Reform or Revolution?

[kedawa]

What you think of as the lower class really isn't that poor. People go on and on about how poor they are, but most of those people enjoy luxuries that many in the world can only dream of. A lot of people are poor because they blow all of their money on drugs, bling and gambling. I'm sure it's not as bad as it is in Canada, where most 'poor' people consider lottery tickets, booze, cigarettes, junk food. cable tv and internet to be basic necessities.

The speaker correctly points to birthright as the beginning of the disparity that allows for advantages in everything from diet and healthcare to education and connections.

It has as much to do with birth rate as it does with birthright. Successful people have fewer children, and the ones they have get spoiled. If your government gave successful people as many incentives (e.g. tax breaks) to have children as it does to the poor (baby bonuses, mothers allowance, whatever), you'd have a much larger and better upper class. At the same time, something needs to be done about people who have half a dozen kids with no means to support them other than social assistance.

I believe the upper class is guilty of a careless disregard for their fellow countrymen. They have the arrogance to believe they are superior and deserving of extravagance regardless of how they attained it and regardless of how it affects the rest of society.

Huh? Since when is it a crime to be rich? It's not their fault that simple-minded people are so stricken with envy that they can't just live their own lives. Just because someone is rich, doesn't mean it's their fault that someone else is poor.

[Fe 26]

The presentation made excellent use of economic graphs to demonstrate how large of a gap has developed between the upper class and the middle class (not to mention the lower class) with regards to income, wealth, and opportunity in the United States between the years 1962 to the present. The trends are alarming to say the least. The speaker correctly points to birthright as the beginning of the disparity that allows for advantages in everything from diet and healthcare to education and connections. Being born into a middle-class family myself, I have truly benefited from my birthright in terms of these advantages right from the starting gate. Some people would argue that many a poor person has risen up by their "own boot straps" but I would argue that in today's society, most (not all) poor people can only rise up with a good pair of athletic shoes or a willingness to sell drugs. Otherwise they have to remain content with working in the service industry for comparatively lower wages than their upper-class counterparts. Mr. Reich further points out that one of the elements keeping our society glued together is the belief or perception by the lower class that opportunity in this country still exists and that if one is willing to work hard, they can be successful.

I'd like to point out that this is horse shit. Life styles are very malleable in the US. It is just as easy for a poor person to reach great things as it is for a rich person to completely destroy everything his family has given to him and end up lower on the food chain than the poor people in his community.

There are tons of opportunities for the poor to get scholarships and other aid to go to college and be educated to a level that would allow them to get a very nice job. I've had friends who have gotten scholarships in excess of 60,000 due to their own hard work. These chances further increase if said person is in a minority.

A lot of poor people's families stay poor because the members of it are stupid and/or make shitty life decisions. They base their life around what others have and do stupid things to get those things. They think they need things they can't afford and the next thing they know they owe the bank 30,000 for a car, 120,000 for a house, and are pawning their shit for money to buy oxycotins.

If a person is smart, thinks for he/she’s self and is hard working he/she will most likely get far in the US.

[kedawa]

There are tons of opportunities for the poor to get scholarships and other aid to go to college and be educated to a level that would allow them to get a very nice job. I've had friends who have gotten scholarships in excess of 60,000 due to their own hard work. These chances further increase if said person is in a minority.

How many of these scholarships and opportunities are available, though? There can't be enough for everyone that deserves one, although I suppose if enough people take advantage of them, someone in a position of power will take notice and at least try to make more available.

A lot of poor people's families stay poor because the members of it are stupid and/or make shitty life decisions. They base their life around what others have and do stupid things to get those things. They think they need things they can't afford and the next thing they know they owe the bank 30,000 for a car, 120,000 for a house, and are pawning their shit for money to buy oxycotins.

Damn straight.

[NightWolve]

Blah blah blah, the rich are all evil immoral rotten SOBs...

My fear however, is that we are already rapidly approaching the point of "critical mass" beyond which there is no turning back.

Yeah mon, scarry, disturbing, stuff there. This kind of thing keeps me up at night, believe me... LOL. But actually, what I do find scary and disturbing as others already pointed out is your demonization/generalization of the "upper class" with "I believe the upper class is guilty of a careless disregard for their fellow countrymen. They have the arrogance to believe they are superior and deserving of extravagance regardless of how they attained it and regardless of how it affects the rest of society." I mean really, just who the fuck are you to know that about "them," however many you're referring to?? Your whole tripe of thread is a bore (just one big class warfare "must raise taxes on the rich or else..." talking point), and I wouldn't have bothered with it if not for those inflammatory statements in particular. Oh and seeing Reich + 'enlightening' together I thought was a riot. At least I got a laugh out of that.

Do I think there will be a violent revolution in this country? I hope not.

Yeah, gosh golly, I sure hope it never comes to that. Couldn't agree with you more (assuming I accepted yours or Reich's delusional, hysterical rambling as a premise about a looming "critical mass" approaching, that is)... I feel for you if you really believe this, but I'm seeing it more as a scare tactic rather than a case of brainwashing. Anyway, I suggest you tune out Reich for a bit, and other wackos warning of an impending revolution by the poor being just around the corner if Bush doesn't stop "giving out" more "tax cuts for the rich" (That is what this all comes down to if we're talking about Reich, Bush's tax cuts), and watch how your "fear" perception will go away.

The question today before the American people is what are YOU prepared to do?

I'm prepared to ignore your thread. Starting now. That's my revolutionary idea and I like it. kthxbye.

LOL another winning quote from voltz.

The man never disappoints.

[Bacon McShig]

As always, the actual situation is somewhere inbetween the two polar factions' viewpoints, here. Certainly the problem won't be allowed to go so far as any form of organized revolution, but to say "there's no problem" is ridiculous.

The lower class may have many opportunities to escape their financial stratum, but to me the issue is that they shouldn't be put in such a position that they have to escape at all to attain a generally comfortable life. I agree that a lot of the time people within the class work against themselves to stay there (debt, drugs, high childbirth, etc.), but you have to admit that it's not all on them, there is definitely a marked lack of care for them on not only the social level, but the governmental one as well. Their schools are a mess, their housing is substandard, and minimum wage is less than half of what it would be had it kept up with inflation.

Now, I'm quite aware that upper middle and upper class denizens have, more often than not, attained and maintained that level by working hard for it. Certainly they deserve recompensation on a level above the average. But there's just a point where you have to draw the line at just how much that is. Are anyone's services really so indispensable to be worthy of millions, let alone tens or hundreds of millions, a year? Is a mere one million yearly not enough means to live an exceedingly comfortable lifestyle? There needs to be some sort of national or industry-specific salary caps put into place to cut down on the extreme excess in some people's recompensation, the more fat that is cut off there, the more money is freed up to go towards people, places, and programs that really need it.

But nothing's going to change as long as people don't care, and that's really the main problem. Congress votes themselves a raise and nixes a minimum wage increase, no one notices or cares. A basketball star gets an extra $2 million a year on top of the $10 million they were making before, no one thinks that's excessive, no one thinks of where that money would be much better off going; "who cares about that money directly bettering the overall community, that man can dunk!" Everybody is just so complacent. If things are left on their course to get worse and worse until people can't ignore it, that's not going to be a good situation for anyone.

[Diff-chan]

Is a mere one million yearly not enough means to live an exceedingly comfortable lifestyle?

These types of statements are what you get when youre interested in some sort of socialism. Im not saying that as a dirty word, Im really not. But is it really the government's job to say what is or isnt enough money for a given task? If someone deems someone else's services valuable enough that they are willing to give them $10 million, $20 million, $35 million in a year (as Shaq gets) shouldnt it be given? Thats what the market deems the services worthy to be, and as such someone who can provide those services should get the money.

At least thats my viewpoint. I dont want to become a great whatever and have the government stifle my growth because they tell me my work isnt worth $5 million when the people paying me thinks it is.

the more fat that is cut off there, the more money is freed up to go towards people, places, and programs that really need it.

There's really no proof of that, in fact, if you look at countries with more income redistribution youll find that productivity at the higher income brackets is a fraction of what it is here. People dont work as hard because they have no incentive to do so. Is that really what we want? The substantial safety net present in those countries IS a good thing, mind you, but so is a free economy that pays people what the market says they are worth. Policy is a matter of trade-offs.

[Brisco Bold]

This is genious!

But seriously, if for some insain reason some foreign body decided to invaid America nearly every able-bodied American would defend the country any way they possibly could.

Hell, I'm not even American and I'd help.

[Bacon McShig]

These types of statements are what you get when youre interested in some sort of socialism. Im not saying that as a dirty word, Im really not. But is it really the government's job to say what is or isnt enough money for a given task?

It's certainly not the ideal situation, I agree. But I don't think the upper class is doing a particularly great job, as a self-governing body, of keeping themselves within non-excessive pay rates relative to the national average. I mean, simple logic dictates that if money goes to one source, it has to come from another. If the rich get perpetually richer, the poor become perpertually poorer, which is exactly what's happening. Will it correct itself eventually? Possibly. Should it be allowed to continue until it's so bad that correcting it is a neccessity? Preferably not.

[Diff-chan]

If the rich get perpetually richer, the poor become perpertually poorer, which is exactly what's happening.

No, its not a zero sum game because the economy grows. Poor people might become poorer relative to the rich people, but thats a rather poor (pardon the pun) way of looking at it. We should look at ways to make sure the people at the bottom income brackets (and there will always be people at the bottom) are better off than they were before. If theyre not, then we should try to fix that, not try to bottleneck or overtax the successful citizens.

[Fe 26]

Their schools are a mess,

This must be a northern thing as in the south everyone goes to the same school. There are no poor schools or rich schools. If you live in a town you go to that school. The only way to get around that is by buying a house in a different county and even then a parent will meet great resistance.

My parents ended up doing something like that with me and my eldest sister when we lived closer to the Mississippi delta. At the time racism from black people was very aggressive. The school that I was suppose to do go to was more than 80% black and the kids daily beat the few white children. More than a few seek mental help over it now. Of corse the school I went to after that wasn't much better. Knifings and beatings went on there too and the teachers didn't really care. So many problems.

I guess what you are really talking about is how schools funding comes from the local communities taxes and since poor comminutes make less money, they pay less taxes and thus have shittier schools. I guess something like that could be fixed schools became a national thing and all the money was pulled together to make one unified level of education.

These types of statements are what you get when youre interested in some sort of socialism. Im not saying that as a dirty word, Im really not. But is it really the government's job to say what is or isnt enough money for a given task? If someone deems someone else's services valuable enough that they are willing to give them $10 million, $20 million, $35 million in a year (as Shaq gets) shouldnt it be given? Thats what the market deems the services worthy to be, and as such someone who can provide those services should get the money.

I think people who say things like he did are also being very short sighted. People don't earn money just to live. Money can be used to invest in industry and it can also be used to fund new businesses. At that point a person would need more money than it takes to just live nicely.