patrick.net

But I can tell you this: You owe more to your government for the protection of the wealth you have amassed than everyone below you on the socioeconomic scale. Because that government is the only thing between you and having it all taken by force.

Very true. For example, the government protects folks like Huntingdon Moneyworth III from folks like Apocalypsefuck.

95 nw888 2012 Feb 24, 1:59am

I doubt you made it there without some sort of help from the government or generational wealth transfer based on the statistics, but if not, wow, you are one of the very few in that group.

I've made it by working smart and working hard. No hand outs from mommy and daddy (who are not rich btw). Or the government for that matter.

But I can tell you this: You owe more to your government for the protection of the wealth you have amassed than everyone below you on the socioeconomic scale. Because that government is the only thing between you and having it all taken by force.

I'm fine with paying more in taxes, but if I owe more, than I expect the government to give me perks. I want a front of the line pass to the DMV and the post office! AND they have to be polite to me!! (This is of course in jest, but seriously that would be nice wouldn't it?)

The real problem is what the government does with the money. They hand it out to people milking the welfare system and spend it on blowing up people over oil. The government needs to toughen this entitled country up.

In china people work hard because they don't have a fall back. No one will help them out, and if they're lazy they starve and die.

Why is working hard and not being an entitled trust fund kid of the government such a hard pill to swallow?

96

leo707 2012 Feb 24, 2:13am

In china people work hard because they don't have a fall back. No one will help them out, and if they're lazy they starve and die.

People who work hard in China still starve to death; people also commit suicide because the working conditions are so deplorable and they have no alternative, but to starve.

Why is working hard and not being an entitled trust fund kid of the government such a hard pill to swallow?

It is not but in the US today, as mentioned by david1, upward mobility is rare. Currently the US has lower class mobility than other industrialized countries and this is not because people in the US are inherently more "lazy". Some systems facilitate upward mobility and some inhibit it; we are moving to a system that inhibits class mobility.

97 nw888 2012 Feb 24, 2:38am

True, in China there are deep problems, and they are only barely seeing the beginning of increases wages in some areas. As a people, they work hard, and I am inclined to say much harder, because survival is on their mind.

I think people in the US have many opportunities to make it today. Everyone one of us is truly lucky to be born in a nation where we have choices. Imagine being born in Africa or China in some remote location, where you will never be able to live out your dreams.

Yes, the US is heading downwards, but at the same time, I see entitlement and laziness every day. It' in my family, some of my friends, my wife's family and friends...It's all around. There is a problem in this country, and while many people work very hard, there are many people that are used to "getting by", with the help of the government (taxpayer) of course. These people can get out and hustle more than they do to get off unemployment, or put in the extra days and nights to take their career to the next level. They don't, and they complain about how miserable their life is because they can't afford this and that. They're lucky, and they don't even know it.

I will say this: I am so fortunate and lucky to have been born in a country where I have opportunities. Without that luck, I would NEVER be where I am today.

I think that a lot of people in this country take their luck for granted.

98 david1 2012 Feb 24, 2:44am

Why is working hard and not being an entitled trust fund kid of the government such a hard pill to swallow?

It isn't at all. However, I find it absolutely hard to believe that you are a self made part of the 1% without any help from the government. The government is such a large % of overall economic activity that it is hard to believe. You mentioned being business owner.

1. You have no government (state, local, federal) contracts?
2. None of your customers receive any type of government assistance (FHA construction loans, SBA business loans, general public welfare, etc.)
3. The services you provide are not regulated by the government (medicine, law, telecom, etc?) Barriers similar to those in these industries prevent commodization of services.
4. You have no government protected intellectual property rights?
5. You access no public highways in the course of doing business?
6. None of your employees are eligible for the EIC?

If you can honestly answer yes to the above questions, that would be something I would love to know more about. What you would be saying is that you have a business that has a low barrier of entry, affluent-only customers, little red tape, no transportation requirements, no innovation or invention requirements, and skilled employees.

I would guess your skilled employees (who all attended private schools without federal student loans) would simply break off from your business and start their own if there really was no barrier to entry though...

If all of those are true though, please let me know what your business does!! I am very interested in purchasing franchise rights.

99

leo707 2012 Feb 24, 3:00am

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/CFF85818FBB34CF695503470B623EB31.ashx

I think people in the US have many opportunities to make it today. Everyone one of us is truly lucky to be born in a nation where we have choices. Imagine being born in Africa or China in some remote location, where you will never be able to live out your dreams.

Yes, the US is a lucky place to be born, but not the most lucky place to be born -- depending on what socioeconomic status you are born into.

"The findings from cross-country research challenge the traditional
view of the United States as a land with more mobility and opportunity than other countries.

While cross-country comparisons of relative mobility rely on data and methodologies that are far from perfect, a growing number of economic studies have found that the United States stands out as having less, not more, intergenerational mobility than do Canada and several European countries. American children are more likely than other children to end up in the same place on the income distribution as their parents. Moreover, there is emerging evidence that mobility is particularly low for Americans born into families at the bottom of the earnings or income distribution."

...I see entitlement and laziness every day. It' in my family, some of my friends, my wife's family and friends...It's all around. There is a problem in this country, and while many people work very hard, there are many people that are used to "getting by", with the help of the government (taxpayer) of course. These people can get out and hustle more than they do to get off unemployment, or put in the extra days and nights to take their career to the next level. They don't, and they complain about how miserable their life is because they can't afford this and that. They're lucky, and they don't even know it.

Yes, this can be annoying. However, it is preferable to having your friends and family working 80 hrs a week, under deplorable conditions, because their alternative is to starve.

We can not expect everybody to be self motivated go-getters; not everyone can become a leader of industry. In the US the go-getters are not as likely to increase their social economic position as they are in many European countries.

I think that a lot of people in this country take their luck for granted.

I agree, but this happens on both ends of the economic ladder. People like Trump and Romeny often feel like they are self-made while then remain blind to the luck of their birth and the advantages that being born to wealth gave them.

100

leo707 2012 Feb 24, 3:23am

It isn't at all. However, I find it absolutely hard to believe that you are a self made part of the 1% without any help from the government. The government is such a large % of overall economic activity that it is hard to believe. You mentioned being business owner.

I think that Elizabeth Warren said it pretty well:
"I hear all this, you know, â€˜Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,â€™ No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own â€” nobody.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didnâ€™t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory â€” and hire someone to protect against this â€” because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless â€” keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.â€

101 nw888 2012 Feb 24, 7:00am

I would guess your skilled employees (who all attended private schools without federal student loans) would simply break off from your business and start their own if there really was no barrier to entry though...

Are you implying that just because an employee borrowed money from the government to get an education, the government has helped the business owner that hires that person?

I help design theme parks and movies. My work contributes to raising investment capital to fund their operations and get the projects greenlit.

To my knowledge, no one I deal with is backed by the government. With your guidelines, though, no person is self made in this country.

When I say self made, I mean that I have built a business from the ground up. I started with nothing. Used to be dirt poor and worked hard and built it. I was a worker that got shafted by a company, and decided to begin my own company.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless â€” keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.â€

I couldn't agree more. It's the attitude of "we built the roads so you could make money" that's a problem with me. People take too much credit for other's success.

As an example I overheard once: "If I didn't buy this Iphone, where would Apple be? It's because of people like me they're so rich!" Really? Okay. Some people like to flatter themselves. The world filled with mutualism. But hey, whatever.

102 nw888 2012 Feb 24, 7:00am

I would guess your skilled employees (who all attended private schools without federal student loans) would simply break off from your business and start their own if there really was no barrier to entry though...

Are you implying that just because an employee borrowed money from the government to get an education, the government has helped the business owner that hires that person?

I help design theme parks and movies. My work contributes to raising investment capital to fund their operations and get the projects greenlit.

To my knowledge, no one I deal with is backed by the government. With your guidelines, though, no person is self made in this country.

When I say self made, I mean that I have built a business from the ground up. I started with nothing. Used to be dirt poor and worked hard and built it. I was a worker that got shafted by a company, and decided to begin my own company.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless â€” keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.â€

I couldn't agree more. It's the attitude of "we built the roads so you could make money" that's a problem with me. People take too much credit for other's success. If anything, the business has most likely paid so many employees that then pay income tax, along with sales tax, along with the corporate taxes, that they've in fact contributed to most of the roads being built.

As an example I overheard once: "If I didn't buy this Iphone, where would Apple be? It's because of people like me they're so rich!" Really? Okay. Some people like to flatter themselves. The world filled with mutualism. But hey, whatever.

103

leo707 2012 Feb 24, 7:18am

It's the attitude of "we built the roads so you could make money" that's a problem with me. People take too much credit for other's success.

I don't think that it is so much people wanting to take credit for others success, but wanting the successful to acknowledge that their success did not happen in a vacuum.

If anything, the business has most likely paid so many employees that then pay income tax, along with sales tax, along with the corporate taxes, that they've in fact contributed to most of the roads being built.

Well, putting aside that the largest corporations don't seem to be paying any taxes; yeah, that is the way it is supposed to work. The success stories roll money back into the system so that opportunity is there to create more success stories.

Before a "little guy" can be successful he needs a stable system that can help facilitate his/her success. The roads, educations, police, small business loans, etc. have already been in place decades before day 1 of someone's new business.

As an example I overheard once: "If I didn't buy this Iphone, where would Apple be? It's because of people like me they're so rich!" Really? Okay. Some people like to flatter themselves. The world filled with mutualism. But hey, whatever.

Yeah, it is silly for someone to make that comment. like they had a hand in designing the iPhone. However, they are correct in that without them -- and a million other iAcolytes -- Apple would not exist.

If you have ever been to a rock concert I am sure you have heard, "We love our Fans! without them we would not be where we are today!", etc. It seems that rock concerts are the only places where there are public decelerations in appreciation of how others contributed to the successful.

104

Dan8267 2012 Feb 24, 9:02am

American in Japan says

How will the candidate of your choice be an improvement over Obama? What policies will be implemented...? Please be specific. I have my criticisms of Obama , incidentally, but I want to know who is better and why.

Ron Paul. Half his ideas are crazy, but those half don't stand a chance of being implemented. Nevertheless, he'll veto all tyrannical legislation like the NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, etc. He'll end the wars and the secret prisons, drone attacks on civilians, government kill lists of U.S. citizens, and torture. He'll say no to just about everything the scumbag Republicans and scumbag Democrats try to pass.

Absent Ron Paul, voting for a Republican, even one worse than Obama, serves the purpose of making sure the next Democrat doesn't do the shit that Obama has done. Having a crappy Republican like Romney or Gingrich in office for the next four years is less evil than rewarding Obama for the evil he has done. We're going to have presidents for quite a few years past 2016, so we have to make sure they are held accountable for their actions even if it means accepting a worse administration in the short term.

105

American in Japan 2012 Feb 24, 10:14am

I like some things about Ron Paul... The media is playing him down though.

I am for some basic health care system which he is against, but he is for cutting military spending...

106

Dan8267 2012 Feb 24, 11:58am

American in Japan says

I am for some basic health care system which he is against

True, but none of the politicians are going to do crap about health care anyway. Best hope for health care is Elizabeth Warren and William Black running in 2016.

107

American in Japan 2012 Feb 24, 1:23pm

I'm watching Gingrich make a fool of himself on CNN.

(Let's bring back $2.00/gallon gasoline...)

108 kentm 2012 Feb 24, 10:41pm

EightBall says

No, I'm saying that the fact that they can mandate this that they can mandate just about anything.
â€¦
Why are we giving such a small group of people carte blanche? Is this not extending the ability to "legislate" to non-legislators? Is this the right solution to our problem?
â€¦
I am guessing that we disagree that the current law is ceding our rights and freedoms to a small cabal that today is left-leaning

I think if you had no problem with the Patriot Act or any number of other recent laws regarding the TSA, warrantless searches, police collusion against OWS, predator drone approvals, Virgina's attempts to mandate intrusive screening procedures... but THIS point is where you claim to draw the line against attacks on "our rights and freedoms" then your stated position is farcical. Though I'm not inclined to - if you point me to the text of the specific law you're referring to I'll give you an honest appraisal if I think it is "ceding" ""our rights and freedoms".

And let me ask you because I'm a little unclear and very curious: Who exactly are you referring to when you say "Is this not extending the ability to "legislate" to non-legislators?" Are you referring to legal decisions made by the judges? Are you falling back to the old and ridiculous 'activist judges' label simply because you disagree with some of their decisions?

EightBall says

The fact that they are women has nothing to do with this as you duly note. I find it difficult to understand that anyone would think they were centrist or right leaning.

Typo. I meant to write 'left' leaning. In the landscape of 'US American' politics they are left leaning. Makes no difference to what I wrote earlier.

And just so we're clear - no, I think you do have issues with women. I think a thread of your commentary is focused on attacking or expressing discomfort with women and specifically issues & decisions that empower women.

EightBall says

My point, however, is that there are only two choices and often one must weigh the lesser or two evils and even with my bad example you likely understand why I would make one choice over the other.
â€¦
We can only hope that something organic develops in this void as this is where most people's reality exists - but I'm not holding my breath that's for sure.

Yeah well I guess we differ on the definition of "evil" then don't we. As it currently stands it seems to me that you have no problems with things like TSA abuses of power, warrantless searches, wire tapping, police collusion against OWS, predator drone approvals, Virgina's attempts to mandate intrusive screening proceduresâ€¦ but you do DRAW THE LINE at some poor people getting a contraceptive now and then and claim this is the ruling thats stripping us of 'our rights and freedoms'. Have I got that correct? I think its a good read on my part, and as I say I think your moral compass is pretty screwed at this point.

For one more thing, if you're claiming democrats are 'marching toward the left' when at this point Obama is arguably basically Bush's third term in so many policies then again, really, its time for a reality check. What I do think is that you're not really arguing any policy issues or even care what they are, its just that your team is on the out right now and you're scrabbling to justify and find reasons to support your 'heartfelt' opinion.

But I guess thats understandable when all the people you currently want to put back in power are doing exactly the same thing. Did you watch the debate the other night? Man, what a farce that was. Here's Matt Taibbi's take on it, which I THINK is pretty much accurate: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/arizona-debate-conservative-chickens-come-home-to-roost-20120223?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

109 kentm 2012 Feb 24, 10:57pm

Absent Ron Paul, voting for a Republican, even one worse than Obama, serves the purpose of making sure the next Democrat doesn't do the shit that Obama has done. Having a crappy Republican like Romney or Gingrich in office for the next four years is less evil than rewarding Obama for the evil he has done. We're going to have presidents for quite a few years past 2016, so we have to make sure they are held accountable for their actions even if it means accepting a worse administration in the short term.

But their positions on so many issues are exactly the same!

You're all for 'punishing' Obama but certainly seem just fine with similar policy actions when they were undertaken by Bush or want to be continued by one of the republican candidates.

I'll say to you exactly what I said to the previous person: You're not really arguing any policy issues or even care what they are, its just that your team is on the out right now and you're scrabbling to justify and find reasons to support your 'heartfelt' opinion.

110

EightBall 2012 Feb 26, 11:34pm

As it currently stands it seems to me that you have no problems with things like TSA abuses of power, warrantless searches, wire tapping, police collusion against OWS, predator drone approvals, Virgina's attempts to mandate intrusive screening procedures

I have a problem with those as well. All of them.

Who exactly are you referring to when you say "Is this not extending the ability to "legislate" to non-legislators?"

HHS of course...

And just so we're clear - no, I think you do have issues with women. I think a thread of your commentary is focused on attacking or expressing discomfort with women and specifically issues & decisions that empower women.

You are foolishly and myopically focusing on something you agree with (which is fine I don't pretend to feel the need for everyone to agree with me) and turning a blind eye to the bigger picture. When the Virginia ultrasound dong proposal is foisted upon the entire nation by HHS Secretary NeoConNutjob, will you then open your eyes as to why allowing HHS to control and enforce fiat choices upon all of us?

111

American in Japan 2012 Mar 13, 3:49pm

Ron Paul easily looks like the best out of this lot...

Anyway, I haven't voted for a Republican since Bob Dole ran for president in 1996.

112 thomas.wong1986 2012 Mar 13, 4:08pm

"The findings from cross-country research challenge the traditional
view of the United States as a land with more mobility and opportunity than other countries.
While cross-country comparisons of relative mobility rely on data and methodologies that are far from perfect, a growing number of economic studies have found that the United States stands out as having less, not more, intergenerational mobility than do Canada and several European countries. American children are more likely than other children to end up in the same place on the income distribution as their parents. Moreover, there is emerging evidence that mobility is particularly low for Americans born into families at the bottom of the earnings or income distribution."

Who wants to be a geeky Engineer or Accountant which pays well. We have plenty of educational institutions to provide the knowledge to be in such careers, but who wants to be a Geek! Being successful is not pretty.

113 thomas.wong1986 2012 Mar 13, 4:11pm

rdm says

While for many a 20 dollar co pay for a test or 500 a year for birth control may seem a small amount of money for the working poor it is not.

The mandate is enforced upon the employer, so the employee isnt poor if they have a job.

114

American in Japan 2012 Apr 8, 10:44pm

It looks likely that Romney will be the Republican candidate. For those who plan to vote Republican, what are your thoughts?

115

freak80 2012 Apr 9, 12:30am

Romney is a robot for the top 0.1% and Corporate America. Obama hasn't stood up to the big banks. Democrats are supposed to be the ones that stand up to Big Business, and Obama has not. And ObamaCare is a joke.

I'll probably sit this election out. Elections don't matter...it's all about the money.

116

American in Japan 2012 Apr 16, 4:35pm

I have some inspiration for a new post thanks!

117

Dan8267 2012 Apr 16, 5:19pm

You're all for 'punishing' Obama but certainly seem just fine with similar policy actions when they were undertaken by Bush or want to be continued by one of the republican candidates.

I'll say to you exactly what I said to the previous person: You're not really arguing any policy issues or even care what they are, its just that your team is on the out right now and you're scrabbling to justify and find reasons to support your 'heartfelt' opinion.

I've called for Bush to be hung as a war criminal. He and the Republican's aren't my team, as you would clearly get if you read any of my posts on them.

I still stand by my statement. It is better to pay a short-term cost of having a Republican, even Romney in office than to pay a far longer-term cost of letting the Democrats become exactly like the Republicans. It's called game theory. And I have yet to hear a good counter-argument to this statement.

But if you want to talk issues, I'm more than willing to do that. I reserve the right to criticize both Obama and Bush in great detail. It's not mutually exclusive.

118

American in Japan 2012 May 5, 4:48pm

I was hoping to actually get some good arguments here. With Romney in the forefront, how many Republicans will come out and vote for him, how many will write in a candidate and how many will simply stay home ?...

119

Vicente 2012 May 6, 2:28am

Romney will shift the TRILLIONS saved from closing down the Planned Parenthood AbortionPlex, right into constructing a Mormon Temple on the National Mall. It's the right thing to do, and makes him clearly superior to Santorum or any of the other failed challengers.

120

leo707 2012 May 6, 4:36pm

It is better to pay a short-term cost of having a Republican, even Romney in office than to pay a far longer-term cost of letting the Democrats become exactly like the Republicans. It's called game theory. And I have yet to hear a good counter-argument to this statement.

I am in the same boat a you in-that I have been pretty disappointed in several things that Obama has done. However...

1. I don't think that the Democrats are going to learn the lesson that you hope. I doubt loosing the election to the Republicans is going to teach Democrats that they need to be less like the Republicans in order to win elections. More likely their thought process will be, "...Hmmm... a Republican won... that must be what people want, to win we need to be more like Republicans."

2. I don't know that a Romney presidency would be just a short-term cost. Today we are living with some large issues that started with Republican presidencies over 30 years ago. Things seem to go in a cycle where Republicans in power funnel money and power to the wealthy, and Democrats just maintain whatever system was left to them -- maybe roll it back a little bit. So much wealth and power has been concentrated in a few hands that I am not sure we can roll it back if we go through one more Republican presidency. However, with the way Obama has been handling things I don't know if it matters too much.

I don't know if these are so much "counter-arguments" as they are concerns with the stated logic of voting a Republican at this point.

121

Dan8267 2012 May 6, 8:55pm

is going to teach Democrats that they need to be less like the Republicans

My impression is that politicians are good at only one thing: figuring out how to stay in office. If the demographics are right, a message can be sent that in order to stay in office, you have to respect the rights of the citizens.

Ideally a third party would win the presidency, but that's not going to happen due to the screwed up elections we hold. Over 200 years, and our country still hasn't figured out how to run elections. Pathetic.

122

freak80 2012 May 7, 12:34am

Vicente says

Planned Parenthood AbortionPlex

Ah, The Onion. Always hilarious!

123

freak80 2012 May 7, 12:39am

There really isn't much difference between Romney and Obama on "social" issues and health care.

There's even an Onion story about Romney using a time-machine to go back and kill the liberal version of himself.

The only difference is that Romney still believes in protecting and enriching the aristocracy at the expense of everyone else.

I'll probably sit this election out. It's all about the money anyway. K-Street money is what matters, not votes.

124

leo707 2012 May 7, 4:08am

wthrfrk80 says

I'll probably sit this election out. It's all about the money anyway. K-Street money is what matters, not votes.

Well... votes are what matter, it is just that people are significantly more susceptible to propaganda than they like to think, and K-Street money buys a lot of propaganda these days, i.e. votes.

125

freak80 2012 May 7, 4:20am

K-Street money buys a lot of propaganda these days, i.e. votes.

True that.

126

leo707 2012 May 7, 4:20am

If the demographics are right, a message can be sent that in order to stay in office, you have to respect the rights of the citizens.

For that message to get sent in the way suggested enough people would have to be organized on the topic so that when the polls on votes are run it is clear to the outgoing candidate that their loss was not because their opponent was "better".

Probably enough people would have to be organized that they could viably get a third party candidate elected...