reason I won't give money to panhandlers, but I will give money to reputable charity organizations. Many Panhandlers do genuinely need help, but many are also Drug Addicts or simple Freeloaders. I want my money to go to help the people that actually deserve the help, not to fuel someone's addiction or ability to just mooch off our good will.
Melissia wrote:Yes, just like purchasing multiple lottery tickets and having different numbers on each one is the most likely way to win there, too.
Still unlikely.
I don't think random chance is a good analogy for living in a society of complex social interactions and relationships that isn't random so much as it is chaotic.
Besides. I think the lottery is rigid anyway
Hard work is more likely to see success than no work at all. You can't graduate college with decent grades if you don't do your homework and fail all your tests.
Melissia wrote:Yes, just like purchasing multiple lottery tickets and having different numbers on each one is the most likely way to win there, too.
Still unlikely.
I don't think random chance is a good analogy for living in a society of complex social interactions and relationships that isn't random so much as it is chaotic.
Besides. I think the lottery is rigid anyway
True. Society is ever-changing, and hard work is quite a bit different from tossing money away at tickets.
My point was that frequently hard work is essentially thrown away at zero-opportunities, with little to no alternatives.
That’s the problem with society today all over the world. People don’t want to save, work, and sacrifice for anything. They want it all and they want it RIGHT NOW!
dogma wrote:I mean, if we're considering collegiate experience, I've lived on ~9k per year with plenty of comforts (private school cafeterias are sweet). But in terms of the working world, 30k is a rough living in any major city, and anywhere near 20 is impoverished.
That included everything a working person would pay for - food, rent, gas, utilities, etc. The only difference was that my 'job' was going to school.
dogma wrote:Tangentially, ~70% of Americans refer to themselves as "middle class", with the range encompassing 30k per anum and 350k per anum.
I don't think that's out of line. Only a very few (10%, tops, even that is generous) is really "wealthy" while top-end estimates of "poor" never cross 20%. I think that saying 70% of the U.S. is in the middle class is at least a defensible number. I think you could even get up to 75-80% before the numbers are unrealistic.
Tigerone wrote:That’s the problem with society today all over the world. People don’t want to save, work, and sacrifice for anything. They want it all and they want it RIGHT NOW!
Yep, and its never their fault. No matter what they do.
Our society is filled with spineless weaklings. Grow a pair and sort your own life out for feths sake. Why do they need the states help all the fething time?
Melissia wrote:No, people don't want to work hard, save up, and sacrifice for nothing.
Which is essentially the case for most people.
A very interesting book on the subject of poverty and its persistence is Ain't No Makin' It by Jay MacLeod. It puts forth a very convincing case that poverty largely continues not out of laziness but a sense that it is inescapable among those who are poor.
Now, I'm sure there are some people who really just don't try. Some in MacLeod's study of a group of sub-urban (maybe they were urban its been a few years) definitely never tried. Others did and never got anywhere for various reasons some of which were beyond their control. Only 2 of the boys in the study actually saw any degree of success.
Melissia wrote:No, people don't want to work hard, save up, and sacrifice for nothing.
Which is essentially the case for most people.
A very interesting book on the subject of poverty and its persistence is Ain't No Makin' It by Jay MacLeod. It puts forth a very convincing case that poverty largely continues not out of laziness but a sense that it is inescapable among those who are poor.
Now, I'm sure there are some people who really just don't try. Some in MacLeod's study of a group of sub-urban (maybe they were urban its been a few years) definitely never tried. Others did and never got anywhere for various reasons some of which were beyond their control. Only 2 of the boys in the study actually saw any degree of success.
Indeed, most people are stuck not because they are, but because they think they are.
It is amazing how many limitations are simple illusions of the mind.
Grey Templar wrote:Indeed, most people are stuck not because they are, but because they think they are.
It is amazing how many limitations are simple illusions of the mind.
My point was actually that you can try your hardest and still fail. It's not a sure thing. Many boys in MacLeod's study did try very hard, others a little, some not at all (EDIT: Actually it appears I forgot to put my point in my last post ). The results were quite... odd. If I'm remembering correctly one of the harder working boys ended up in jail, one of the ones who never tried managed to get a steady job and support his family, and another got into the military left the hood and now lives decently.
The social systems that keep poverty in place and that can cause failure among people are too complex for 'hard work' to be offered as the solution (assuming there is one). It just improves your chances substantially.
biccat wrote:The prevailing opinion here is that anyone who is successful is lucky.
They are. Noone ever said that was the sole factor. But it is undeniably a very strong one.
Being in the right place at the right time is very important. Many times it's impossible to know when and where are right. So you just have to keep trying, and hope the good jobs aren't all taken up by other people who just so happened to be luckier than you.
Don't act like there's infinite resources and wealth out there just waiting to reward hard workers. There isn't. And yes, that's exactly what you're acting like.
Melissia wrote:Don't act like there's infinite resources and wealth out there just waiting to reward hard workers. There isn't. And yes, that's exactly what you're acting like.
Nobody gets rewarded. People get compensated. Luck is a very minimal element of success. To be successful you put yourself in a position where luck doesn't matter.
biccat wrote:Nobody gets rewarded. People get compensated.
Utterly irrelevant (and stupid) semantics. The two in this context are the same; You are rewarded for work with compensation. Don't act like there's infinite resources and wealth out there just waiting to adequately compensate all hard workers. There isn't. And yes, that's exactly what you're acting like.
biccat wrote:Luck is a very minimal element of success.
You keep telling yourself that. It's still wrong. Not everyone who works hard can make six digit incomes.
biccat wrote: To be successful you put yourself in a position where luck doesn't matter.
biccat wrote:Luck is a very minimal element of success.
You keep telling yourself that. It's still wrong. Not everyone who works hard can make six digit incomes.
Nope, they can't. But that doesn't mean that they can't be successful.
If luck is an important element of success, are people more lucky today than they were 100 years ago? The standard of living has improved dramatically since the early 1900's...so where did all of this success come from?
The article posted was interesting, but as I read it, I found it smacks of missing data.
I live in a solidly democratic Congressional District in Houston, and found that not many here are Republican and would laugh if you said that all of Texas was "solidly" republican.
So I decided to look at the 10 poorest congressional districts. and the 10 richest.
70% of the 10 Poorest Districts are Democrat while 70% of the 10 richest Districts are Republican.
I am sure this isn't a surprise to anyone... Democrat supporters are mostly the poor. Republican supporters are mostly the well-off.
It would seem that to get ahead, one might reject the "helping hand" of the Democrats as it seems that you will just stay poor? Interesting.
biccat wrote:The standard of living has improved dramatically since the early 1900's...so where did all of this success come from?
From people who had the good fortune of being able to afford/otherwise obtain a good education, and having the willpower to work hard to improve the technology and science of the world.
Not all of whom succeeded despite their hard work. And the bar of success is raised now from before because of inflation.
Connor McKane wrote:It would seem that to get ahead, one might reject the "helping hand" of the Democrats as it seems that you will just stay poor? Interesting.
...
Not quite sure how to respond honestly. How many logical fallacies did you fit into that sentence? It might be a record.
One person thinks that people can't do for themselves.
and
One person thinks that people can do for themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Connor McKane wrote:It would seem that to get ahead, one might reject the "helping hand" of the Democrats as it seems that you will just stay poor? Interesting.
...
Not quite sure how to respond honestly. How many logical fallacies did you fit into that sentence? It might be a record.
12, 12 Fallacies! Ah! Ah! Ah! ... I used wikipedia to help me fit all them fallacies in that sentence.
Connor McKane wrote:It seems that the crux of this disagreement is...
One person thinks that people can't do for themselves.
and
One person thinks that people can do for themselves.
No,the crux of the problem is one person believes that someone can get ahead with only hard work, and the other person is looking at reality instead of economic theory and seeing that this is not true.
Melissia wrote:Don't act like there's infinite resources and wealth out there just waiting to reward hard workers. There isn't. And yes, that's exactly what you're acting like.
Nobody gets rewarded. People get compensated. Luck is a very minimal element of success. To be successful you put yourself in a position where luck doesn't matter.
So you don't consider the wealth or societal position of your parents to be a luck thing? That has far more to do with your eventual placement in society then any ideology about 'work'. I've had jobs since i was 15 and I have two degrees. The mid level job in my field is going to barely scrape the bottom of middle class and probably wont at all in a few years time. Am I lazy or are you just wrong?
LordofHats wrote:Not quite sure how to respond honestly. How many logical fallacies did you fit into that sentence? It might be a record.
The original thrust of the article was that poor states are poor because of the GOP. Therefore, if the poor areas really are solidly Democrat, wouldn't that tend to rebut the argument?
Or is this more of a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument that the left loves to engage in?
Connor McKane wrote:Let's say I WAS pulling your chain... can I still keep the hat? It is an exhilaratingly awesome hat!
It's already in the mail so... not much I can do about that... except a mail bomb or something but I'm saving all my explosives for Fran- I mean, What were we talking about? Poor people?
Melissia wrote:That is an excellent hat. That hat is excellent.
Oh great, now Biccat is tossing out "the left" and acting like somehow "the left" is any more pompous than "the right".
Lets not fool ourselves Melissa. This is what it is about, you cannot expect a civil fact based argument when discussing something as pathological as D vs. R.
Right Wing Fella: The fact of the matter is Biccat is right and Melissa is wrong, and nothing you say will change my mind.
Also...
Left Wing Fella: The fact of the matter is that Melissa is right, and Biccat is wrong, and nothing you say will change my mind.
So why in feth's sake do we keep posting gak like this on a WARGAMING SITE!?!?! DO WE EVEN PLAY WARGAMES?!?!
Connor McKane wrote:In my defense, the majority of my last post was well on topic... just that last part...
...and the part about hats. But I blame LordofHats.
*gasps*
Quick Watson! We've been had!
*runs*
And come on Shuma. How many threads have you found on off topic that don't turn out badly Let's just accept it as the natural course of events and move on
LordofHats wrote:Not quite sure how to respond honestly. How many logical fallacies did you fit into that sentence? It might be a record.
The original thrust of the article was that poor states are poor because of the GOP. Therefore, if the poor areas really are solidly Democrat, wouldn't that tend to rebut the argument?
Or is this more of a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument that the left loves to engage in?
C'mon Biccat... lets not let facts, statistics or logic get in the way of a discussion on how much the GOP sucks! (Hick accent) There's tawkin' points ta' regurgamatate!
Melissia wrote:That is an excellent hat. That hat is excellent.
Oh great, now Biccat is tossing out "the left" and acting like somehow "the left" is any more pompous than "the right".
Lets not fool ourselves Melissa. This is what it is about, you cannot expect a civil fact based argument when discussing something as pathological as D vs. R.
Right Wing Fella: The fact of the matter is Biccat is right and Melissa is wrong, and nothing you say will change my mind.
Also...
Left Wing Fella: The fact of the matter is that Melissa is right, and Biccat is wrong, and nothing you say will change my mind.
So why in feth's sake do we keep posting gak like this on a WARGAMING SITE!?!?! DO WE EVEN PLAY WARGAMES?!?!
...
I like Blood Angels!
...
Twin EPIC Eldar revenant titans, put the "chain" into "chain gun Macro cannon." Plus they can fly! Who's your corpse god now baby!
Meh, sure it was an opinion piece, but I felt it did raise a good question on the republican position (or lack thereof) on how it would help the impoverished people amongst its constituency.
I was actually hoping someone would contradict the article, and go and post the party's plans, as I find it odd that there are none.
Connor McKane wrote:In my defense, the majority of my last post was well on topic... just that last part...
...and the part about hats. But I blame LordofHats.
*gasps*
Quick Watson! We've been had!
*runs*
And come on Shuma. How many threads have you found on off topic that don't turn out badly Let's just accept it as the natural course of events and move on
I don't care about the off topic stuff, i care that from its very core people have walked into this thread with absolutely no knowledge of poverty mechanics or U.S. demographics. The circular and wrong on both sides arguments were killing me.
Melissia wrote:I was actually hoping someone would contradict the article, and go and post the party's plans, as I find it odd that there are none.
If it makes you feel better, I'd point out that there's a reasons those ten poorest states vote Republican and it isn't really related to economics all that much
Politicians in the GOP know they can win Southern States to a degree on religious and moral issues, not economic ones. Cultural ties also lean towards the GOP (Many people vote how their parents vote). If only economic reasons were the only ones that factored into voting practices things would be so much simpler!
Melissia wrote:Meh, sure it was an opinion piece, but I felt it did raise a good question on the republican position (or lack thereof) on how it would help the impoverished people amongst its constituency.
I was actually hoping someone would contradict the article, and go and post the party's plans, as I find it odd that there are none.
Hmm... I thought I did contradict the article with the post that no one read... probably. But, being the helpful kinda fellow I tend to be, I'll fill in the gaps.
I would guess that the GOP plan is to reduce taxes for businesses, and let people make something of themselves... or not.
I don't need a government hand out... if you do, god bless you and I hope you get better soon. Well I am off to work for my evil corporation and do the job I got strictly by luck and or hard work and determination..
The good news is that we're adding stress to Shuma's life, so at least the thread was somewhat productive.
LordofHats wrote:
Melissia wrote:I was actually hoping someone would contradict the article, and go and post the party's plans, as I find it odd that there are none.
If it makes you feel better, I'd point out that there's a reasons those ten poorest states vote Republican and it isn't really related to economics all that much
Politicians in the GOP know they can win Southern States to a degree on religious and moral issues, not economic ones. If only economic reasons were the only ones that factored into voting practices things would be so much simpler!
This is true. They never give any specifics about economics when they run political ads here... but they LOVE talking about their social policies.
Melissia wrote:The good news is that we're adding stress to Shuma's life, so at least the thread was somewhat productive.
yehhhhsssss. Soon he shall be sacrificed and corn harvest shall begin!
Melissia wrote:This is true. They never give any specifics about economics when they run political ads here... but they LOVE talking about their social policies.
I read a very interesting piece a month ago. The author griped about how silly people were for claiming politicians don't care about their interests. His position being that politicians did care about their interests. Politicians cater to their audiences. The south, even Mississippi the poorest state, heavily invest themselves politically into social and moral issues. Politicians play to this. Its called getting elected
Melissia wrote:No,the crux of the problem is one person believes that someone can get ahead with only hard work, and the other person is looking at reality instead of economic theory and seeing that this is not true.
Just out of curiosity, if luck is such a dominating element of success, why are you bothering to get a good education? Obviously you will only succeed if you're lucky, and hard work isn't going to improve that much.
So just sit back and enjoy life. Either you will succeed or you won't.
biccat wrote:So just sit back and enjoy life. Either you will succeed or you won't.
Meet my friend: John Calvin
I think the two of you can find some common ground. I'll be chatting with Tom Aquinas if you need me
But no seriously. I think you're taking Melissa too seriously. I could be born into the richest family on the planet, and I'm sure I could find some way to end up a failure No one here I think would realistically support the position that hard work is meaningless. Posters are merely proposing that it isn't necessarily enough on its own to ensure success.
biccat wrote:Just out of curiosity, if luck is such a dominating element of success
Let me put a linear graph on my opinions on this post.
(-∞)<------Biccat's view to my posted opinions-----> (∞)
(-∞)<------What I actually posted about my opinions-----> (∞)
Notice that they're not only two entirely different points, but not even on the same line. I know you love using strawmen to attempt to attack, but this is just eyeroll-inducing.
Melissia wrote:Notice that they're not only two entirely different points, but not even on the same line. I know you love using strawmen to attempt to attack, but this is just eyeroll-inducing.
Right.
Melissia wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Hard work isn't a sure path to success, but it is certaintly the most likely.
Yes, just like purchasing multiple lottery tickets and having different numbers on each one is the most likely way to win there, too.
Still unlikely.
You're the one comparing "success" to winning the lottery here.
It's hyperbole, but it's not too much off the mark, as the number of unemployed, or people on government aid, or people in poverty in general is increasing even as the wealthiest part of the nation gets wealthier.
If you count 30k a year as "success", then I suppose I'd just say you have very low standards. The USA has some of the most productive and intelligent workers in the world-- a nation renowned amongst the west for working hard and taking very little vacation time. But this hard work is rewarded-- or compensated for, if you prefer-- less than in other, less hard working countries.
Melissia wrote:It's hyperbole, but it's not too much off the mark, as the number of unemployed, or people on government aid, or people in poverty in general is increasing even as the wealthiest part of the nation gets wealthier.
Obviously the solution is to improve the economy, but the White House has been going in the wrong direction for the past 3 years (yes, I'm including the tail end of the Bush administration).
Melissia wrote:It's hyperbole, but it's not too much off the mark, as the number of unemployed, or people on government aid, or people in poverty in general is increasing even as the wealthiest part of the nation gets wealthier.
If you count 30k a year as "success", then I suppose I'd just say you have very low standards. The USA has some of the most productive and intelligent workers in the world-- a nation renowned amongst the west for working hard and taking very little vacation time. But this hard work is rewarded-- or compensated for, if you prefer-- less than in other, less hard working countries.
When I gradumenated more gooder I started out at $24K and all the spare change I could find. I thought it was all the money in the world.
Melissia wrote:It's hyperbole, but it's not too much off the mark, as the number of unemployed, or people on government aid, or people in poverty in general is increasing even as the wealthiest part of the nation gets wealthier.
If you count 30k a year as "success", then I suppose I'd just say you have very low standards. The USA has some of the most productive and intelligent workers in the world-- a nation renowned amongst the west for working hard and taking very little vacation time. But this hard work is rewarded-- or compensated for, if you prefer-- less than in other, less hard working countries.
When I gradumenated more gooder I started out at $24K and all the spare change I could find. I thought it was all the money in the world.
Yeah, I'd be able to live off of that-- probably, if I found a cheap rental. But my only real monthly luxury is my internet access.
I can't understand how anyone would want to live life and go around thinking that it's all or mostly luck?!?
Be prepared, work hard, and hope for a little luck. Recognize that the harder you work and the better prepared you are, the more luck you might have.
Ed Bradley
When is the last time you heard someone like a Tom Brady or any other champion say "Well we kinds screwed around this week in practice but we got by today on luck"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazz what year was that 1956?
biccat wrote:
That included everything a working person would pay for - food, rent, gas, utilities, etc. The only difference was that my 'job' was going to school.
Where did you go to school? In St. Paul 9k was scraping by, and would have been untenable without board.
biccat wrote:
I don't think that's out of line. Only a very few (10%, tops, even that is generous) is really "wealthy" while top-end estimates of "poor" never cross 20%. I think that saying 70% of the U.S. is in the middle class is at least a defensible number. I think you could even get up to 75-80% before the numbers are unrealistic.
I would argue that the "wealthy" class is much larger than many people believe. I mean, I would consider myself wealthy at this point, if only because I have actual wealth in the economic sense and I certainly don't pull down 350k per anum. I think what constitutes middle class in much of the developed world has been skewed very far from the original meaning of the term.
That's bad analysis, he's using a metric based on FTE, which doesn't generally consider capital gains. Of course the middle class, regardless of definition, would out perform the top 5%.
It's actually kinda funny to read (go from the bottom of the blog-- just above the comments), more than anything. Figured it'd make the topic a bit lighter.
I can't help but notice you're posting a lot in this thread, Tigerone. As a busy CEO, shouldn't you be showing loads of hardwork and dedication to ensure you remain a CEO, and not fething about on an internet forum?
Melchiour wrote:I think this speaks volumes. WHEN I WAS A POOR PERSON, my thoughts were never about how will politician A B and C help me, it was how do I save myself.
When you talk about self-reliance to help yourself out of poverty, it is an admirable personal value. When you twist that idea into an excuse to avoid helping others, you're just being an donkey-cave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tigerone wrote:So it was not hot in Texas pre 1970?
So we shouldn't bother to make things better than they were in 1970?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:The prevailing opinion here is that anyone who is successful is lucky. You can't dissuade certain posters of that.
It's more a recognition that lucks plays a part in personal circumstances. This is less an opinion and more a recognition of the blindingly obvious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:If luck is an important element of success, are people more lucky today than they were 100 years ago? The standard of living has improved dramatically since the early 1900's...so where did all of this success come from?
The greatly improved sophistication of society. I tried to explain the importance of society to you in generating individual wealth in another thread, and you just posted incoherent nonsense for about four pages. I see you're beginning to understand now, though.
You might ask 'where's the luck in that?' and I'd ask you to consider the luck in being born in the developed world, and not in Somalia.
sebster wrote:I can't help but notice you're posting a lot in this thread, Tigerone. As a busy CEO, shouldn't you be showing loads of hardwork and dedication to ensure you remain a CEO, and not fething about on an internet forum?
sebster wrote:I can't help but notice you're posting a lot in this thread, Tigerone. As a busy CEO, shouldn't you be showing loads of hardwork and dedication to ensure you remain a CEO, and not fething about on an internet forum?
Maybe he is the CEO of the internet. Al Gore had to appoint someone to oversee his creation anyway.
Jeez...sometimes I think dogma and sebster are one and the same person....
biccat wrote:If luck is an important element of success, are people more lucky today than they were 100 years ago? The standard of living has improved dramatically since the early 1900's...so where did all of this success come from?
Good, God-fearing, hard-working Americans of course!
But, seriously, I was unaware that success and high standards of living were interchangeable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:
Jeez...sometimes I think dogma and sebster are one and the same person....
It's actually kinda funny to read (go from the bottom of the blog-- just above the comments), more than anything. Figured it'd make the topic a bit lighter.
The economist is a great magazine. I might not be as well read as some of the more bookish members of the forum, but I read that every chance I get. The mobile app for android is excellent as well by the way.
This article is very pertinent to this discussion.
Hunting the rich
The wealthy will have to pay more tax. But there are good and bad ways to make them do so
HE horns have sounded and the hounds are baying. Across the developed world the hunt for more taxes from the wealthy is on. Recent austerity budgets in France and Italy slapped 3% surcharges on those with incomes above €500,000 ($680,000) and €300,000 respectively. Britain’s Tories are under attack for even considering getting rid of Labour’s “temporary” 50% top rate of income tax on earnings of over £150,000 ($235,000). Now Barack Obama has produced a new deficit-reduction plan that aims its tax increases squarely at the rich, including a “Buffett rule” to ensure that no household making more than $1m a year pays a lower average tax rate than “middle-class” families do (Warren Buffett has pointed out that, despite being a billionaire, he pays a lower average tax rate than his secretary). Tapping the rich to close the deficit is “not class warfare”, argues Mr Obama. “It’s math.”
Actually, it’s not simply math (or indeed maths). The question of whether to tax the wealthy more depends on political judgments about the right size of the state and the appropriate role for redistribution. The maths says deficits could technically be tamed by spending cuts alone—as Mr Obama’s Republican opponents advocate. Class warfare may be a loaded term, but it captures a fundamental debate in Western societies: who should suffer for righting public finances?
eviathan should bear the brunt
In general, this newspaper’s instincts lie with small government and against ever higher taxation to pay for an unsustainable welfare state. We reject the notion, implicit in much of today’s debate, that higher tax rates on the wealthy are justified because of the finance industry’s role in the crunch: retribution is a poor rationale for taxation. Nor is the current pattern of contribution to the public purse obviously “unfair”: the richest 1% of Americans pay more than a quarter of all federal taxes (and fully 40% of income taxes), while taking less than 20% of pre-tax income. And knee-jerk rich-bashing, like Labour’s tax hike, seldom makes for good policy. High marginal tax rates discourage entrepreneurship, and no matter how much Mr Obama mentions “millionaires and billionaires”, higher taxes on them alone cannot close America’s deficit.
So the debate is poisonously skewed. But there are three good reasons why the wealthy should pay more tax—though not, by and large, in the ways that the rich world’s governments currently propose.
First, the West’s deficits should not be closed by spending cuts alone. Public spending should certainly take the brunt: there is plenty of scope to slim inefficient Leviathan, and studies of past deficit-cutting programmes suggest they work best when cuts predominate. Britain’s four-to-one ratio is about right. But, as that ratio implies, experience also argues that higher taxes should be part of the mix. In America the tax take is historically low after years of rate reductions. There, and elsewhere, tax rises need to bear some of the burden.
Second, there is a political argument for raising this new revenue from the rich. Spending cuts fall disproportionately on the less well-off; and, even before the crunch, median incomes were stagnating. Meanwhile, globalisation has been rewarding winners ever more generously. Voters’ support for ongoing austerity depends on a disproportionate share of any new revenue coming from the wealthy.
But how? So far most governments have focused on raising marginal income-tax rates, something most rich people respond to quickly (see article). Capitalists shift their income into less-taxed forms, such as capital gains; they move; they work less; they take fewer entrepreneurial risks. Even if it is hard to be sure how big these effects are, the size of the very top level seems to matter, so Britain’s 50% rate is more dangerous than Mr Obama’s proposal to raise America’s top federal income-tax rate from 35% to 39.6%. Somebody earning $1m pays more tax in London than any other financial capital—madness for a place with so many mobile rich people. The excuse that it was worse in the 1970s hardly inspires confidence.
Simpler, bolder, better
Given the rich world’s need for faster growth, governments should be wary of sharp tax increases—especially since they are unnecessary. Indeed, the third argument for raising more money from the rich is that it can be done not by increasing marginal tax rates, but by making the tax code more efficient.
The scope for doing so is most obvious in America, which relies far more than other countries on income taxes and has a mass of deductions on everything from interest payments on mortgages to employer-provided health care, so taxes are levied on a very narrow base. Getting rid of the deductions would simplify the code and raise as much as $1 trillion a year. Since the main beneficiaries of the deductions are the wealthy, richer folk would pay most of that. And since marginal rates would be untouched (or reduced), such a reform would do less to discourage them from creating wealth.
In Europe, where tax systems are more efficient, one option would be to shift more of the burden from income to property, which would collect more from the rich but have less impact on their willingness to take risks. The “mansion tax” proposed by Britain’s Liberal Democrats would thus do less damage than the 50% rate. And on both sides of the Atlantic there is room to narrow the gap between tax rates on salaries and bonuses and those on dividends and capital gains. That gap explains why Mr Buffett, most of whose income comes from capital gains and dividends, has a lower average tax rate than his secretary. It is also the one hedge funders and private-equity people have exploited to keep the billions they rake in.
There is a basic bargain to be had. Imagine a tax system which made the top rates on wages and capital more equal, and which eliminated virtually all deductions. To avoid taxing investments twice, such a system would get rid of corporate taxes. It would also allow for a much lower top rate of income tax. The result? A larger overall tax take from the rich, without hurting the dynamism of the economy. Now that would be worth blowing your horn about.
In essence I have always agreed with a fairer system, but there is a happy medium and that Is what we must strive for. Sure the rich could pay a little more tax, but I don't believe in robbing people that work hard for their money. My brother makes $200,000 a year, but he works 70 hours a week easy. I earn $40,000 a year but have no stress and work about 25 hours a week. The left have an extremely narrow minded view (people like MGS) which basically involves taking as much money from the rich as possible, because they feel that they somehow "deserve" it.
But the fact remains that there are work around's, and if the government started flagrantly taking the piss, I would do everything in my power to feth the system. Why do poor people have such a sense of entitlement? Why do they feel they deserve all of the wealthy people's money?
I am a working class lad, but I side with the rich. My Mum died when I was 9, by dad is a welder and Im from fething Middlesbrough! The location (North east England) is traditionally poor, and very left leaning as a result. The highest percentage of people here are left leaning dyed in the wool labour voters. And they are class warriors that to me have a very narrow minded view, and despite the fact I am working class I agree with them very little. I wont support something just because it benefits me if I believe it is morally wrong. Which is odd, because 99% of people seem to not behave like that, if it means more "stuff" for them, then they will support it, even if it is obviously unjust.
This is ironic, because I like to think of myself as a proper bastard, and I try really hard to be one. I feel a conscience is something I would be better off without, but it is still there trying to assert itself.
I dont feel comfortable taking things I don't feel I have earned. When I left the corps and was looking for work, I never signed up for job seekers allowance because I wasn't comfortable with going into the dole office. My grandmother was incredulous and said "You have paid into the system, why not take something out?" but I wasn't comfortable with the idea and I lived off my savings. I guess the RM instilled that into me.
The point of this whole post is better illustrated by the article above. Sure the rich can pay a little more, but lets strive for balance, and not take the piss outrageously, because they just don't deserve it, and frankly, neither do we.
It really is. Let down only by my inability to ever find an article again after I've read it. I see stuff here on dakka that an Economist study disproved, and I go to find the article and I can never find it again.
In essence I have always agreed with a fairer system, but there is a happy medium and that Is what we must strive for. Sure the rich could pay a little more tax, but I don't believe in robbing people that work hard for their money. My brother makes $200,000 a year, but he works 70 hours a week easy. I earn $40,000 a year but have no stress and work about 25 hours a week. The left have an extremely narrow minded view (people like MGS) which basically involves taking as much money from the rich as possible, because they feel that they somehow "deserve" it.
Pretty much. I think there's basic level of practicality that should define most of the tax debate - the state simply needs to raise revenue somewhere between a quarter and a third of total revenue, and taking that much off the poorer elements of society will impose a burden that anyone with any understanding of living on a low income and any kind of empathy wouldn't accept - this basically means the rich need to pay more. At the same time, we have to be wary of taxing the rich too heavily, because if the top marginal rate is too great it discourages people.
Unfortunately it seems a very large number of people don't really worry about anything like practically waying the benefits and costs of different approaches. Instead they decide to either hate the rich, or hate the poor, and just keep on supporting whatever politician makes the right noise about doing something to spite the group they've decided to hate.
I noticed some weasel wording in that Economist post, though. They said the deficit could be "tamed" by cuts alone-- even that's kinda arguable-- but not reduced or eliminated. Which is true, it won't ever be eliminated or even reduced without increased revenue of some sort. Just "tamed", IE, stop it from growing.
I also like the Economist. Don't always agree with their views, but they're at least intelligently stated.
mattyrm wrote:
Why do poor people have such a sense of entitlement? Why do they feel they deserve all of the wealthy people's money?
I think part of it (at least currently) is that some CEOs get obscene amounts of money. Normal (as in, non-CEOs) people then get upset because they don't feel that the CEOs deserve the obscene salaries that they get even though they're not adding any concrete to the society.
And frequently they're just driving their companies down the drain while trying to appease stockholders, then retiring with multi-million dollar benefits packets despite being a failure of a CEO.
But then again, the rich get arguably more handouts than the poor do given the nature of US politics, so...
Melissia wrote:It's hyperbole, but it's not too much off the mark, as the number of unemployed, or people on government aid, or people in poverty in general is increasing even as the wealthiest part of the nation gets wealthier.
If you count 30k a year as "success", then I suppose I'd just say you have very low standards. The USA has some of the most productive and intelligent workers in the world-- a nation renowned amongst the west for working hard and taking very little vacation time. But this hard work is rewarded-- or compensated for, if you prefer-- less than in other, less hard working countries.
When I gradumenated more gooder I started out at $24K and all the spare change I could find. I thought it was all the money in the world.
Unfortunately things have changed since then, a recent graduate has to spend money on things like electricity and those newfangled horseless carriages. Also a person does have to have some fun, you may not know it but those talkies aren't cheap.
Melissia wrote:I noticed some weasel wording in that Economist post, though. They said the deficit could be "tamed" by cuts alone-- even that's kinda arguable-- but not reduced or eliminated. Which is true, it won't ever be eliminated or even reduced without increased revenue of some sort. Just "tamed", IE, stop it from growing..
So you read what you wanted to read, rather than what was written.
Melissia wrote:I noticed some weasel wording in that Economist post, though. They said the deficit could be "tamed" by cuts alone-- even that's kinda arguable-- but not reduced or eliminated. Which is true, it won't ever be eliminated or even reduced without increased revenue of some sort. Just "tamed", IE, stop it from growing..
So you read what you wanted to read, rather than what was written.
More like the Economist writes specifically to push their libertarian views. Claim I'm reading too much into it if you want, but the magazine DOES have a political stance, even if it's tied to neither party. It's a high quality paper, but it's still a paper written by humans
Melissia wrote:More like the Economist writes specifically to push their libertarian views.
The Economist isn't Libertarian by any measure.
Melissia wrote:
Claim I'm reading too much into it if you want, but the magazine DOES have a political stance, even if it's tied to neither party. It's a high quality paper, but it's still a paper written by humans
Well, there's a difference between contributors having political stances, and the magazine itself having a political stance.
Melissia wrote:More like the Economist writes specifically to push their libertarian views.
The Economist isn't Libertarian by any measure.
Melissia wrote:
Claim I'm reading too much into it if you want, but the magazine DOES have a political stance, even if it's tied to neither party. It's a high quality paper, but it's still a paper written by humans
Well, there's a difference between contributors having political stances, and the magazine itself having a political stance.
I think melissa is right on this... the majority of its contributors will inherently give a political slant to the magazine by volume of articles that are slanted if nothing else. I'm not so sure you can argue it otherwise.
sebster wrote:I can't help but notice you're posting a lot in this thread, Tigerone. As a busy CEO, shouldn't you be showing loads of hardwork and dedication to ensure you remain a CEO, and not fething about on an internet forum?
Melchiour wrote:I think this speaks volumes. WHEN I WAS A POOR PERSON, my thoughts were never about how will politician A B and C help me, it was how do I save myself.
When you talk about self-reliance to help yourself out of poverty, it is an admirable personal value. When you twist that idea into an excuse to avoid helping others, you're just being an donkey-cave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tigerone wrote:So it was not hot in Texas pre 1970?
So we shouldn't bother to make things better than they were in 1970?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:The prevailing opinion here is that anyone who is successful is lucky. You can't dissuade certain posters of that.
It's more a recognition that lucks plays a part in personal circumstances. This is less an opinion and more a recognition of the blindingly obvious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:If luck is an important element of success, are people more lucky today than they were 100 years ago? The standard of living has improved dramatically since the early 1900's...so where did all of this success come from?
The greatly improved sophistication of society. I tried to explain the importance of society to you in generating individual wealth in another thread, and you just posted incoherent nonsense for about four pages. I see you're beginning to understand now, though.
You might ask 'where's the luck in that?' and I'd ask you to consider the luck in being born in the developed world, and not in Somalia.
6000 plus posts vs less than 100? I took yesterday and today off....Maybe that has something to do with the difference in POV.
Tigerone wrote:6000 plus posts vs less than 100? I took yesterday and today off....Maybe that has something to do with the difference in POV.
I would say point for Tigerone on this. He's been registered longer but has 92(atm) posts compared to sebster's 6,942(atm), couple that with the fact that, that means Tigerone has posted only 1.33% of what sebster has posted. I would take a guess that sebster has something to do with college(professor, student, or janitor), or just likes to post in the off-topic forum and only in the off-topic forum.
Being born isn't luck, its genetics. So with that, poverty is hereditary and I am away on this one.
biccat wrote:If luck is an important element of success, are people more lucky today than they were 100 years ago? The standard of living has improved dramatically since the early 1900's...so where did all of this success come from?
The greatly improved sophistication of society. I tried to explain the importance of society to you in generating individual wealth in another thread, and you just posted incoherent nonsense for about four pages. I see you're beginning to understand now, though.
I believe I recall that conversation. It involved you trying to convince me that only the fabulously wealthy are better off now than in the 1960's.
$100,000 a year was a big salary back then and it is still a big salary. If you can't live off of a $100,000 salary, you have issues. $60,000 a year is about average IIRC.
In the United States, at least, 33k is average, 26k is median.
Using the "household income" definition is the only way you can raise it to 50k (not 60k), that would be the combined income of all members of a household, not individual incomes. Source is the US Census Bureau...
According to USNews the median is actually around $50,000. In my state the median is $59,330. Texas is around $48,259. It looks like the lowest is in W. Virginia with 37,435, Maryland is highest with 69,272.
The average would be $53,353, if those statistics are true.
Now in 2007 according to wikipedia( yeah wikipedia, which got a chart from some other organization that compared OECD countries) stated the US was second highest in disposable income, being beaten only by Luxembourg.
But we also have the fact that people tend to get married and if there is poverty both parents tend to work to gain income and when those kids are old enough they also tend to try to get a job.
Individuals 25+ male= $39,403 for part time, $43,317 for full time female= $26,507 for part time, $33,075 for full time And those rates were in 2005
halonachos wrote:But we also have the fact that people tend to get married and if there is poverty both parents tend to work to gain income and when those kids are old enough they also tend to try to get a job.
I know that this is the generally accepted wisdom and that it makes sense, but I wonder if the statistics bear it out. Especially given that marriage rates tend to decrease as household income decreases.
halonachos wrote:
I don't see it as the "clearly a nerd" argument, more of a "You tried to call me out but you have no evidence so shut your face" argument.
Yeah, that's why people cite post counts. Because they think their opponent has no evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote: Especially given that marriage rates tend to decrease as household income decreases.
Marriage is a bell curve, the middle class marries often, but the upper and lower tend to avoid it; relatively.
Phototoxin wrote:I'm not reading through 5 pages - but technically in the UK I'm 'relatively poor' as I don't own a television..
The expected standard of living in society changes as technology advances.
The Internet was almost purely a nerd zone 16 years ago. Nowadays it is still possible to search the phone directory, change your driving licence address and books flights by visiting places and filling in paper forms, however it is much more time-consuming and irksome than using the Internet.
Public libraries provide free access (while there are any left.) So not having a computer and broadband at home does not technically disqualify you from membership in modern society, but it puts you in a distinctly second class citizen bracket.
Let’s not forget about children. Middle and upper class tend to have fewer children which lead to more disposable income and a better standard of living. Lower income people tend to have more children that lead to even a worse standard of living
biccat wrote: Especially given that marriage rates tend to decrease as household income decreases.
Marriage is a bell curve, the middle class marries often, but the upper and lower tend to avoid it; relatively.
Well, here's a chart showing statistics from 1998. I haven't seen anything more recent.
But in that, the difference between the 4th and 5th quintiles for women is within the margin of error and for men it's not hugely significant. But what's really interesting is when you look at earnings of spouses. Many tend to marry someone with a similar income, so wealthy marry wealthy and poor marry poor. This tends to skew household earnings even more.
Dear Melissa you're completely wrong about the GOP ignoring poverty as an issue in their race. The candidates have spelled out a clear cut plan on how to end poverty in America.
#1 Cut the corporate tax rate.
#2 Cut capitol gains taxes.
#3 Maintain the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy.
#4 Broaden the tax base to include everybody over 18 even if they are under the poverty line or seniors on a fixed income.
#5 Cut entitlements for the poor.
Do all 5 and the GOP says the free market will fix everything, and the poor will pull themselves up by the boot straps. Here is the point where you are completely wrong about the GOP Melissa; you are attempting to make the case that the GOP is ignoring the issue when the indisputable fact is they have clearly defined their plan to fix poverty in America. That being said I'm going to make the bold assumption that you believe the GOP's plans and solutions are a steaming pile of gak they are attempting to feed to their own base. Instead of a steaming pile of gak I'm going to give it the more moderate name of cool aid, and make the case that the GOP both loves the taste of their own cool aid and honestly believe (Or delusional belief) that it will help poverty in America. You can say a lot of nasty things about the GOP primary race, but I think it's not accurate to say they are ignoring poverty when a huge chunk of their base is very poor, very religious, and very much enjoys the taste of that cool aid. If you're having a hard time understanding them I have a couple of simple suggestions. Find Jesus, move to a trailer park, give up hygiene, brew some crystal meth your bath tub, and start having sex with your brother. Don't worry you'll still be cute with half your teeth, just think of your mouth being half full of your teeth being half gone.
schadenfreude wrote:Dear Melissa you're completely wrong about the GOP ignoring poverty as an issue in their race. The candidates have spelled out a clear cut plan on how to end poverty in America.
#1 Cut the corporate tax rate.
#2 Cut capitol gains taxes.
#3 Maintain the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy.
#4 Broaden the tax base to include everybody over 18 even if they are under the poverty line or seniors on a fixed income.
#5 Cut entitlements for the poor.
Do all 5 and the GOP says the free market will fix everything, and the poor will pull themselves up by the boot straps. Here is the point where you are completely wrong about the GOP Melissa; you are attempting to make the case that the GOP is ignoring the issue when the indisputable fact is they have clearly defined their plan to fix poverty in America. That being said I'm going to make the bold assumption that you believe the GOP's plans and solutions are a steaming pile of gak they are attempting to feed to their own base. Instead of a steaming pile of gak I'm going to give it the more moderate name of cool aid, and make the case that the GOP both loves the taste of their own cool aid and honestly believe (Or delusional belief) that it will help poverty in America. You can say a lot of nasty things about the GOP primary race, but I think it's not accurate to say they are ignoring poverty when a huge chunk of their base is very poor, very religious, and very much enjoys the taste of that cool aid. If you're having a hard time understanding them I have a couple of simple suggestions. Find Jesus, move to a trailer park, give up hygiene, brew some crystal meth your bath tub, and start having sex with your brother. Don't worry you'll still be cute with half your teeth, just think of your mouth being half full of your teeth being half gone.
The theory is that you improve the economy so the poor can get jobs and not be poor any more.
My man Clinton liked it.
The thing about "median income" is that for every person making twice the median, there are two making half the median.
schadenfreude wrote:Dear Melissa you're completely wrong about the GOP ignoring poverty as an issue in their race. The candidates have spelled out a clear cut plan on how to end poverty in America.
#1 Cut the corporate tax rate.
#2 Cut capitol gains taxes.
#3 Maintain the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy.
#4 Broaden the tax base to include everybody over 18 even if they are under the poverty line or seniors on a fixed income.
#5 Cut entitlements for the poor.
#1: Help the corporations that feed money into the GOP. Does not guarentee the creation of jobs nor does it prevent the loss of same.
#2: Benefits those that make significant "capitol gains" such as stock brokers and their wealthier clients, a.k.a. People that help fund the GOP. People that lack the monies to make the initial investments get zero benefit from cutting this.
#3: Benefits only those that are subject to this tax already and does not offer any benefit to lower incomes.
#4: Hurts those already having money issues and does not increase revenues nearly as much as some would believe. Everyone that is employed pays some kind of tax on their income, Taxing people that are not actually working creates a negative income stream.
#5: A sticky subject that will never actually get done. Too many people in Government have a stake in keeping those programs in place.
Frazzled wrote:The theory is that you improve the economy so the poor can get jobs and not be poor any more.
My man Clinton liked it.
Improving the economy doesn't help the poor. The poor are poor because the evil rich people make them poor. The only way to not be poor is to take money from the Rich and give it to wealthy DNC campaign donors.
Or at least that's the White House plan for fighting poverty. We'll see if it works.
Improving the economy doesn't help the poor. The poor are poor because the evil rich people make them poor. The only way to not be poor is to take money from the Rich and give it to wealthy DNC campaign donors.
Or at least that's the White House plan for fighting poverty. We'll see if it works.
Improving the economy doesn't help the poor. The poor are poor because the evil rich people make them poor. The only way to not be poor is to take money from the Rich and give it to wealthy DNC campaign donors.
Or at least that's the White House plan for fighting poverty. We'll see if it works.
I like it better than "let it rain" economics
you have to pray for that rain... and then is still doesn't come... Just ask TEXAS about rain
Improving the economy doesn't help the poor. The poor are poor because the evil rich people make them poor. The only way to not be poor is to take money from the Rich and give it to wealthy DNC campaign donors.
Or at least that's the White House plan for fighting poverty. We'll see if it works.
I like it better than "let it rain" economics
you have to pray for that rain... and then is still doesn't come... Just ask TEXAS about rain
I'm pretty sure the precipitation (wealth) of the top 1% has to be at least 90-100% before it will rain.
maybe we should seed the clouds with bullets
sorry but I gotta comment on this, and this is my opinion and I am not flaming you, so let's try to play nice
schadenfreude wrote:Dear Melissa you're completely wrong about the GOP ignoring poverty as an issue in their race. The candidates have spelled out a clear cut plan on how to end poverty in America.
#1 Cut the corporate tax rate.
This is just an utterly false statement. Not only has job creation been higher and economic growth at it's strongest in our nation when taxes were at their highest, there is zero empirical evidence to back up such a fallacy of a claim. FACTS: Right now corporate America is sitting on 2 trillion surplus of profits, the lowest taxes and interest rates in over 60 years and they aren't creating jobs. They are using this to ruse you. Follow corporate money, look at what politicians it goes to, look at what they lobby for. Look at Rick Perry, homeboy is a prime example of corruption in government. He gets bought out and runs the pay to play politics. Why do you think he got in an uproar about the AT&T and T-Mobile merger? Was it because AT&T has given him multiple 100s of thousands of dollars over the years, or did he genuinely think that the merger would help the citizens and consumers of this nation?
#2 Cut capitol gains taxes.
Cut? No. Reform? yes. The problem with capital gains taxes and that they do not reflect income tax at all, and are on a totally separate bracket. Rich people, who can cut their salary from their jobs down to a lower rate and take payment in other forms like: Stocks, bonds, property, tangible goods, etc. have to pay taxes on it. However, those taxes are not the same as your income tax. You aren't paying state and federal taxes on it, you are paying medicare taxes, social security and so forth. This off balances what a person really nets every year versus what they pay in taxes. There are property taxes and sometimes a one time gift tax involved with some of these things, but dropping or lowering the tax will not fix our budget and debt issues.
#3 Maintain the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy.
Yes, that has worked so well for our economy so far.
#4 Broaden the tax base to include everybody over 18 even if they are under the poverty line or seniors on a fixed income.
Everyone who has a job pays taxes period. Even illegals aliens pay taxes in this country. The only time someone doesn't pay taxes is if they are working a cash only job with no paper trail. Granted, people do cheat on their taxes. Part of your welfare check will even go to taxes I believe. I don't know of any situation where you gain income and don't owe taxes.
#5 Cut entitlements for the poor.
Cutting entitlements to corporate welfare will save money on an exponential level over cutting any sort of social program. The GOP is great at pointing out how much money welfare, social security, and any sort of social program costs, but yet they never bring up the tax holidays the government grants corporations. The tax cuts they give them, and every other bonus, and every other bonus and discount they give them. Then they turn around and say they are going to do it to create jobs, which is total and utter bs. They aren't creating jobs because they have the lowest taxes in 60 years right now. Companies only hire when they need to, period, not if they have more money laying around.
Do all 5 and the GOP says the free market will fix everything, and the poor will pull themselves up by the boot straps. Here is the point where you are completely wrong about the GOP Melissa; you are attempting to make the case that the GOP is ignoring the issue when the indisputable fact is they have clearly defined their plan to fix poverty in America. That being said I'm going to make the bold assumption that you believe the GOP's plans and solutions are a steaming pile of gak they are attempting to feed to their own base. Instead of a steaming pile of gak I'm going to give it the more moderate name of cool aid, and make the case that the GOP both loves the taste of their own cool aid and honestly believe (Or delusional belief) that it will help poverty in America. You can say a lot of nasty things about the GOP primary race, but I think it's not accurate to say they are ignoring poverty when a huge chunk of their base is very poor, very religious, and very much enjoys the taste of that cool aid. If you're having a hard time understanding them I have a couple of simple suggestions. Find Jesus, move to a trailer park, give up hygiene, brew some crystal meth your bath tub, and start having sex with your brother. Don't worry you'll still be cute with half your teeth, just think of your mouth being half full of your teeth being half gone.
Now this I agree with you on. Politics in this country is no longer on what is best for this country at the moment basis. Instead, both Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the exact same party when it comes to the following: Authoritarianism, military expansion, government expansion, corporate welfare, invasion of rights (see Patriot Act), and several other parallels. Now what the Democrats and Republicans oppose from each other, are social issues like: Gay marriage, woman's rights and pro choice and pro life, religion, gun control, being liberal/conservative, social/private programs and services.
I will give the Democrats some credit on trying to at least reform health care, at least reform taxes, but they are just as influenced by the rich and corporate as the GOP, so they tend to put up a good show, but never follow through. That is maybe because they want to keep their lobbyist money coming in from the corporations.
Grundz wrote:maybe we should seed the clouds with bullets
So we're going from metaphorical class warfare to literal class warfare? At least you're being honest.
Crom wrote:Everyone who has a job pays taxes period. Even illegals aliens pay taxes in this country. The only time someone doesn't pay taxes is if they are working a cash only job with no paper trail. Granted, people do cheat on their taxes. Part of your welfare check will even go to taxes I believe. I don't know of any situation where you gain income and don't owe taxes.
EITC - Google, read, learn. Education is a valuable thing.
Grundz wrote:maybe we should seed the clouds with bullets
So we're going from metaphorical class warfare to literal class warfare? At least you're being honest.
hey man, my shock has never ceased that with millions and millions being thrown out of their homes, life savings gone, jobs being lost, ect. No one has really taken a shot at the people responsible.
Not the president or a corrupt congressmen, the actual people responsible.
Grundz wrote:maybe we should seed the clouds with bullets
So we're going from metaphorical class warfare to literal class warfare? At least you're being honest.
Crom wrote:Everyone who has a job pays taxes period. Even illegals aliens pay taxes in this country. The only time someone doesn't pay taxes is if they are working a cash only job with no paper trail. Granted, people do cheat on their taxes. Part of your welfare check will even go to taxes I believe. I don't know of any situation where you gain income and don't owe taxes.
EITC - Google, read, learn. Education is a valuable thing.
I don't need to google it, you pay taxes on all forms of income, period. I cashed in a 30 year old bond my great grandparents bought me this year, and I owe taxes on it. Now there are certain forms of income you can pay taxes on once and that is it, or you don't pay taxes until you withdraw that money, however you still pay taxes. You are the one making the claim there are tons of people out there not paying taxes, you need to back that claim up. The people that don't pay taxes are technically criminals and are committing tax fraud. The foreigner that works at walmart has a tax ID, and gets a paycheck just like every other employee that pays state and federal taxes, and they don't reap any benefits from it.
So, again show me a situation where you gain assets/money and don't owe taxes? You inherit property, you now owe taxes on it, you buy a new car you pay taxes on it, you get that bonus at work you pay a bonus tax, etc. I was a sub contractor for about two years and I did not have any deductions from my checks because I got paid a contract rate, and you bet I owed taxes at the end of the year. I was able to itemize well enough I never owed that much, if anything at all, but I paid those taxes.
Now, if you are referring to people who have received tax cuts via the stimulus packages (1st one signed by GW Bush, 2nd by Obama) then yes, there have been a decent number of house holds that have qualified for tons of tax credits. However, that is still just a drop in the ocean to what was given to the corporate world in bail out money. Do these tax credits wipe out all forms of taxes? Nope, they sure don't.
Also, if you make under a certain amount of money you aren't required to file your taxes, however they still get deducted out of your paycheck. Not filing does not equal not paying any taxes.
So, I still have yet to find any way you can gain income and become completely tax exempt, besides being a child who cannot legally own anything and can also be claimed as a depended on someone else's taxes.
Grundz wrote:hey man, my shock has never ceased that with millions and millions being thrown out of their homes, life savings gone, jobs being lost, ect. No one has really taken a shot at the people responsible.
Not the president or a corrupt congressmen, the actual people responsible.
First of all, the rich suffered a lot of losses due to the economic downturn. I'd wager the average losses among the top 5% were significantly higher (in raw dollars, maybe even as a percentage of income) than the average losses among the bottom 50% (those who were thrown out of homes, etc.)
Second, the people largely responsible for the crash were the government bureaucrats that enabled this type of activity. People will always behave in their own interests, and if the law allows someone to screw others while acting as a guarantor against that screwing, people will take advantage of the system. That's exactly what happened in '08.
Third, no one took literal shots at the President or corrupt congresspeople, unless you count Giffords and that was borne out of a grammatical disagreement (I know...WTF?) than political ill-will (despite what you may have heard in the MSM). But there have been threats of violence against those were perceived to be "the people responsible."
And finally, as always, taxing the rich (or even shooting them) will not make you a dime wealthier. It's nice rhetoric to get people excited, but has very little practical effect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crom wrote:So, again show me a situation where you gain assets/money and don't owe taxes?
Hypothetically, if a person paid $5,000 in taxes throughout the year but received a "tax refund" of $6,000, would you say that person paid taxes?
hey man, my shock has never ceased that with millions and millions being thrown out of their homes, life savings gone, jobs being lost, ect. No one has really taken a shot at the people responsible.
Not the president or a corrupt congressmen, the actual people responsible.
biccat wrote:
And finally, as always, taxing the rich (or even shooting them) will not make you a dime wealthier. It's nice rhetoric to get people excited, but has very little practical effect.
Untrue
If the rich realize that with extreme greed comes consequences, they may actually, you know, create those jobs they were promising to when they received those tax breaks. Whats being called for isnt a return to the 1930's, its a return to before the previous president arguabley got us into this mess. where the gap between wealthy and poor was still expanding, just not at the absurd rate it is now.
Japan has a law that states you cannot make more than 10X (or so) the average wage of your employees, you may call FREEDOOOM. but there's a reason why they are recovering from the world recession, and one of the worst disasters of our time, at the same time, in stride. Its because they are an industrious, hard working people whom 50+% of their population aren't under crippling debt.
may want to check out : http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 incase you can't read
-keeping the poor from becoming super poor reduces hospital stays, mental problems, domestic violence, and other issues to the tune of less than it costs to let them become poor and the associated upkeeps.
biccat wrote:
And finally, as always, taxing the rich (or even shooting them) will not make you a dime wealthier. It's nice rhetoric to get people excited, but has very little practical effect.
Untrue
If the rich realize that with extreme greed comes consequences, they may actually, you know, create those jobs they were promising to when they received those tax breaks. Whats being called for isnt a return to the 1930's, its a return to before the previous president arguabley got us into this mess. where the gap between wealthy and poor was still expanding, just not at the absurd rate it is now.
Japan has a law that states you cannot make more than 10X (or so) the average wage of your employees, you may call FREEDOOOM. but there's a reason why they are recovering from the world recession, and one of the worst disasters of our time, at the same time, in stride. Its because they are an industrious, hard working people whom 50+% of their population aren't under crippling debt.
Er...Japan's been in a recession for like, ten years. Further, US household debt levels have been falling. Finally, you'll have to show me this law. While I am somewhat positive as policy, I don't think there is such a law.
Crom wrote:I don't need to google it, you pay taxes on all forms of income, period.
Yes and no. The government might withhold some of the money that you earned, but you don't actually pay your taxes until you fill out the forms in Q1 of the next year. And there are plenty of people who make a small enough amount of money (unfortunately, I don't remember the cut-off point off the top of my head) that the government "Refunds" everything that was withheld.
Of course, that refund assumes that the government hasn't already spent it. I've got a sneaking suspicion that in the not too distant future the Glorious People's Republic of California isn't going to have enough cash on hand to send my State Income Tax Refund check to me...
Tigerone wrote:Let’s not forget about children. Middle and upper class tend to have fewer children which lead to more disposable income and a better standard of living. Lower income people tend to have more children that lead to even a worse standard of living
That contradicts the "Welfare Queen" idea.
Which is correct?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
helgrenze wrote:The thing about "median income" is that for every person making twice the median, there are two making half the median. .
That's not what median means. Media means the middle of the range.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Grundz wrote:
biccat wrote:
And finally, as always, taxing the rich (or even shooting them) will not make you a dime wealthier. It's nice rhetoric to get people excited, but has very little practical effect.
Untrue
If the rich realize that with extreme greed comes consequences, they may actually, you know, create those jobs they were promising to when they received those tax breaks. Whats being called for isnt a return to the 1930's, its a return to before the previous president arguabley got us into this mess. where the gap between wealthy and poor was still expanding, just not at the absurd rate it is now.
Japan has a law that states you cannot make more than 10X (or so) the average wage of your employees, you may call FREEDOOOM. but there's a reason why they are recovering from the world recession, and one of the worst disasters of our time, at the same time, in stride. Its because they are an industrious, hard working people whom 50+% of their population aren't under crippling debt.
Er...Japan's been in a recession for like, ten years. Further, US household debt levels have been falling. Finally, you'll have to show me this law. While I am somewhat positive as policy, I don't think there is such a law.
I've never heard of it.
Japan's economy has been stagnating for nearly 20 years.
Hypothetically, if a person paid $5,000 in taxes throughout the year but received a "tax refund" of $6,000, would you say that person paid taxes?
This does not account for local state, state/city tax (where I live there is a damn city tax), social security, medicare, earnings on non income like interest, stocks, bonds, property taxes, and so forth. These people aren't not paying any taxes at all, they are benefiting from the stimulus program, but only if they qualify for it. So that person in your hypothetical makes $1,000 profit off of federal taxes, but in comparison to the $4 billion dollar tax holiday corporations are lobbying for is again, drops of ocean in the water of tax reform. Individuals not paying taxes in the manner you described is not costing the government 100s of billions or even trillions of dollars in lost tax revenue each year, it is tax cuts from the richest people and tax cuts to the largest corporations. The numbers and facts are in black and white and as plain as day. People that illegally cheat taxes should be held responsible for their actions, people taking advantage of legit ways to loop hole taxes don't need to face criminal charges but rather the government needs to reform those changes.
Yes and no. The government might withhold some of the money that you earned, but you don't actually pay your taxes until you fill out the forms in Q1 of the next year. And there are plenty of people who make a small enough amount of money (unfortunately, I don't remember the cut-off point off the top of my head) that the government "Refunds" everything that was withheld.
Of course, that refund assumes that the government hasn't already spent it. I've got a sneaking suspicion that in the not too distant future the Glorious People's Republic of California isn't going to have enough cash on hand to send my State Income Tax Refund check to me...
It is called a refund, because it is a refund. You pay into taxes every pay check, and that money is the governments. Then once a year they assess how much you paid in versus how much you actually owed minus your deductions. Then you get a refund if you paid too much.
The last I read into it, and granted this was back in the 1990s, was that if you made below the per capita poverty line in wages you generally got all of it back, if not a high percentage. In every state I know of, that is under $20k a year, maybe less in states that have a lower per captia income. $20k a year? You cannot live off of that, and sadly that is the only work available to people. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say I want you to pay taxes, health care, housing, and every other cost of living and I want you to be an upstanding citizen and not break the laws. When people get desperate for money they do desperate things. With the ever so rising cost of everything: Food, services, health care, rent/housing, and so forth and the not to scale living wage you have to give the poor people a break, so they can live.
What I don't get from a logical stand point from the GOP is that if you are poor and sucking off the government's teet, then you are a horrible burden on society and costing the tax payers so much money. Yet, if you are a well off rich person, who writes off 4 billion dollars in tax loop holes and credits through a corporation to not pay taxes that is the American way? So, on one hand you got someone making 20K a year and they are a free loading lazy jerk face, but the guy making millions as a CEO is a hard working honest person, even though they don't pay anything in taxes and their tax credits equate to an exponential amount of that poor persons yearly salary....
I am not saying we need to tax the rich to death either. I am saying tax reform needs to happen on a scale that levels the playing field so the middle class have more money. My reasoning behind this is that the middle class drive the economy, only 1% of Americans are millionaires or richer. That 1% is not going to drive the economy, ever. Our economy is based off a simple supply and demand system. That is how it has always been, and supply and demand has some flaws, those flaws we are experiencing now. If you increase the middle class's disposable income they will spend more money on goods and services. The demand will go up for these goods and services and jobs will have to be created to meet the demand.
This whole taxing the rich hurts the economy is just an utter lie the GOP media machines puts out there to keep their autocracy-following friends rich and the uneducated in the dark about by blaming the poor ethnic people.
A growing economy usually means that there are more people doing more work, or doing work better. It isnt growing at "our" roller-coaster rate but it is slowly increasing, and not tanking like the majority of the world.
halonachos wrote:But we also have the fact that people tend to get married and if there is poverty both parents tend to work to gain income and when those kids are old enough they also tend to try to get a job.
I know that this is the generally accepted wisdom and that it makes sense, but I wonder if the statistics bear it out. Especially given that marriage rates tend to decrease as household income decreases.
Not to mention divorce rates, which tend to be abnormally high in those in lower brackets because of financial strain on the relationship.
Median number here is 3. The average is ~8. Which one do you think is REALLY representative of the majority of this sample, the average... or he median?
Common statistical wisdom is that the median does a much better job of throwing away outliers than the average does. OF course, the median household income is kinda misleading itself (the cost of living is different for different areas, and the median for various races, household sizes, and locations is also wildly different), but less so than the average income.
I got to where I am by the 'Luck and Pluck" method. Surviving by going from life preserver to life preserver in order to keep my head above water.
Joining the military quite literally saved my life. I'm not suggesting in any way that we should shuffle all the poor people off to foreign wars (we do that anyway), but it did get me off the streets and with enough of a support mechanism that allowed me to weigh my options. A surrogate family in other words. Much of that support mechanism is missing where the poor are concerned.
I was lucky in the extreme to be blessed with enough intelligence to get an education and even luckier to find myself in a job completely unrelated to my degrees. A common problem amongst college grads.
Luck plays a huge part in where someone ends up in life. There are those that can drive toward a goal and succeed without any intervention. Many of those folks though have simply won the life lottery statistically, compared to the vast amounts of people who've tried and failed.
Why poor states vote republican is so easy to see. Most poor people only have a few things really, family, religion and patriotism. Many poor folks I grew up with were this way. Often voting against their own self interests because a candidate was a war hero, waved the flag more vigorously than the others or supported 'christian values'. The latter validated simply because a candidate mentioned GOD once or twice and said he belonged to a church.
The Republicans have capitalised by making Democrats appear to oppose those values. The Democrats have played into this strategy because many of my fellow Dems can be pompous and condescending elitests... trying to help the downtrodden they often appear to despise.
Those impoverished folks who are there because of laziness are such a small minority as to be inconsequential. When nearly half of the US population qualifies to pay little or no tax and we still have a 15 trillion dollar economy speaks volumes about income inequality.
Trying to pin down a reason why someone is poor is much harder than just labelling them and leaving their future in their laps. People have to take an active part in helping others in order to make a better society. Active being the operative word. You can't just label them and leave them, nor can you drop money in their laps and point them in the general direction. There needs to be active participation.
Most people are poor because they've been generationally poor and don't know anything else.
Dispite popular misconceptions, I can actually read.
Did you notice anything missing from that article? Anything at all?
How about: how much did the program cost the city, province, and country?
If we took $100,000 from each of the top say...5000 people and gave it to 5000 poor people in a single city, you would see a net improvement in the health and welfare of that city. But if you only look at the benefit you're not getting the whole picture. What if the hospital stays, mental problems, general welfare and other issues cost the city only $400 million/year (ignoring for the moment the general intangibles)? Well, then the program of giving money directly to the impoverished would be a net loss.
This is a common tactic used to support progressive ideas. Poll a bunch of people and ask if they want to receive benefit X. Most of them will say yes. Poll them and ask if they want to pay cost Y. Most of them will say no. But what happens when you ask them if they're willing to pay Y to get X?
Crom wrote:
biccat wrote:Hypothetically, if a person paid $5,000 in taxes throughout the year but received a "tax refund" of $6,000, would you say that person paid taxes?
This does not account for local state, state/city tax (where I live there is a damn city tax), social security, medicare, earnings on non income like interest, stocks, bonds, property taxes, and so forth.
It's my example, so yes it does. If someone pays $5,000 in taxes (state, local, payroll, sales, property, etc.) and receives $6,000 in tax returns (state, local, federal), would you say that they paid taxes?
This whole taxing the rich hurts the economy is just an utter lie the GOP media machines puts out there to keep their autocracy-following friends rich and the uneducated in the dark about by blaming the poor ethnic people.
I'm confused, am I an "autocracy-following friend" or "uneducated [and] in the dark"? Inquiring minds want to know.
Uhlan wrote:I'm not poor now, but I grew up dirt poor.
I got to where I am by the 'Luck and Pluck" method. Surviving by going from life preserver to life preserver in order to keep my head above water.
Joining the military quite literally saved my life. I'm not suggesting in any way that we should shuffle all the poor people off to foreign wars (we do that anyway), but it did get me off the streets and with enough of a support mechanism that allowed me to weigh my options. A surrogate family in other words. Much of that support mechanism is missing where the poor are concerned.
I was lucky in the extreme to be blessed with enough intelligence to get an education and even luckier to find myself in a job completely unrelated to my degrees. A common problem amongst college grads.
Luck plays a huge part in where someone ends up in life. There are those that can drive toward a goal and succeed without any intervention. Many of those folks though have simply won the life lottery statistically, compared to the vast amounts of people who've tried and failed.
Why poor states vote republican is so easy to see. Most poor people only have a few things really, family, religion and patriotism. Many poor folks I grew up with were this way. Often voting against their own self interests because a candidate was a war hero, waved the flag more vigorously than the others or supported 'christian values'. The latter validated simply because a candidate mentioned GOD once or twice and said he belonged to a church.
The Republicans have capitalised by making Democrats appear to oppose those values. The Democrats have played into this strategy because many of my fellow Dems can be pompous and condescending elitests... trying to help the downtrodden they often appear to despise.
Those impoverished folks who are there because of laziness are such a small minority as to be inconsequential. When nearly half of the US population qualifies to pay little or no tax and we still have a 15 trillion dollar economy speaks volumes about income inequality.
Trying to pin down a reason why someone is poor is much harder than just labelling them and leaving their future in their laps. People have to take an active part in helping others in order to make a better society. Active being the operative word. You can't just label them and leave them, nor can you drop money in their laps and point them in the general direction. There needs to be active participation.
Most people are poor because they've been generationally poor and don't know anything else.
It's my example, so yes it does. If someone pays $5,000 in taxes (state, local, payroll, sales, property, etc.) and receives $6,000 in tax returns (state, local, federal), would you say that they paid taxes?
tax credits always go towards federal taxes, you still pay property taxes, and everything else. The stimulus plan I am referring to was federal tax credits (the whole state/federal divide) mainly so people could try to keep their house and not foreclose on it. You example has no real basis to go on, since tax credits apply and come from different sources. You would have to get tax credits on even your property, which I have never ever heard of.
I'm confused, am I an "autocracy-following friend" or "uneducated [and] in the dark"? Inquiring minds want to know.
Look at the census data, the highest concentration of conservatives is in the South East part of the USA, which also happens to be the most uneducated, and some of the poorest regions in the country. This region also houses a huge concentration of the most religious people in the country. These are the people that the GOP is catering to. The autocracy-following friends are the people that are rich, and the people who are sending money to DC to lobby for their cause. Things like illegal company mergers, tax breaks/holidays/credits to the richest people, health care reform (did you know that the health care industry was dumping over $1 million USD per a day to lobby against Obama Care? they cannot pay off honest people's health claims but they can drop $1 million per a day lobbying against reform?), and so on. It is a good-ol-boys club. When they leave politics they will have a nice executive corporate job waiting for them since they help the corporation cut corners, not pay taxes, and basically break the law and probably do a lot of things that would generally be considered as unethical.
Now take into the fact that only 1% of the people in this country are millionaires or richer, and around 65% of all elected officials in DC are also millionaires or richer. Don't you think their heavy bias is going to affect them from doing what is really right versus what is really wrong?
The uneducated people are the ones that believe the GOP's ideas will actually work. Deregulation got us into this mess, and taxes have nothing to do with job creation. The facts prove that if you look at the data for the past 100 years in the USA. Job creation in the USA was at it's peak when everyone paid the most taxes, and now it is at it's lowest when taxes are at a 60 year all time low.
First I would like to thank everybody here for understanding the purpose of my last post was to show GOP talking points on how they are going to help the poor will actually screw the poor. Now to answer an excellent point Melissa raised in her OP.
Question: Why do poor white Americans vote for Republicans when the Democrat's policies help the poor and the policies of Republicans screw them?
Answer: Because poor white Christians value their faith more than they desire more money.
Those 3 states will never go blue because of the 3Gs (God, Gays, and Guns) The 3Gs won't win a national election, but you can't win the 10 poorest states of the union being on the wrong side of the 3Gs. Conservatives often come across as anti poor, which is a fact that some Christians see as anti Christian. Liberals often come across as anti Christian, which is a fact that almost all Christians see as anti Christian.
Anyhow here are my top 4 reasons why the poorest states in the union will remain red states.
#1: John 3:16 According to almost every Christian denomination if a person doesn't believe in Jesus and accept him as their savior that person is going to hell. There are a lot of liberal iconoclasts that believe religion is the opium of the masses, that religion serves no useful function in society, that religion is destructive, and the world would be a better place if more people converted to atheism. Those same liberals are not picky about who they convert, and are happy to convert children to atheism. So if A=No 3:16=go directly to hell on death, do not pass go, do not collect $200, B=Liberals want to convert children to atheism, then A+B=Liberal iconoclasts want your children to go to hell. If your first instinct upon hearing what I just said is to attack Christianity as a delusional belief then you are the reason why these poor Christian Americans vote in conservative politicians that financially screw them, and if you think you can be more sensitive to the beliefs in the name of winning elections let me point out the creationism museum and the fact that liberals will not be able to win the votes of hard line Christians as they ridicule the creationist theory that the T Rex's teeth were used to crack open coconuts before God banished Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden. If you are a liberal Christian you can have a great theological debate with conservative Christians by bringing up the liberal Christian theory that Jesus would support the modern day Democratic party because they are more charitable to the poor, and that debate would be ruined quickly when an atheist can no longer bite his tongue and comes in screaming "T Rex teeth were not designed to crack coconuts you fracking neanderthal." Looks like those 10 poorest states in the union will remain red states.
#2: Abortion: This one is very simple because there is no middle ground when dealing with a people that perceive an aborted fetus as being no different than a 2 year old baby. The first instinct of liberals is often to point out that the perception of the fetus is a false perception, but that only makes the situation worse because it comes across as liberals telling people how to think as they strip all human rights away from a human being. If you can get into a pro lifer's head for a minute you'll realize they are scared gakless of a government that they perceive is redefining people as non humans and killing them in numbers never seen before in world history. There is no convincing them that a fetus, embryo, or zygote is not a fully developed human being.
#3: The gays: Many Christians in red states follow religious beliefs that teach homosexual behavior is a sin that should not be tolerated. Most of those red state churches teach hate the sin love the sinner and/or with pray the gay away policies. The liberal belief that we should accept their lifestyle contradicts their religion, liberals get mad because they think conservatives are acting like anti gay bigots, and conservatives get mad because they think liberals are acting like anti Christian bigots. The grand irony is both sides honestly believe they are the side being persecuted.
#4: The guns. Liberals want to take out guns, Obama is president, the sky is falling. If you're a pro 2nd amendment Democrat that is a proud gun owner that wants to dispute the assumption that Obama wants to take away people's guns let me reassure you that your efforts will be thoroughly sabotaged by members of your own party that believe that AK47s with detachable 40 round clips should not be sold to the mentally ill.
#5: Conservatives believe liberals want to control the way they think, and telling people how to think is one of the quickest possible ways to piss them off. The thing is conservatives are not paranoid because many liberals really are trying to change the way they think. There is a fine line between telling someone who is wrong that they are wrong, and telling someone that is wrong how they should think. Liberals don't tend to pay much attention to that line or the feelings of conservatives. Combined with the fact that liberals are often come across as smug and self righteous by conservatives that fine line I just talked about has been thoroughly trampled.
schadenfreude wrote:First I would like to thank everybody here for understanding the purpose of my last post was to show GOP talking points on how they are going to help the poor will actually screw the poor. Now to answer an excellent point Melissa raised in her OP.
Question: Why do poor white Americans vote for Republicans when the Democrat's policies help the poor and the policies of Republicans screw them?
Answer: Because poor white Christians value their faith more than they desire more money.
Those 3 states will never go blue because of the 3Gs (God, Gays, and Guns) The 3Gs won't win a national election, but you can't win the 10 poorest states of the union being on the wrong side of the 3Gs. Conservatives often come across as anti poor, which is a fact that some Christians see as anti Christian. Liberals often come across as anti Christian, which is a fact that almost all Christians see as anti Christian.
Anyhow here are my top 4 reasons why the poorest states in the union will remain red states.
#1: John 3:16 According to almost every Christian denomination if a person doesn't believe in Jesus and accept him as their savior that person is going to hell. There are a lot of liberal iconoclasts that believe religion is the opium of the masses, that religion serves no useful function in society, that religion is destructive, and the world would be a better place if more people converted to atheism. Those same liberals are not picky about who they convert, and are happy to convert children to atheism. So if A=No 3:16=go directly to hell on death, do not pass go, do not collect $200, B=Liberals want to convert children to atheism, then A+B=Liberal iconoclasts want your children to go to hell. If your first instinct upon hearing what I just said is to attack Christianity as a delusional belief then you are the reason why these poor Christian Americans vote in conservative politicians that financially screw them, and if you think you can be more sensitive to the beliefs in the name of winning elections let me point out the creationism museum and the fact that liberals will not be able to win the votes of hard line Christians as they ridicule the creationist theory that the T Rex's teeth were used to crack open coconuts before God banished Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden. If you are a liberal Christian you can have a great theological debate with conservative Christians by bringing up the liberal Christian theory that Jesus would support the modern day Democratic party because they are more charitable to the poor, and that debate would be ruined quickly when an atheist can no longer bite his tongue and comes in screaming "T Rex teeth were not designed to crack coconuts you fracking neanderthal." Looks like those 10 poorest states in the union will remain red states.
#2: Abortion: This one is very simple because there is no middle ground when dealing with a people that perceive an aborted fetus as being no different than a 2 year old baby. The first instinct of liberals is often to point out that the perception of the fetus is a false perception, but that only makes the situation worse because it comes across as liberals telling people how to think as they strip all human rights away from a human being. If you can get into a pro lifer's head for a minute you'll realize they are scared gakless of a government that they perceive is redefining people as non humans and killing them in numbers never seen before in world history. There is no convincing them that a fetus, embryo, or zygote is not a fully developed human being.
#3: The gays: Many Christians in red states follow religious beliefs that teach homosexual behavior is a sin that should not be tolerated. Most of those red state churches teach hate the sin love the sinner and/or with pray the gay away policies. The liberal belief that we should accept their lifestyle contradicts their religion, liberals get mad because they think conservatives are acting like anti gay bigots, and conservatives get mad because they think liberals are acting like anti Christian bigots. The grand irony is both sides honestly believe they are the side being persecuted.
#4: The guns. Liberals want to take out guns, Obama is president, the sky is falling. If you're a pro 2nd amendment Democrat that is a proud gun owner that wants to dispute the assumption that Obama wants to take away people's guns let me reassure you that your efforts will be thoroughly sabotaged by members of your own party that believe that AK47s with detachable 40 round clips should not be sold to the mentally ill.
#5: Conservatives believe liberals want to control the way they think, and telling people how to think is one of the quickest possible ways to piss them off. The thing is conservatives are not paranoid because many liberals really are trying to change the way they think. There is a fine line between telling someone who is wrong that they are wrong, and telling someone that is wrong how they should think. Liberals don't tend to pay much attention to that line or the feelings of conservatives. Combined with the fact that liberals are often come across as smug and self righteous by conservatives that fine line I just talked about has been thoroughly trampled.
When the GOP attacks each other based on religion, you get what you get.
How is his religious views even important to do his job as a politician? Let alone any job? Then you have idiots like this, and this particular idiot is from Florida...
schadenfreude wrote:#3: The gays: Many Christians in red states follow religious beliefs that teach homosexual behavior is a sin that should not be tolerated.
Yeah, they're pretty bad Christians that way.
schadenfreude wrote:#5: Conservatives believe liberals want to control the way they think
Amusing, considering that conservatives here struggle to try to get every single ounce of religious and conservative brainwashing they can stuffed into public schools... don't believe me? Just look at the Texas Board of Education. There are some more blatantly corrupt, ideologically extremist organizations that hate their own constituents (they're fond of teacher-bashing and love to look down on the average student and try to lower standards), but not many.
Maybe they're afraid of this because they know they try to do it, themselves?
schadenfreude wrote:#3: The gays: Many Christians in red states follow religious beliefs that teach homosexual behavior is a sin that should not be tolerated.
Yeah, they're pretty bad Christians that way.
schadenfreude wrote:#5: Conservatives believe liberals want to control the way they think
Amusing, considering that conservatives here struggle to try to get every single ounce of religious and conservative brainwashing they can stuffed into public schools... don't believe me? Just look at the Texas Board of Education. There are some more blatantly corrupt, ideologically extremist organizations that hate their own constituents (they're fond of teacher-bashing and love to look down on the average student and try to lower standards), but not many.
Maybe they're afraid of this because they know they try to do it, themselves?
The state of Texas removed Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson from their history books because of their non Christian views. Franklin was somewhat of a weak atheist and Jefferson was a deist. Also, the Kansas state school board has debunked evolution twice now, and tried to teach creationism in schools. The only time it gets repealed is when non conservatives get elected to the state school board.
schadenfreude wrote:#3: The gays: Many Christians in red states follow religious beliefs that teach homosexual behavior is a sin that should not be tolerated.
Yeah, they're pretty bad Christians that way.
schadenfreude wrote:#5: Conservatives believe liberals want to control the way they think
Amusing, considering that conservatives here struggle to try to get every single ounce of religious and conservative brainwashing they can stuffed into public schools... don't believe me? Just look at the Texas Board of Education. There are some more blatantly corrupt, ideologically extremist organizations that hate their own constituents (they're fond of teacher-bashing and love to look down on the average student and try to lower standards), but not many.
Maybe they're afraid of this because they know they try to do it, themselves?
Actually it goes back to John 3:16. According to the modern interpretation of John 3:16 if Christians fail to convert non Christians every person they fail to convert will go to hell. They are morally obligated by their own religion to convert everybody to Christianity, thus they will feel morally justified to do what they are going by any means necessary. They will never see what they are doing as hypocritical because it's a black and white issue to them, and they believe they are doing God's will. I don't need to tell people here how dangerous monotheism is, that would be preaching to the choir. On the bright side we've come a long way. 500 years ago we had nothing better to do than burn each other at the stake over what we now see as a minor theological dispute in regards to the transubstantiation of wine and bread being literal or figurative.
schadenfreude wrote:Actually it goes back to John 3:16.
Have you read John 3:16? There's nothing about that could be remotely interpreted as being evangelist.
Also nice to know that 1/3 of the worlds population all thinks that they have to convert the other 2/3's to Christianity, cause you know, Christianity has no variety and all Christians think the same.
schadenfreude wrote:Actually it goes back to John 3:16.
Have you read John 3:16? There's nothing about that could be remotely interpreted as being evangelist.
Also nice to know that 1/3 of the worlds population all thinks that they have to convert the other 2/3's to Christianity, cause you know, Christianity has no variety and all Christians think the same.
Maybe that is the Anglican interpretation..... I prefer the original text to King James' version.
(next part in spoilers in case you want to skip over it :
Spoiler:
Why should God be forced to use blatantly supernatural ways to ensure humanity is created? Is the Christian God really that weak? ... I don't know how religious I am (I concern myself with worldly affairs and just trying to be a better person than I was the day before), but trying to get in the mindframe of a very devout Christian, my views are still wildly divergent from the nrom: To me, evolution and the scientific study of the world, brings one closer to God than any bible thumping ever could. Through examining God's work we examine who He is, and the many intricacies and complexities that make up the reality He created-- why should the study of God's works be limited only to a single, dusty old book when there's so much else out there that He created? God's ways are high above ours, and his thoughts are as well-- but should we not try to better ourselves by at least TRYING to understand, instead of blindly accepting it like sheep? He gave us logic, intelligence, curiosity, and other such wondrous mental faculties... to neglect them is as much a sin as neglecting the soul or the body. The body is a temple-- and the mind is a forge that shapes the soul.
Okay, that's out of my system. I'm done with the religious aspect for now
halonachos wrote:
I don't see it as the "clearly a nerd" argument, more of a "You tried to call me out but you have no evidence so shut your face" argument.
Yeah, that's why people cite post counts. Because they think their opponent has no evidence.
Nah, its just that Sebster decided to criticize Tigerone on an aspect(wasting time on dakka) and failed to look at the most base method of seeing if it is true or not, the post count. That's like looking at two blood tests and saying that the one with a lower WBC count is more likely to have the flue compared to the blood test filled with the suckers.
But is it agreed that poverty is hereditary or not? Besides I think Luck is a type of chinese food because all of the chinese take out places around here say that they have luck, maybe its MSG, not sure.
It's my example, so yes it does. If someone pays $5,000 in taxes (state, local, payroll, sales, property, etc.) and receives $6,000 in tax returns (state, local, federal), would you say that they paid taxes?
tax credits always go towards federal taxes, you still pay property taxes, and everything else. The stimulus plan I am referring to was federal tax credits (the whole state/federal divide) mainly so people could try to keep their house and not foreclose on it. You example has no real basis to go on, since tax credits apply and come from different sources. You would have to get tax credits on even your property, which I have never ever heard of.
It's apparent you are more interested in dodging the question than answering it. I'm going to conclude that you're refusing to answer the question because it disproves your position.
Crom wrote:
biccat wrote:I'm confused, am I an "autocracy-following friend" or "uneducated [and] in the dark"? Inquiring minds want to know.
The uneducated people are the ones that believe the GOP's ideas will actually work. Deregulation got us into this mess, and taxes have nothing to do with job creation. The facts prove that if you look at the data for the past 100 years in the USA. Job creation in the USA was at it's peak when everyone paid the most taxes, and now it is at it's lowest when taxes are at a 60 year all time low.
So what you're saying is that unless I'm rich (and evil), I'm a rube (and stupid). I'm pretty sure this is a violation of Rule #1.
(next part in spoilers in case you want to skip over it :
Spoiler:
Why should God be forced to use blatantly supernatural ways to ensure humanity is created? Is the Christian God really that weak? ... I don't know how religious I am (I concern myself with worldly affairs and just trying to be a better person than I was the day before), but trying to get in the mindframe of a very devout Christian, my views are still wildly divergent from the nrom: To me, evolution and the scientific study of the world, brings one closer to God than any bible thumping ever could. Through examining God's work we examine who He is, and the many intricacies and complexities that make up the reality He created-- why should the study of God's works be limited only to a single, dusty old book when there's so much else out there that He created? God's ways are high above ours, and his thoughts are as well-- but should we not try to better ourselves by at least TRYING to understand, instead of blindly accepting it like sheep? He gave us logic, intelligence, curiosity, and other such wondrous mental faculties... to neglect them is as much a sin as neglecting the soul or the body. The body is a temple-- and the mind is a forge that shapes the soul.
Okay, that's out of my system. I'm done with the religious aspect for now
What's sad is that I actually agree with you on that one, but bible-thumpers are kind of funny. I liked my old priest, the guy believed in evolution and wasn't too into that "all homosexuals go to hell" crowd either, heck my church had a support group for battered homosexuals.
Historically speaking, someone born in affluence is likely to live in affluence regardless of their efforts; conversely, someone whom is born in poverty is likely to stay in poverty regardless of their efforts.
I'm not sure what definition of "hereditary" you're using.
helgrenze wrote:Maybe that is the Anglican interpretation.....
No. I think he's confusing the common usage of John 3:16 by evangelists for a call to evangelism. Nothing in 3:16 calls Christians to convert others. It makes a wonderful mission statement though.
Most Christians probably can't even recite John 3:16, and its one of the easiest Bible verses to remember. Boiling things like the Creationism in schools debate down to an attempt to convert doesn't fly far. Evangelism hasn't been a big thing for Christians in the US for awhile. They're more interested in 'protecting the children from evil' evolution because... something about evolution disproving the undisproveable, idk. Something silly that they then overreact to.
I prefer the original text to King James' version.
King James flows nicely when you read it and that's about all its good for
EDIT: This may sound strange, but have you considered a career in religious motivational speaking Melissa
schadenfreude wrote:Actually it goes back to John 3:16.
Have you read John 3:16? There's nothing about that could be remotely interpreted as being evangelist.
Also nice to know that 1/3 of the worlds population all thinks that they have to convert the other 2/3's to Christianity, cause you know, Christianity has no variety and all Christians think the same.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Most common modern interpretation is "Whoever believes in Jesus as their savior goes to heaven" There are a lot of denominations of Christianity, and every mainstream denomination that I know of has the same modern interpretation of John 3:16 that I just described.
Current evangelical interpretation is "Whoever believes in Jesus as their savior goes to heaven, everybody else goes straight to hell because of original sin" The fact is most denominations hold this belief.
Please enlighten me. What Christian denominations believe people go to heaven without any belief in Jesus, or accepting Jesus as their savior?
Melissia wrote:Historically speaking, someone born in affluence is likely to live in affluence regardless of their efforts; conversely, someone whom is born in poverty is likely to stay in poverty regardless of their efforts.
I'm not sure what definition of "hereditary" you're using.
Oh, I mean that there's a 'poor', 'middle class', and 'rich' gene. Typically on the fifth chromosome, in 'poor' people the chromosome resembles a "cent" sign, in the 'middle class' it looks like a dollar sign, and 'rich' people have double the amount of chromosomes the 'middle class' people have.
@ Melissia,
Most religions believe in Baptism for the forgiveness of original sin.
schadenfreude wrote:Most common modern interpretation is "Whoever believes in Jesus as their savior goes to heaven" There are a lot of denominations of Christianity, and every mainstream denomination that I know of has the same modern interpretation of John 3:16 that I just described.
Where's the call to convert everyone else in there? You made a statement about Christians feeling morally obligated to convert others to Christianity (this is called Evangelism). Nothing in John 3:16 encourages evangelist action (Try Mark 15:16). Many Christians and Christian denominations are not evangelist today and the desire to convert others isn't a primary motivation for many. Latter-Day Saints movements are a well known exception.
I don't criticize your interpretation of John 3:16 (I know of no debates in any denominations as to its meaning). I criticize the way you used it. John 3:16 is not a motivating verse for evangelist action.
LordofHats wrote:EDIT: This may sound strange, but have you considered a career in religious motivational speaking Melissa
lol... damnit, you're dragging me back in.
Spoiler:
I'm a scientist. A chemist, to be exact... if I had my way, I'd spend my working time toying with the building blocks of reality and making and producing cool new substances, and then spend my non-working time playing video games and chatting with friends. No religion involved.
The only reason I talk about it is because I'm surrounded by religious people whose views on their own faith confound me with their hypocrisy and inherent self-contradictions, so I try to logically think through the subject of faith while keeping in mind that faith is, well, faith, it's not all empirical evidence.
If Homosexuality is a sin, so what? Eyeballing the ass of the girl across the street wearing tight pants is also a sin, she's got a boyfriend and you're coveting her. So you're equally a sinner as the homosexual-- are you going to refuse to tolerate yourself, to change your ways? Are you going to stop desiring wealth, are you going to be the Good Samaritan? Frequently, these people aren't. They use religion as a shield against their own flaws, and they're all the worse for it. That's why I said it's kinda sad.
The one thing that I keep coming back to though, no matter how much I study, is that the ultimate sin in Christianity, if there is one, would be hate. There's nothing further from the Christian god and the Christian savior asked of Christians than hatred, because they asked only that you love them, and love everyone else just like the Good Samaritan did in the parable.
I don't know if I'm Christian, but I do my best not to outright hate these people regardless, because hate doesn't make anything good happen. It's not easy for me. I hate easily, as the mods on this forum know quite well. But I try... and I wish they'd try too.
Melissia wrote:lol... damnit, you're dragging me back in.
Yes. YES! Victory!
Spoiler:
The only reason I talk about it is because I'm surrounded by religious people whose views on their own faith confound me with their hypocrisy and inherent self-contradictions, so I try to logically think through the subject of faith while keeping in mind that faith is, well, faith, it's not all empirical evidence.
The one thing that I keep coming back to though, no matter how much I study, is that the ultimate sin in Christianity, if there is one, would be hate. There's nothing further from the Christian god and the Christian savior asked of Christians than hatred, because they asked only that you love them, and love everyone else just like the Good Samaritan did in the parable.
Welcome to the story of my life age 12-Present. Except I'm into History, and you can imagine how much fun history is with certain folks.
biccat wrote:
Well, here's a chart showing statistics from 1998. I haven't seen anything more recent.
But in that, the difference between the 4th and 5th quintiles for women is within the margin of error and for men it's not hugely significant. But what's really interesting is when you look at earnings of spouses. Many tend to marry someone with a similar income, so wealthy marry wealthy and poor marry poor. This tends to skew household earnings even more.
Huh, maybe I was recalling the belief that marriage is obsolete, rather than actual incidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Most religions believe in Baptism for the forgiveness of original sin.
schadenfreude wrote:Most common modern interpretation is "Whoever believes in Jesus as their savior goes to heaven" There are a lot of denominations of Christianity, and every mainstream denomination that I know of has the same modern interpretation of John 3:16 that I just described.
Where's the call to convert everyone else in there? You made a statement about Christians feeling morally obligated to convert others to Christianity (this is called Evangelism). Nothing in John 3:16 encourages evangelist action (Try Mark 15:16). Many Christians and Christian denominations are not evangelist today and the desire to convert others isn't a primary motivation for many. Latter-Day Saints movements are a well known exception.
I don't criticize your interpretation of John 3:16 (I know of no debates in any denominations as to its meaning). I criticize the way you used it. John 3:16 is not a motivating verse for evangelist action.
You are correct that other passages such as Mark 15:16 are more important to evangelicals. I fell back on John 3:16 in my earlier posts because it's the most widely recognized passage, and probably the most relevant when it comes to atheists in America angering Christians by telling their children there is no god.
I think we're well due for a good old nature v nurture debate
I'll get the pop corn... and some bendy straws
I have a hard time believing we can really link poverty to genetic factors. I could see poverty as the outcome of genetic factors (Like a genetic disposition towards laziness), but then I've always leaned more towards nurture and less towards nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote: and probably the most relevant when it comes to atheists in America angering Christians by telling their children there is no god.
This is what I think Christians get up in arms about. The common Christian I think is less concerned with converting others and more interested in protecting their own kids from the possibility that their opinion isn't the only one in the world. EDIT: Christian parents naturally want their kids to go to heaven But I mean come on, can you blame them
LordofHats wrote:I think we're well due for a good old nature v nurture debate
I'll get the pop corn... and some bendy straws
I have a hard time believing we can really link poverty to genetic factors. I could see poverty as the outcome of genetic factors (Like a genetic disposition towards laziness), but then I've always leaned more towards nurture and less towards nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote: and probably the most relevant when it comes to atheists in America angering Christians by telling their children there is no god.
This is what I think Christians get up in arms about. The common Christian I think is less concerned with converting others and more interested in protecting their own kids from the possibility that their opinion isn't the only one in the world.
Now we're on the same page.
On the nature versus nurture debate the roll model effect of poor parents probably has a larger effect on their kid's future than the actual effect of not having much money. Kids want to grow up to be like their parents. At best if mom is a housewife and dad is an honest hard working but poor man odds are their kids won't see any shame in that lifestyle. At worst if dad is goes in and out of jail for most of his life odds are his sons are going to have a very distorted view of what makes a man a man.
halonachos wrote:
Most religions believe in Baptism for the forgiveness of original sin.
Whut?
Please tell me that you're trolling.
You never studied religion did you?
about.com wrote:In the Catholic Church today, baptism is most commonly administered to infants. While some other Christians strenuously object to infant baptism, believing that baptism requires assent on the part of the person being baptized, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other mainline Protestants also practice infant baptism, and there is evidence that it was practiced from the earliest days of the Church.
Since baptism removes both the guilt and the punishment due to Original Sin, delaying baptism until a child can understand the sacrament may put the child's salvation in danger, should he die unbaptized.
Its called the Nicene Creed, and it is widely used by a lot of churches. Of course the Nicene Creed also states that we believe in zombies.
Nicene Creed wrote:We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead...
That's just an NYT article, I can't link any of the actual research.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
You never studied religion did you?
about.com wrote:In the Catholic Church today, baptism is most commonly administered to infants. While some other Christians strenuously object to infant baptism, believing that baptism requires assent on the part of the person being baptized, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other mainline Protestants also practice infant baptism, and there is evidence that it was practiced from the earliest days of the Church.
Since baptism removes both the guilt and the punishment due to Original Sin, delaying baptism until a child can understand the sacrament may put the child's salvation in danger, should he die unbaptized.
Its called the Nicene Creed, and it is widely used by a lot of churches. Of course the Nicene Creed also states that we believe in zombies.
So we're now at the point where you can equate Christianity and religion without any intellectual shame?
So we're now at the point where you can equate Christianity and religion without any intellectual shame?
Awesome.
*sigh* most religions believe that there is a concept of sin and have their own "ritual cleansing" that involves water.
Judaism
wiki wrote:The "Tvilah" is the act of immersion in natural sourced water, called a "Mikvah"[82][83] In the Jewish Bible and other Jewish texts, immersion in water for ritual purification was established for restoration to a condition of "ritual purity" in specific circumstances. For example, Jews who (according to the Law of Moses) became ritually defiled by contact with a corpse had to use the mikvah before being allowed to participate in the Holy Temple
Islam
wiki wrote:Ritual purification takes the form of ablution, in a lesser form (wudu), and greater form (ghusl), depending on the circumstance; the greater form is obligatory by a woman after she ceases menstruation, on a corpse that didn't die during battle, and after sexual activity, and is optionally used on other occasions, for example just prior to Friday prayers, or entering ihram.
An alternative "dry ablution"(tayammum), involving clean sand or earth, is used if clean water is not available or if suffering from an illness which would be worsened by the use of water; this form is invalidated in the same circumstances as the other forms, and also whenever water becomes available and safe to use. And is also necessary to be repeated (renewed) before every obligatory prayer.
Shintoism
wiki wrote:In Shinto, the main form of ritual purification is Misogi, which involves natural running water, and especially waterfalls. Rather than being entirely naked, men usually wear Japanese loincloths and women wear kimonos, both additionally wearing headbands.
Hinduism
wiki wrote:An important part of ritual purification in Hinduism is the bathing of the entire body, particularly in rivers considered holy such as the Ganges; it is considered auspicious to perform this form of purification before any festival, and it is also practised after the death of someone, in order to maintain purity.
A rose by any other name, besides we were discussing all of the religions within Christianity which is where I used the term religion. Just because you failed to see the context is not my fault.
That would depend. Are we using the generalist version of sin? Or the technical one?
Evil is a better word. Almost all religions do have a water cleansing ritual. But don't call it Baptism if you want to be understood. Baptism is a specific water ritual unique to Christianity, and likewise I know of no other religion with a concept of original sin.
LordofHats wrote:That would depend. Are we using the generalist version of sin? Or the technical one?
Sin is varied, but usually sex is a big thing, that and touching dead people in some cases.
Sin in the christian sense is simply not doing what God told you to or living an unclean life in defiance of god. Sin is the act of being away from God spiritually.
Generally speaking, sin is just another word for evil.
halonachos wrote:
*sigh* most religions believe that there is a concept of sin and have their own "ritual cleansing" that involves water.
And yet only one of them practices Baptism. You cannot simply call all acts of ritual purification, involving water, Baptism. It makes you appear ignorant.
halonachos wrote:
A rose by any other name, besides we were discussing all of the religions within Christianity which is where I used the term religion.
There is so much wrong with this it isn't even funny. First, no, Baptism doesn't compare to things like Ghul, Misogi, or even Mikvah. Arguing that is like arguing that chicken compares to beef. Both are foodstuffs, but you don't judge chicken as though it were a porterhouse. Second, there are no religions within Christianity, there are denominations, sects, and churches, but not religions.
halonachos wrote:
Just because you failed to see the context is not my fault.
When you failed to use technical terminology correctly, it very much was your fault.
LordofHats wrote:That would depend. Are we using the generalist version of sin? Or the technical one?
Sin is varied, but usually sex is a big thing, that and touching dead people in some cases.
Sin in the christian sense is simply not doing what God told you to or living an unclean life in defiance of god. Sin is the act of being away from God spiritually.
Generally speaking, sin is just another word for evil.
Lust is a sin.
Like I said, sex is usually a really big sin when you're unmarried. In some Islamic cultures you have to cleanse yourself if you fart before going to pray. Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
LordofHats wrote:
Evil is a better word. Almost all religions do have a water cleansing ritual. But don't call it Baptism if you want to be understood. Baptism is a specific water ritual unique to Christianity, and likewise I know of no other religion with a concept of original sin.
halonachos wrote: *sigh* most religions believe that there is a concept of sin and have their own "ritual cleansing" that involves water.
And yet only one of them practices Baptism. You cannot simply call all acts of ritual purification, involving water, Baptism. It makes you appear ignorant.
If you note I said baptism and not Baptism, the difference is that one is a generic term. Similar to how there is a difference between god and God.
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote: A rose by any other name, besides we were discussing all of the religions within Christianity which is where I used the term religion.
There is so much wrong with this it isn't even funny. First, no, Baptism doesn't compare to things like Ghul, Misogi, or even Mikvah. Arguing that is like arguing that chicken compares to beef. Both are foodstuffs, but you don't judge chicken as though it were a porterhouse. Second, there are no religions within Christianity, there are denominations, sects, and churches, but not religions.
Except for the fact that baptisms are based off of Mikvah, and the fact that they all involve being 'cleansed with water' then yes I agree with you. Its more like saying that you're making chicken by frying it in sesame oil, olive oil, or peanut oil.
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote: Just because you failed to see the context is not my fault.
When you failed to use technical terminology correctly, it very much was your fault.
When you fail to recognize subtle differences it is your fault.
It's my example, so yes it does. If someone pays $5,000 in taxes (state, local, payroll, sales, property, etc.) and receives $6,000 in tax returns (state, local, federal), would you say that they paid taxes?
tax credits always go towards federal taxes, you still pay property taxes, and everything else. The stimulus plan I am referring to was federal tax credits (the whole state/federal divide) mainly so people could try to keep their house and not foreclose on it. You example has no real basis to go on, since tax credits apply and come from different sources. You would have to get tax credits on even your property, which I have never ever heard of.
It's apparent you are more interested in dodging the question than answering it. I'm going to conclude that you're refusing to answer the question because it disproves your position.
Your question is not a valid one. There are no real life examples or evidence that someone pays zero dollars or less total in their taxes and then gets money back. The only examples you can find, with actual evidence is on federal tax returns claiming stimulus money to help save mortgages. I can make up fake "hypothetical" claims all day that no one can answer. I am asking you to explain your data. Show me, empirical evidence where people paid all their taxes as in: Federal, state, city, county, property, earnings, capital gain, etc; and then got every single penny back plus some and made profit.
Crom wrote:
biccat wrote:I'm confused, am I an "autocracy-following friend" or "uneducated [and] in the dark"? Inquiring minds want to know.
The uneducated people are the ones that believe the GOP's ideas will actually work. Deregulation got us into this mess, and taxes have nothing to do with job creation. The facts prove that if you look at the data for the past 100 years in the USA. Job creation in the USA was at it's peak when everyone paid the most taxes, and now it is at it's lowest when taxes are at a 60 year all time low.
So what you're saying is that unless I'm rich (and evil), I'm a rube (and stupid). I'm pretty sure this is a violation of Rule #1.
I really hate to judge people, but if you honestly believe the GOPs rhetoric then yes, I have to question your intelligence. The GOP and their rich friends aren't stupid at all, hell look at the right wing media machine and look how much money it generates. People who follow Bachman and Palin, I really have to question their intelligence. I understand people are pissed, people are frustrated and people want change so bad sometimes they cling to any idea slightly different. The GOP and all the GOP spin off talking heads are using this to manipulate the system and skew people's views, and it is working. Almost all the facts are out there if you look at the data. Don't go to the media they will twist it into entertainment. Go to your local news outlet and actual news outlet. Read government data that the government puts out, don't get your facts from some random dude's blog. If you look at the data it is quite simple to draw the conclusion the GOPs plan for poverty doesn't do anything but get the rich richer.
If you look at anything in the past 30 years legislation wise, a lot of the GOP policy hurt us. Deregulation is not a good thing because humans cannot be trusted to not screw each other over. I am not even a liberal, and consider myself a moderate who leans liberal, but it is clear to me that the GOP's take on taxes, and poverty has little to do with getting the poorest people in the country more money. They also live behind the illusion that you can lower taxes with out cutting services, and I mean cutting them hard core.
halonachos wrote:Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
Not really. The concept of sin varies widely from faith to faith, there is commonality across the Abrhamics (not surprising, because that's really the only place where "sin" is a thing), but even there the nature of sin is extremely variegated.
Hell, several Eastern religions don't even have concepts of sin.
halonachos wrote:Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
Not really. The concept of sin varies widely from faith to faith, there is commonality across the Abrhamics (not surprising, because that's really the only place where "sin" is a thing), but even there the nature of sin is extremely variegated.
Hell, several Eastern religions don't even have concepts of sin.
Name a religion where murder and theft are not sins. Also, which Eastern religions would those be?
halonachos wrote:Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
Not really. The concept of sin varies widely from faith to faith, there is commonality across the Abrhamics (not surprising, because that's really the only place where "sin" is a thing), but even there the nature of sin is extremely variegated.
Hell, several Eastern religions don't even have concepts of sin.
Name a religion where murder and theft are not sins. Also, which Eastern religions would those be?
Melissia wrote:Then no. It IS hereditary, but it is not genetic.
Well, it might be, there are arguments to the effect that political leanings are genetically determined, poverty isn't a huge stretch from that.
Unless this has been proven by several peer studies I find this super hard to believe. At one point we were all nomadic and had no sense of property and the USA definition of liberal and conservative don't really match with the rest of the world and the rest of the world sees us as authoritarian.
This is the same lines as people saying Liberals on average have more college degrees and make more money on average than conservatives, but that statistic is 100% dumb and meaningless. The idea is definitely interesting but I am gonna call this a bunch of bs until I google search some peer reviews on this to see if anyone can duplicate what this person(s) is doing to find these results to claim political views are genetic.
halonachos wrote:
And yet only one of them practices Baptism.
No, you capitalized it, see:
halonachos wrote:
Most religions believe in Baptism for the forgiveness of original sin.
You even implied that original sin is something that non-Christians often believe in.
halonachos wrote:
Except for the fact that baptisms are based off of Mikvah, and the fact that they all involve being 'cleansed with water' then yes I agree with you.
The only things that Mikvah and Baptism have in common is ritual purification, and water. Their roles in their respective faiths are not comparable at all, one being tied to original sin, the other being tied to defilement.
halonachos wrote:
When you fail to recognize subtle differences it is your fault.
You are many things, but subtle is not one of them.
halonachos wrote:Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
Not really. The concept of sin varies widely from faith to faith, there is commonality across the Abrhamics (not surprising, because that's really the only place where "sin" is a thing), but even there the nature of sin is extremely variegated.
Hell, several Eastern religions don't even have concepts of sin.
Name a religion where murder and theft are not sins. Also, which Eastern religions would those be?
Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintao, are all pretty much philosophies but have spiritual and sometimes supernatural mythos to them like a religion. A lot of these religions do not believe in sin at all, because they believe in a cause and effect connection throughout the universe instead, which is commonly known as Karma.
I'd also point not all Christians believe Baptism cleanses original sin. To some its just a physical act to go with the spiritual act of accepting Jesus Christ as savior and an initiation into the Church body.
Buddhism has 'sin' as in evil, but Buddhism is much less focused on the evil acts of man and more on the inherent suffering of life as I understand it. But Buddhism is an absurdly diverse religion (One can argue some sects of Buddhism aren't religious at all).
halonachos wrote:Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
Not really. The concept of sin varies widely from faith to faith, there is commonality across the Abrhamics (not surprising, because that's really the only place where "sin" is a thing), but even there the nature of sin is extremely variegated.
Hell, several Eastern religions don't even have concepts of sin.
Name a religion where murder and theft are not sins. Also, which Eastern religions would those be?
Taoism doesn't have a concept of "sin".
You're either following the Tau, or you're not.
wiki wrote:In the Taoist view of sexuality the body is viewed as a positive asset, and mind and body are not set in contrast or opposition with each other. Sex is treated as a vital component to romantic love; however, Taoism emphasizes the need for self-control and moderation. In Taoism, sex is encouraged. Complete abstinence is frequently treated as equally dangerous as excessive sexual indulgence.
So there's something saying you shouldn't do something.
wiki wrote:The Three Jewels, or Three Treasures, (Chinese: 三寶; pinyin: sānbǎo; Wade-Giles: san-pao) are basic virtues in Taoism. The Three Jewels are compassion, moderation, and humility. They are also translated as kindness, simplicity (or the absence of excess), and modesty. Arthur Waley describes them as "[t]he three rules that formed the practical, political side of the author's teaching". He correlated the Three Treasures with "abstention from aggressive war and capital punishment", "absolute simplicity of living", and "refusal to assert active authority".
patheos wrote:Another perspective on suffering is offered by Taoist texts that say that illness is caused by three corpse worms that reside in the body. In some texts these are described as the three cadavers and nine worms. These, like the po souls, will sometimes report an individual's transgressions to heavenly officials. Sometimes the three cadavers will also conspire with the po souls to cause the body harm, and they will encourage demons to enter the body. Demons can cause illness, to punish a person, or just because they want to.
In order to begin a program of Taoist self-cultivation, once must first expel the worms, or cadavers. Also, there is a Taoist prohibition against eating grain that is based on the fact that the worms find grain a desirable food, and will be encouraged to stay.
Also if you want to be a taoist,
patheos wrote:The Taode jing states that nature is not sentimental and treats the people like sacrifices. Individuals are best off if they accommodate themselves to nature's laws and patterns, because to go against nature will only bring difficulty and trouble. When humans deviate from the natural order, societies will develop that are harmful to many.
wiki wrote:In the Taoist view of sexuality the body is viewed as a positive asset, and mind and body are not set in contrast or opposition with each other. Sex is treated as a vital component to romantic love; however, Taoism emphasizes the need for self-control and moderation. In Taoism, sex is encouraged. Complete abstinence is frequently treated as equally dangerous as excessive sexual indulgence.
So there's something saying you shouldn't do something.
Nothing in that quote says you shouldn't do something. It says you should practice moderation, which is different.
wiki wrote:In the Taoist view of sexuality the body is viewed as a positive asset, and mind and body are not set in contrast or opposition with each other. Sex is treated as a vital component to romantic love; however, Taoism emphasizes the need for self-control and moderation. In Taoism, sex is encouraged. Complete abstinence is frequently treated as equally dangerous as excessive sexual indulgence.
So there's something saying you shouldn't do something.
Nothing in that quote says you shouldn't do something. It says you should practice moderation, which is different.
It says you shouldn't be completely abstinent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote:
So there's something saying you shouldn't do something.
This isn't hard. Sin isn't simply violating a rule, it is a particular type of violation, of a particular type of prohibition.
Sin is a synonym for 'evil' according to you and lordofhats. The definition of what is evil varies by culture so that means the very definition of sin varies by culture, typically if something is 'evil' a culture will preach against it and prohibit it from happening, after all its evil and not good. So if a culture says that ascertaining authority is a form of evil then it can be called a sin. Now there are Original Sin and Seven Deadly Sins, but those are largely christian topics.
Crom wrote:
Unless this has been proven by several peer studies I find this super hard to believe. At one point we were all nomadic and had no sense of property and the USA definition of liberal and conservative don't really match with the rest of the world and the rest of the world sees us as authoritarian.
Well, the argument is better than my rendition of it. It isn't specifically that genetics create liberals, but rather that the emotional "markers" associated with liberalism are largely set by genetics. So, Conservatives were predetermined to be "hard" and liberals were predetermined to be "soft".
Personally, I think its a bit too deterministic, as the variance between "hard" and "soft" isn't clear. I mean, I know plenty of fem conservatives.
Crom wrote:
Unless this has been proven by several peer studies I find this super hard to believe. At one point we were all nomadic and had no sense of property and the USA definition of liberal and conservative don't really match with the rest of the world and the rest of the world sees us as authoritarian.
Well, the argument is better than my rendition of it. It isn't specifically that genetics create liberals, but rather that the emotional "markers" associated with liberalism are largely set by genetics. So, Conservatives were predetermined to be "hard" and liberals were predetermined to be "soft".
Personally, I think its a bit too deterministic, as the variance between "hard" and "soft" isn't clear. I mean, I know plenty of fem conservatives.
Dang I was hoping that people with red blood would be republicans and people with blue blood would be democrats. People with green blood are moldy, and are a very small group.
halonachos wrote:It says you shouldn't be completely abstinent.
Read it again:
Complete abstinence is frequently treated as equally dangerous
That is not a prohibition against abstinence it is a warning that it isn't necessarily beneficial to the goals of Taosim. Saying something is not advised is different from saying don't do it.
Sin has a proper meaning. If you just want to use it as a synonym for evil, then we're not really talking about anything but that religions all say there are things you should and should not do. Big surprise. If you want a meaningful discussion on what religions say you should and should not do, the term Sin needs to be used properly, and in its proper usage 'Sin' is a uniquely Abrahamic concept that varies between the Abrahamic religions and has similar concepts in in other Middle East religions and akin ideas in all religions. Sin itself as a term is not useful for discussion of Taoism or Buddhism, which recognizes no supreme deity, or Hinduism which has a very unusual godhead compared to Christianity or Islam.
halonachos wrote:
Sin is a synonym for 'evil' according to you and lordofhats.
Not according to me, don't put words in my mouth.
Additionally, "synonym" does not mean "the same". Synonymy is based on nominal conversation, not technical discussion.
halonachos wrote:
The definition of what is evil varies by culture so that means the very definition of sin varies by culture...
And many of them don't have concepts of sin, or evil, at all.
halonachos wrote:
...typically if something is 'evil' a culture will preach against it and prohibit it from happening, after all its evil and not good. So if a culture says that ascertaining authority is a form of evil then it can be called a sin.
No, that's absolutely wrong. When you're speaking specifically, and not just using "sin" in the general sense, you cannot call a thing a sin if the faith, or culture, in question does not have a concept of sin.
Melissia wrote:Halo: Sin is "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law."
Taoism doesn't have that. You can go stray from the Tao/Dao, but they wouldn't say it's a "sin", or some kind of divine crime to do so.
patheos wrote:Another perspective on suffering is offered by Taoist texts that say that illness is caused by three corpse worms that reside in the body. In some texts these are described as the three cadavers and nine worms. These, like the po souls, will sometimes report an individual's transgressions to heavenly officials. Sometimes the three cadavers will also conspire with the po souls to cause the body harm, and they will encourage demons to enter the body. Demons can cause illness, to punish a person, or just because they want to.
In order to begin a program of Taoist self-cultivation, once must first expel the worms, or cadavers. Also, there is a Taoist prohibition against eating grain that is based on the fact that the worms find grain a desirable food, and will be encouraged to stay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote: Also, look up "naraka" for Buddhism.
Which is an excellent example of why you shouldn't try to understand other faiths in terms of Christianity.
wiki wrote:In "Devaduta Sutta", the 130th discourse of the Majjhima Nikaya, Buddha teaches about the hell in vivid detail. Buddhism teaches that there are five (sometimes six) realms of rebirth, which can then be further subdivided into degrees of agony or pleasure. Of these realms, the hell realms, or Naraka, is the lowest realm of rebirth
I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions. All in all these are similar to the purpose of the hell christians are aware of. They are forms of punishment for not following the 'rules of the road' so to say. I think Islam believes in a temporary 'hell' if I recall correctly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would like to sum this all up, poverty is a genetic condition that causes them to be invisible to Republicans, which is another genetic condition which makes blood red.
halonachos wrote:
I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions. All in all these are similar to the purpose of the hell christians are aware of.
No, they aren't. I'm not going to take the time to explain to you why that's the case, because I honestly do not believe you are capable of understanding why.
I hope, for your sake, that you are successfully trolling me.
B.S. It's a valid question because it addresses your fundamental assumption that everyone pays taxes. If you're not willing to answer the question, then you're not able to defend your argument.
Crom wrote:I can make up fake "hypothetical" claims all day that no one can answer. I am asking you to explain your data. Show me, empirical evidence where people paid all their taxes as in: Federal, state, city, county, property, earnings, capital gain, etc; and then got every single penny back plus some and made profit.
You're the one who made the positive assertion that everyone pays taxes. Therefore, the burden is on you to demonstrate the validity of your position. You can't simply make an assertion and then claim it's valid until someone shows otherwise.
The fact that you discount the possibility that some people receive more money from the government than they pay in taxes is absurd on its face.
Crom wrote:I really hate to judge people, but if you honestly believe the GOPs rhetoric then yes, I have to question your intelligence.
Cool, so you're admitting that you don't even acknowledge the validity of the opposition's argument. Now you're a puppet repeating DNC talking points. Also, you're breaking rule #1. Welcome to the ignore list.
Crom wrote: Deregulation is not a good thing because humans cannot be trusted to not screw each other over.
You should probably contemplate this sentence.
Heh.
I actually support regulation (as long as it's efficiently written and effectively enforced) over deregulation (Which has caused plenty of economic downfalls), and yet I'm still finding myself agreeing with Dogma about the amusing nature of this statement.
halonachos wrote:
I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions. All in all these are similar to the purpose of the hell christians are aware of.
No, they aren't. I'm not going to take the time to explain to you why that's the case, because I honestly do not believe you are capable of understanding why.
I hope, for your sake, that you are successfully trolling me.
So I guess that being reborn into a lesser position is not a punishment for not having good karma or dharma then? Seriously dogma, for one who loves to argue semantics I can't believe that you can't see the ready comparison between the two.
Also, Rick Perry is a joke, he needs to go away and most of the republican candidates need to go away because they're just making the democrats look good right now.
halonachos wrote: So I guess that being reborn into a lesser position is not a punishment for not having good karma or dharma then?
Karma isn't about punishment, if you bothered to read anything related to the topic you would know that.
Also, dharma and karma are not interchangeable, and are not thought of qualitatively.
You very clearly are either trolling, or ignorant.
You fool, I know it isn't which is why in another post of mine I said "dharma, karma,..." instead of saying dharma/karma. However if you fail to fulfill either, or practice something that gains negative karma you will be punished. Not necessarily by a god, but by the universe.
wiki wrote:Karma is not fate, for humans act with free will creating their own destiny. According to the Vedas, if one sows goodness, one will reap goodness; if one sows evil, one will reap evil. Karma refers to the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and previous lives, all of which determines our future.
Also, it appears that there is a theistic branch of Hinduism that views karma as a way that determines whether or not one is rewarded by a god.
LordofHats wrote:
What is that? A triple negative?
Nah, just a double, but it sits up there with "Audit the Fed!" in terms of ridiculousness.
"We don't trust the government, so let's make the government audit the government so we can trust the government!"
No it doesn't. It means the exact opposite. Deregulation can never be a reality because humans screw over other humans with greed. You deregulate the market and the rich will screw everyone over every chance they get to get more rich. That is why there needs to be regulation. It actually is pro government regulation.
B.S. It's a valid question because it addresses your fundamental assumption that everyone pays taxes. If you're not willing to answer the question, then you're not able to defend your argument.
No, it is not a valid question at all. There is ZERO data to even support your claim. You can easily research it. I already provided examples of when that situation occurs and it is fractions of a penny compared to what tax breaks the rich and corporations receive. You cannot even make an argument to begin with, therefore, your question is invalid.
You're the one who made the positive assertion that everyone pays taxes. Therefore, the burden is on you to demonstrate the validity of your position. You can't simply make an assertion and then claim it's valid until someone shows otherwise.
The fact that you discount the possibility that some people receive more money from the government than they pay in taxes is absurd on its face.
As you can see people who make less than $16k a year don't have to file taxes. Yeah man, they are the real burden on the tax system, instead of giving tech companies a 4 billion dollar tax holiday... Also, just because they aren't required to file a federal tax income doesn't mean they are exempt from city, state, county and property tax, which the federal government doesn't regulate. Local government regulates that, so results will vary from city to city, county to county, and state to state.
Cool, so you're admitting that you don't even acknowledge the validity of the opposition's argument. Now you're a puppet repeating DNC talking points. Also, you're breaking rule #1. Welcome to the ignore list.
Hahaha, ignore list, at least I won't have to respond to your absurd questions anymore. Let's say someone pays $5k in taxes and gets $6k back, they make 1K profit. Yet you cannot even explain to me how your situation works, you simply hide behind the fact you said it was "hypothetical." Also, I am not even a member of the DNC or any political party. I just use logic and facts to make decisions case by case. If you were taking a more liberal stance I am sure I would not agree with you either 100% because I really don't agree with either party. However, go ahead and jump to conclusions.
halonachos wrote:
You fool, I know it isn't which is why in another post of mine I said "dharma, karma,..." instead of saying dharma/karma. However if you fail to fulfill either, or practice something that gains negative karma you will be punished.
Dharma and karma are very different things, do not use them interchangeably. Their meaning varies according to the tradition being considered, but in general dharma is the natural law of the universe, and karma is the consequence of that law. This is distinct from punishment, because punishment requires agency.
Also, strictly speaking, negative karma isn't a real thing outside New Age movements.
halonachos wrote:
Not necessarily by a god, but by the universe.
No, that's also wrong. The universe isn't attributed any kind of agency in any tradition that features karma. Karma is the product of natural laws, and reflects a process more analogous to the effects of gravity upon releasing an apple in mid-air than to any kind of judgment ethic from which punishment might follow.
halonachos wrote:
wiki wrote:Karma is not fate, for humans act with free will creating their own destiny. According to the Vedas, if one sows goodness, one will reap goodness; if one sows evil, one will reap evil. Karma refers to the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and previous lives, all of which determines our future.
None of which has to do with punishment.
halonachos wrote:
Also, it appears that there is a theistic branch of Hinduism that views karma as a way that determines whether or not one is rewarded by a god.
Sort of, it doesn't work precisely as I imagine you believe. Hindu gods are still governed by the laws of the universe. They have more in common with Greek gods, than YHWH.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crom wrote:
No it doesn't. It means the exact opposite. Deregulation can never be a reality because humans screw over other humans with greed. You deregulate the market and the rich will screw everyone over every chance they get to get more rich. That is why there needs to be regulation. It actually is pro government regulation.
I didn't say it meant the same thing, I said it was equally ridiculous.
If humans cannot be trusted to not screw each other over, why should we trust some of them to regulate the system we use to screw each other over?
Philosopher-Kings are few and far between.
Anyway, the next bit is all biccat, just to be clear.
halonachos wrote: You fool, I know it isn't which is why in another post of mine I said "dharma, karma,..." instead of saying dharma/karma. However if you fail to fulfill either, or practice something that gains negative karma you will be punished.
Dharma and karma are very different things, do not use them interchangeably. Their meaning varies according to the tradition being considered, but in general dharma is the natural law of the universe, and karma is the consequence of that law. This is distinct from punishment, because punishment requires agency.
My god, your reading comprehension really is inadequate. I stated that I said in a previous statement that "karma, dharma, and rebirth" are common in some Easter religions. This very separation of karma from dharma by using a comma denotes the fact that I acknowledged them as two separate things but used them in the same list. Hell, I learned about dharma in my Art History class and even learned that it was different from karma because my teacher happens to enjoy the Ramayana and a lot of eastern art.
Although it is Dogma I am talking to, semantics are your little play thing. Someone uses the second definition of a word and you're all over them, someone dare has a slip of the tongue and you're all over them, it is rather tiresome.
Karma is an affect of the universe, and then you say it is natural, guess what dogma, the universe itself is a natural creation. It is created by nature, governed by nature, and part of natural law. Karma has negative and positive reactions and to put it simply is stated as "sow good, reap good. sow bad, reap bad.". Its an incredibly simple concept and just because there is no "authority" you deny it having any ability to punish because only authoritative deities or beings can punish. However, it is a form of natural punishment. In religions featuring a typical reincarnation aspect if you have not lead a life with good karma or dharma you get reborn into a lesser position, the entire caste system in ancient and even part of modern India focused on that aspect to keep the caste system alive and well. The poor tried to live positive lives in hopes that they would be reincarnated into a better position, and so on and on until they finally reached nirvana or some kind of 'heaven' equivalent. The deities themselves do act like the roman and greek gods, however those gods were also very jealous and would punish those they felt needed it. And don't you dare say I'm wrong about the roman and greek gods punishing people.
halonachos wrote:
My god, your reading comprehension really is inadequate. I stated that I said in a previous statement that "karma, dharma, and rebirth" are common in some Easter religions. This very separation of karma from dharma by using a comma denotes the fact that I acknowledged them as two separate things but used them in the same list.
The problem is that they are not comparable in any way. Saying that they're separate, and then comparing them, is not a thing which inspires confidence of understanding.
halonachos wrote:
Although it is Dogma I am talking to, semantics are your little play thing. Someone uses the second definition of a word and you're all over them, someone dare has a slip of the tongue and you're all over them, it is rather tiresome.
This isn't a slip of the tongue. No doubt I rag on people I don't respect when they slip their tongues. This is you not understanding a thing. It isn't semantics, not in the colloquial sense, it is definitional.
halonachos wrote:
Karma is an affect of the universe, and then you say it is natural, guess what dogma, the universe itself is a natural creation. It is created by nature, governed by nature, and part of natural law.
The word you want is "effect", and that is semantics.
Anyway, I'm beginning to see why this is hard for you. The universe is only a creation if a thing created it, this is not necessarily the case in any religion which deals in karma. The universe is natural because its natural, not because it is governed by nature. The universe, if natural, literally defines nature (literally encompassing all that is natural and unnatural, to the extent that said distinction matters), and natural law.
But this has nothing to do with karma, which deals in a particular cosmology varying per the school its related to.
halonachos wrote:
Karma has negative and positive reactions and to put it simply is stated as "sow good, reap good. sow bad, reap bad.". Its an incredibly simple concept and just because there is no "authority" you deny it having any ability to punish because only authoritative deities or beings can punish. However, it is a form of natural punishment.
No, sorry, but you clearly don't understand punishment if that's what you think. To punish a thing you must identify it as bad. A person who endures a karmic event might find it to be bad, but the event itself was not administered in order to be bad per karmic principles.
halonachos wrote:
In religions featuring a typical reincarnation aspect if you have not lead a life with good karma or dharma...
You cannot have good karma, or dharma, those are human terms placed upon certain results. Hell, dharma isn't even a thing you can have, in the sense of following from the results of one's actions.
I am just saying that with out some sort of laid out policy of regulation and some enforcement people cannot be trusted to play nice with everyone. I am not saying our system or any system we have or have had is the best. It is simply the best we have come up with.
That's not what the article says. In fact, it says more than half of all non-paying filers earn less than ~16k per anum.
This wasn't suppose to be geared towards you, multiple quotes are not the most efficient on php built forms like this, but the point I was getting at is that if you make under a certain amount you aren't required to file. This doesn't mean people don't file who fit into that category.
Crom wrote:
This wasn't suppose to be geared towards you, multiple quotes are not the most efficient on php built forms like this, but the point I was getting at is that if you make under a certain amount you aren't required to file. This doesn't mean people don't file who fit into that category.
Yeah, because ~55% of people earning under ~16k didn't file.
The point you were getting at is that you either didn't read your source, or you couldn't.
A person who experiences a negative karmic punishment has done something negative, that is clearly the case with karma. Now Dharma is different as it is attributed to one's duty due to their societal role, for example a peasant has a dharma different to a ruling lord.
The system of cause and effect was used by ancient Indians in order to keep their caste system alive and well and also helped prevent peasants from trying to become anything but good peasants.
There are negative actions that affect a person's karma and those negative actions garner negative consequences. However people don't see it as a punishment system for some odd reason. There's no 'authority' they say or there are no 'evil acts' yet there are things that create negative karma. These things that create negative karma create it because they are 'bad or evil' according to someone, perhaps the person who created the entire idea of karma.
So, there are positive and negative karmic effects which are caused by positive or negative karmic actions but there are no 'bad' actions.
Somewhere down the line the creator of the karmic system realized that there was good and bad in the universe and that he wanted people to act in a good manner so he created a small punishment/reward system without actually saying punishment/reward. If you practice good actions and fulfill your role's duties then you are reborn into a higher caste. If you continue to do so you eventually reach 'heaven'.
wiki wrote:In most Indian religions, life is not considered to begin with birth and end in death, but as a continuous existence in the present lifetime of the organism and extending beyond. The nature of the actions (karma) committed during the course of each lifetime, (good or ill) determines the future destiny of each being.
halonachos wrote:A person who experiences a negative karmic punishment has done something negative...
Circular.
halonachos wrote:
...that is clearly the case with karma.
No, as I said, negative karma is not a thing.
halonachos wrote:
Now Dharma is different as it is attributed to one's duty due to their societal role, for example a peasant has a dharma different to a ruling lord.
So what you're saying is that I shouldn't be surprised that you got a C in biology, and that you've had to switch from Pre-Med to Emergency-Technical?
halonachos wrote:
Somewhere down the line the creator of the karmic system realized that there was good and bad in the universe and that he wanted people to act in a good manner so he created a small punishment/reward system without actually saying punishment/reward. If you practice good actions and fulfill your role's duties then you are reborn into a higher caste. If you continue to do so you eventually reach 'heaven'.
Crom wrote:
This wasn't suppose to be geared towards you, multiple quotes are not the most efficient on php built forms like this, but the point I was getting at is that if you make under a certain amount you aren't required to file. This doesn't mean people don't file who fit into that category.
Yeah, because ~55% of people earning under ~16k didn't file.
The point you were getting at is that you either didn't read your source, or you couldn't.
Try again.
I think you just like to argue....
People who don't make that much money are not required to file, so of course they are going to have the highest percentage of people who don't pay. I am talking about the middle tier and up. The percentages are exponentially less of people not paying a federal tax income. My point also was that people who break even or gain money back on top of paying their federal tax returns don't get off on every other tax either.
Amaya wrote:You just now noticed that Dogma likes to argue?
This
It's like say a you just noticed the Platypus looks wacky.
No, as I said, negative karma is not a thing.
In order to try (and fail) to end this, this is true. Negative Karma is something invented by American perceptions of Buddhism and are not accurate. Generally speaking, these inaccurate perceptions on Eastern Religion are why you should never go to Wikipedia for information on them. Wikipedia tends to embrace these inaccuracies due to its over reliance on sources produced in English.
Karma in Buddhism general is neither negative nor positive. It simply is. You can probably find some fringe sects of Buddhism and Hinduism that think otherwise, but applying their beliefs to all Buddhists is like saying Mormon beliefs are shared by all Christians.
Crom wrote:
People who don't make that much money are not required to file, so of course they are going to have the highest percentage of people who don't pay.
The problem is that your numbers are wrong, income filing requirements vary by status, but none of them hit 16,000. Even a head of household is required to file if he/she earns more than 12,500.
halonachos wrote: Now Dharma is different as it is attributed to one's duty due to their societal role, for example a peasant has a dharma different to a ruling lord.
So what you're saying is that I shouldn't be surprised that you got a C in biology, and that you've had to switch from Pre-Med to Emergency-Technical?
I went Emergency-Technical when I was 16, but you can't be an EMT until your 18. Besides, my grades in Biology are utterly fantastic and I don't know if you know this or not, but I placed out of college biology thanks to AP credit. If you try to insult me, at least get it right instead of proving that you don't know what you're talking about. Besides my career options are now; corpsman, surgeon, or forensic autopsy technician, mainly because I like to see how people got fethed up because they did some sort of negative karmic action. Now to explain, when I say negative karma I don't mean Fallout 3 karma scale where there is some grand total that determines if you're evil or not, I mean that if you do something bad, something bad will happen. Although in Buddhism they do teach that if you act negatively most of the time you will be reborn into a lesser position.
But no, Dharma and Karma are different as I said and then you argued that I didn't say, and then I proved that I said; Dharma is one's societal role, for example a 23 year old man with two kids and is a farmer has different Dharma than a 23 year old man with two kids and is a soldier. For example it would be bad karmicly(there are negative karmic actions that receive negative karmic results and to say otherwise is foolish because it isn't a "fringe" element that says so, its based off of trying to leave Samsara, which is the cycle of life, death, and rebirth), for a soldier to fight against their brother if he was in the opposing army, however it is against his Dharma to not fight his brother because his role is that of a soldier. Figure the odds of a religion trying to control a mass group of people, its not a unique tool to control masses, but they were a bit more subtle about it.
In Christianity they blatantly said x is a sin and if you do x you'll go to hell.
In Buddhism they say that if you do x, you might not be reborn into a higher status.
If you want to tie everything together, including the OP, all poor people have done negative actions and as a result were reborn as poor people to suffer while all rich people are people who have done positive actions and were reborn rich.
halonachos wrote:In Buddhism they say that if you do x, you might not be reborn into a higher status.
This is a Hindu concept not a Buddhist concept and its not really punishment, just natural order. Karmic results are a natural outcome of action and we can only apply 'positive' and 'negative' in hindsight. There's no punishment involved. The Caste system is vital to Hindu religion and a very central aspect of it. Buddhism has mostly rejected it and has a very different view on reincarnation, especially since nearly all Buddhist sects reject the existence of the eternal soul/self (which makes the Buddhist concept of reincarnation almost as mind twisting as the Christian Trinity).
In Buddhism you are reborn into different worlds, not as different things.
buddhanet wrote:Traditionally, Buddhism teaches the existence of the ten realms of being. At the top is Buddha and the scale descends as follows: Bodhisattva (an enlightened being destined to be a Buddha, but purposely remaining on earth to teach others), Pratyeka Buddha (a Buddha for himself), Sravka (direct disciple of Buddha), heavenly beings (superhuman [angels?]), human beings, Asura (fighting spirits), beasts, Preta (hungry ghosts), and depraved men (hellish beings).
Now, these ten realms may be viewed as unfixed, nonobjective worlds, as mental and spiritual states of mind. These states of mind are created by men's thoughts, actions, and words. In other words, psychological states. These ten realms are "mutually immanent and mutually inclusive, each one having in it the remaining nine realms." For example, the realm of human beings has all the other nine states (from hell to Buddhahood). Man is at the same time capable of real selfishness, creating his own hell, or is truly compassionate, reflecting the compassion of Amida Buddha. Buddhas too have the other nine realms in their minds, for how can a Buddha possibly save those in hell if he himself does not identify with their suffering and guide them to enlightenment.
halonachos wrote:In Buddhism you are reborn into different worlds, not as different things.
buddhanet wrote:Traditionally, Buddhism teaches the existence of the ten realms of being. At the top is Buddha and the scale descends as follows: Bodhisattva (an enlightened being destined to be a Buddha, but purposely remaining on earth to teach others), Pratyeka Buddha (a Buddha for himself), Sravka (direct disciple of Buddha), heavenly beings (superhuman [angels?]), human beings, Asura (fighting spirits), beasts, Preta (hungry ghosts), and depraved men (hellish beings).
Now, these ten realms may be viewed as unfixed, nonobjective worlds, as mental and spiritual states of mind. These states of mind are created by men's thoughts, actions, and words. In other words, psychological states. These ten realms are "mutually immanent and mutually inclusive, each one having in it the remaining nine realms." For example, the realm of human beings has all the other nine states (from hell to Buddhahood). Man is at the same time capable of real selfishness, creating his own hell, or is truly compassionate, reflecting the compassion of Amida Buddha. Buddhas too have the other nine realms in their minds, for how can a Buddha possibly save those in hell if he himself does not identify with their suffering and guide them to enlightenment.
You need to work on the way you write things nacho . You didn't say 'world' you said 'status' thereby implying the obvious conclusion that you refer to social status. At least that's my conclusion.' Status' as a word is useless for conveying what you apparently meant.
I'll also point out the idea of punishment has no connection to the realms. Rather progress is more based on achievement of spiritual awareness, not as a result of Karmic burden someone may acquire through action (the karmic burden however can impede spiritual progress). You also need to recognize that Buddhism rejects the idea of an eternal self. Their concept of rebirth is less actual rebirth and more like a transference of qualities. This is one of those problems that comes to us as a result of culture defining language. A culture cannot produce words for concepts that don't exist in it and then we get saddled with the limitations of translation.
No, you were right. I meant roles and status at first, but I am now correcting myself by saying that in Buddhism you are 'reborn' into different roles with different motivations.
Hindu uses status and a caste system, and I see it as a sort of 'mind-control' device as most religions are at one point or can be used as a mind control at some point by some people.
halonachos wrote:
If you try to insult me, at least get it right instead of proving that you don't know what you're talking about.
All I remember is that you wanted to be a doctor, and that you lamented having a C in biology at one point.
halonachos wrote:
Now to explain, when I say negative karma I don't mean Fallout 3 karma scale where there is some grand total that determines if you're evil or not, I mean that if you do something bad, something bad will happen.
So, you mean the horribly butchered notion of karma popular in the New Age movement.
halonachos wrote:
Although in Buddhism they do teach that if you act negatively most of the time you will be reborn into a lesser position.
Calling the various realms of Buddhism lesser or greater is misleading, as they are not really hierarchical. You're still caught up on comparisons to Abrahamic faiths, and its keeping you from understanding this.
halonachos wrote:
But no, Dharma and Karma are different as I said and then you argued that I didn't say, and then I proved that I said; Dharma is one's societal role, for example a 23 year old man with two kids and is a farmer has different Dharma than a 23 year old man with two kids and is a soldier.
No you didn't, and I can go back and point to all the various times you conflated the two (the "phrase" karma/dharma is one you used at least once).
But that's neither here nor there, dharma varies according to the faith being considered, just as karma does. In Buddhism, for example, dharma isn't about duty, but the teachings of Buddha. Dharma isn't really about societal role in Hinduism either, the caste system is based on dharma, but they're not the same.
halonachos wrote:
For example it would be bad karmicly(there are negative karmic actions that receive negative karmic results and to say otherwise is foolish because it isn't a "fringe" element that says so, its based off of trying to leave Samsara, which is the cycle of life, death, and rebirth)...
Why did you place the word fringe in quotes? Its not a word I've used here, and it seems like the quotations were meant derisively.
Though, again, you're making the mistake of looking at this as a matter of hierarchy, which is incorrect. You need to get past this idea of negative and positive karma, because its simply not the right way to look at any Buddhist or Hindu teachings.
Additionally, its important to understand that samsara and nirvana are only dualisitc by way of convention, not metaphysical reality. One does not "ascend" to nirvana by transcending samsara, one realizes the essential truth that they were never distinct.
halonachos wrote:
...for a soldier to fight against their brother if he was in the opposing army, however it is against his Dharma to not fight his brother because his role is that of a soldier. Figure the odds of a religion trying to control a mass group of people, its not a unique tool to control masses, but they were a bit more subtle about it.
You're conflating the political usage of the religion, with the religion itself.
halonachos wrote: If you try to insult me, at least get it right instead of proving that you don't know what you're talking about.
All I remember is that you wanted to be a doctor, and that you lamented having a C in biology at one point.
Too bad that is incorrect, I remember that I was lamenting about my C in analytical chemistry. I also remember you using the same exact insult in another discussion in which case I responded by saying the only reason that grade occured was because I didn't do 8% worth of homework in the class.
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote: But no, Dharma and Karma are different as I said and then you argued that I didn't say, and then I proved that I said; Dharma is one's societal role, for example a 23 year old man with two kids and is a farmer has different Dharma than a 23 year old man with two kids and is a soldier.
No you didn't, and I can go back and point to all the various times you conflated the two (the "phrase" karma/dharma is one you used at least once).
halonachos wrote:
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote: You fool, I know it isn't which is why in another post of mine I said "dharma, karma,..." instead of saying dharma/karma. However if you fail to fulfill either, or practice something that gains negative karma you will be punished.
Dharma and karma are very different things, do not use them interchangeably. Their meaning varies according to the tradition being considered, but in general dharma is the natural law of the universe, and karma is the consequence of that law. This is distinct from punishment, because punishment requires agency.
My god, your reading comprehension really is inadequate. I stated that I said in a previous statement that "karma, dharma, and rebirth" are common in some Easter religions. This very separation of karma from dharma by using a comma denotes the fact that I acknowledged them as two separate things but used them in the same list. Hell, I learned about dharma in my Art History class and even learned that it was different from karma because my teacher happens to enjoy the Ramayana and a lot of eastern art.
Dogma, I said it in a listed format, do you want me to show it to you again because I can. You're an idiot who can't understand that commas are used to separate subjects if you are listing them. I also said that I did not say karma/dharma, so next time you want to say that I said that karma and dharma are the same thing I want you to take your foot and put it into your mouth. I said that they were separate, unless you want to say that I said that karma, dharma, and rebirth are all the same thing. Or the next time you list something I will assume that you meant they are all the same thing just like you did.
halonachos wrote:I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions.
halonachos wrote:
Dogma, I said it in a listed format, do you want me to show it to you again because I can. You're an idiot who can't understand that commas are used to separate subjects if you are listing them.
This is also wrong. Commas do not separate thoughts, they separate concepts (this is a critical distinction in English). If you are listing any set of thoughts you must begin with a semicolon (or colon , depending on procedure) prior to said list, and then intersperse the succeeding thoughts with commas or semicolons depending on the degree of connection.
halonachos wrote:
so next time you want to say that I said that karma and dharma are the same thing I want you to take your foot and put it into your mouth.I said that they were separate, unless you want to say that I said that karma, dharma, and rebirth are all the same thing.
halonachos wrote:
I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions. All in all these are similar to the purpose of the hell christians are aware of. They are forms of punishment for not following the 'rules of the road' so to say. I think Islam believes in a temporary 'hell' if I recall correctly.
Pardon my confusion.
halonachos wrote:
Or the next time you list something I will assume that you meant they are all the same thing just like you did.
You did not merely list something.
halonachos wrote:I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions.
No, you really aren't. And, honestly, it is hilarious.
halonachos wrote:I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions.
No, you really aren't. And, honestly, it is hilarious.
In all honesty I find your wonton need to find an argument for the sake of an argument is quite funny, as if it is some sort of way to validate yourself on the internet. Whatever the reason; insecurity, anger, other psychological conditions, or other issues in the real world(maybe you think that I mean all of those are the same as well), I feel quite bad for you.
The fact that you left Dakka for about three days and then came back to respond in this thread shows that you have some sort of grudge or another issue. If I was suspended from Dakka or was preoccupied for a couple of days and saw that the thread I was posting in had not been posted in for almost half a week I would assume the issue was dead and just leave it be.
So, I just want to say that I do honestly feel bad for you Dogma.
halonachos wrote:
In all honesty I find your wonton need to find an argument for the sake of an argument is quite funny, as if it is some sort of way to validate yourself on the internet.
So you've just now found a way to bow out with some semblance of dignity.
halonachos wrote:
Whatever the reason; insecurity, anger, other psychological conditions, or other issues in the real world(maybe you think that I mean all of those are the same as well), I feel quite bad for you.
No, I feel bad for your sort, that cannot even do basic research before coming to any conclusion regarding a thing. It is, quite frankly, hilarious.
halonachos wrote:
The fact that you left Dakka for about three days and then came back to respond in this thread shows that you have some sort of grudge or another issue.
It shows how terribly I view your intellectual capacity given this thread.
You do know Eastern religions are treated more like a philosophy and there is not one set path. The Karmic wheel is viewed slightly different by many different people. There are also internal and external influences on eastern religions. Some love in cities, some live outside cities. Which means some live inside society and some live out. While you can find common grounds among most if not all practitioners there is no set in stone way of this is what it is regardless of what you may think. Where as most western religions state, this is how it is, regardless. There are of course some variances among them, and there are also exceptions.
Arguing over something neither of you even practice is just silly. I studied Buddhism for about 4 years while training in several Chinese (Buddhist) marital arts. I cannot even start to claim I fully understand it, nor that I can say what Buddhism is, what exactly karma is, because it is a philosophy and a state of mind, not some fact you look up in a text book. I don't practice any religion now at all, and I will openly admit I was a pretty liberal Buddhist, only taking the aspects I liked from it and leaving what I didn't.
Crom wrote:You do know Eastern religions are treated more like a philosophy and there is not one set path. The Karmic wheel is viewed slightly different by many different people. There are also internal and external influences on eastern religions. Some love in cities, some live outside cities. Which means some live inside society and some live out. While you can find common grounds among most if not all practitioners there is no set in stone way of this is what it is regardless of what you may think. Where as most western religions state, this is how it is, regardless. There are of course some variances among them, and there are also exceptions.
Arguing over something neither of you even practice is just silly. I studied Buddhism for about 4 years while training in several Chinese (Buddhist) marital arts. I cannot even start to claim I fully understand it, nor that I can say what Buddhism is, what exactly karma is, because it is a philosophy and a state of mind, not some fact you look up in a text book. I don't practice any religion now at all, and I will openly admit I was a pretty liberal Buddhist, only taking the aspects I liked from it and leaving what I didn't.
And this pretty much wins the Eastern Religion argument.
The Iranian Christian to Die for Apostasy thread quickly degenerated to the point where the mods locked it.
The locking of the threat further proves my point. (ps please don't get this thread locked by attempting to drag up arguments from the locked thread)
Here is my point: We're so incapable of even having a civilized conversation about religion it's almost impossible for a political party to peacefully contain the hard line atheists and hard line Christians within the same party. The presence of 1 will often drive the other into another party. If we can't even have a civilized conversation about religion on DakkaDakka what chance does the Democratic party have of keeping the peace between Evangelical Christians and Atheists within their own political party where they must set national goals and agendas including hot button issues such as abortion and gay rights.
The Iranian Christian to Die for Apostasy thread quickly degenerated to the point where the mods locked it.
The locking of the threat further proves my point. (ps please don't get this thread locked by attempting to drag up arguments from the locked thread)
Here is my point: We're so incapable of even having a civilized conversation about religion it's almost impossible for a political party to peacefully contain the hard line atheists and hard line Christians within the same party. The presence of 1 will often drive the other into another party. If we can't even have a civilized conversation about religion on DakkaDakka what chance does the Democratic party have of keeping the peace between Evangelical Christians and Atheists within their own political party where they must set national goals and agendas including hot button issues such as abortion and gay rights.
In my honest opinion religion has no place in politics anyway. The problem is not the thread, but a choice few people that feel the need to argue of split hairs and very small irrelevant points. If you don't practice said religion you don't know it. That is the stance I take. I have practiced a few myself and consider myself more of a weak atheist (or ignostic) these days.
The problem with politics is that it has become a spectator's sports and we have become fans, blindly rooting for our home team to win regardless of the topic or stance. Until we can progress past the point of questioning someone's intelligence based on their political affiliation we won't ever have a good conversation that will change anything. This is the simple truth.
So, back on topic. The war on poverty (I hate the term war in this context) is something that is real. The rich have been getting richer and are being allowed to screw over hard working Americans. CEO pay has risen tons in the past two decades, and the USA has the highest paying ratio from common income to top level executive. I don't understand how people can sit there and say this is not the case, these are the facts. There are pros and cons to this system we have created. The rich can lobby, put judges in their pockets, they can corner markets, and the government lets them because they pay the government.
What would the consumer and citizen benefit from the AT&T - T-Mobile merger? Nothing at all. It would cut jobs and AT&T would buy a customer base and jack their prices up to AT&T prices. The GOP wants to cry free enterprise because lets not kid ourselves here, the GOP loves to kiss corporate America's ass. GOP candidates also receive money from these corporations to lobby their opinion, and I am sorry corporations are not people. Rick Perry lobbied for this and guess who has paid him over half a million dollars over the years? AT&T did.
So we have the rich getting richer, and we have corporations not paying their taxes. Google and Facebook only pay a 2.5% tax due to tax loop holes and shuffling money around through foreign counties. That should be illegal. No one gets rich on their own, and everyone uses the services tax dollars pay for. So, why not make it better? Why not boost our economy? Which is driven by the disposable income of the middle class. You give them more money they will buy more goods and services, and when the demands for these said goods and services go up, you will create jobs. That is how a supply and demand economy works, this isn't quantum physics here people. Yet, the GOP likes to complicate it and they like to say well if I cannot save an extra $5 million a year then I cannot pay for my employees salaries and expand my business, but they fail to bring up the fact it works both ways. If people cannot afford to buy your product or your service you won't be expanding your business anyway.
Crom wrote:If you don't practice said religion you don't know it.
Uh huh, and merely practicing means you know it?
I find that insinuation (even if not intended) to be eye-roll inducing, nevermind the utter falsity of the claim (one can study a religion they don't believe in). This applies to political beliefs too- one can understand the opposing party's views even if they don't believe them themselves.
Many just choose not to, and I admit to being guilty of that myself sometimes.
I think its hilarious how they say half of the population is Republican, when the Republican Party caters to the rich and the corporations, and not regular middle-class people who make up the majority of their party.
Just goes to show how little most people care about politics and just vote for whatever party is loudest.
Karon wrote:I think its hilarious how they say half of the population is Republican, when the Republican Party caters to the rich and the corporations, and not regular middle-class people who make up the majority of their party.
Well, to be fair, at least half the population isn't a supporter of either party, and either doesn't vote, votes against the side that scares them the most, or votes for individuals.
But yeah, convincing the working class to vote against their own interests has been a standard part of politics since we've given them the vote.
Karon wrote:I think its hilarious how they say half of the population is Republican, when the Republican Party caters to the rich and the corporations, and not regular middle-class people who make up the majority of their party.
Just goes to show how little most people care about politics and just vote for whatever party is loudest.
Polls reflect that upwards of 70% of the population is conservative, not Republican. I'd expect that trend to conitnue as the population ages. After all, once you have stuff your view point tends to change when other people are trying to take said stuff.
EDIT: Who's the jerkoff that spoiled a political debate with the usual Dakka religion bad debate?
Frazzled wrote:Polls reflect that upwards of 70% of the population is conservative, not Republican.
Doesn't it depend on what the question is the poll is asking? The general rule of thumb for as long as I can remember is that Americans tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
Frazzled wrote:Polls reflect that upwards of 70% of the population is conservative, not Republican.
Doesn't it depend on what the question is the poll is asking? The general rule of thumb for as long as I can remember is that Americans tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
True dat but a general series of polls have people viewing themselves as "conservative." I don't see any issue, based purely on age groups.
No one here I think would realistically support the position that hard work is meaningless. Posters are merely proposing that it isn't necessarily enough on its own to ensure success.
