|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why are the tea partiers so angry?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Something RadicalWhig said got me upset “The rise of America's imperial might in the twentieth century….” An Empire conquers other lands to steal its wealth I don’t see that America is doing this or has done it.
Cuba, Puerto Rico, The Philippines, Samoa, Panama, various South Pacific Islands, various overt and covert operations in Central and South America....
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Democrats, individually, have brains and do not follow the herd instinct like the automatons in the Rethuglickin' party. This means they don't vote as a mindless bloc.
Wow. That's a good one. Any more and we can have a stand up comedy act. It is Friday.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Democrats have a filibuster proof congress and can do any thing they want.
1. Not any more.
2. Democrats, individually, have brains and do not follow the herd instinct like the automatons in the Rethuglickin' party. This means they don't vote as a mindless bloc.
The same could be said of blacks, except on the Democratic side.
As to "why are they so angry," question, it is clear from the sneering tone whose anger counts and whose anger is to be discounted. The left-of-center establishment does not like to be reminded that 46 percent of the electorate did not vote for The One. Although my take towards fiscal policy is far closer to Pete Petersen than to the Tea Partiers, I am glad that by providing resistance to the current spending policies now in place, they are slowing the juggernaut down.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
The Tea Party lobby seem to feel a sense of impotent outrage at the way America is currently going. Sarah Palin is an apt poster girl for them. Neither they, nor she, seem to understand the complexity of some of the economic, social and political problems facing the country.
America is the leading world power. Some of the complexities of world politics: Afghanistan; the Middle East in general and the long running Israel/Palestine issue are extremely difficult and defy simplistic solutions.
American society needs proper healthcare and the sort of social safety net which exists in Europe and parts of the Commonwealth. This is not a 'Communist conspiracy'. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Simplistic solutions and harking back to an airbrushed 'early America' idyll will not work.
The genius of the American people, as embodied by their greatest politicians, such as FDR, is to solve problems.
God bless America and may the Tea Party not flourish. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The French and the American revolutionaries had both read Montesquieu, but that's about it.
You obviously know a huge amount more about this than I do, but I was thinking of the statue of liberty, general Lafayette, and I thought that the example of the American revolution was an inspiration to France.
But these are half-remembered fag-ends of facts rather than a cogent view formed from study.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Something RadicalWhig said got me upset “The rise of America's imperial might in the twentieth century….” An Empire conquers other lands to steal its wealth I don’t see that America is doing this or has done it.
Read more history, economics and politics then.
Esp in relation to Latin America and the Middle East, although frankly most of the rest of the world would do as well.
Not that I am silly enough to think that the UK is, or was, any better.
[ 18. June 2010, 22:30: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Is "worst POTUS EVER" really any more than vastly inflated and irresponsible hyperbole?
Not at all - in fact, the reality is far worse!
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
American society needs proper healthcare and the sort of social safety net which exists in Europe and parts of the Commonwealth.
So we can go bankrupt like Europe? Of course, it doesn't matter since we're almost there already.
quote:
The genius of the American people, as embodied by their greatest politicians, such as FDR, is to solve problems.
I might debate you on the FDR allusion, but the current problem is that we have an empty suit in the oval office who has never had to solve problems or administer anything. His lack of experience and capability are biting us in the rear now.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Why are the tea partiers so angry?
Because they're not-so-subtly egged on to be angry.
Marketers have been toying with people's emotions for centuries. Why not politicians?
Taking Easy Advantage of People's Anger, Religious beliefs, Tax-aversion, and Yearnings to be part of a closed group.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
It's easy to blame it all on a President (or a series of presidents), but it also takes the ever-varying make-up of Congress to help snarl things up.
The older I get and having done some time in small-town politics, the more I'm amazed that anything ever gets done right at all.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Something RadicalWhig said got me upset “The rise of America's imperial might in the twentieth century….” An Empire conquers other lands to steal its wealth I don’t see that America is doing this or has done it. We fought WWI and WWII and at the end we were the big dog. We rebuilt Europe and Japan at considerable cost the only thing we asked was enough land in which to bury our dead. If as you contend we are an empire we doing a pretty bad job of it.
If you're that blind or that ignorant about history, then I understand Teabagging (at least the non-sexual kind) a little better: utter ignorance married to vast prejudice.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wisewilliam
Shipmate
# 15474
|
Posted
For those of us who are Christian Merlin has it all . Christianity is about helping the weak, not about declaring that “homeless people” are homeless by choice, being delinquent and deserving of their fate. The fact is the U.S. is an unjust and vicious society where fifty percent of the wealth is owned by those who are millionaires – half of all the income earned goes to ten per cent of earners. That is an inherently unju9st society that Tea Partiers seek to preserve.
Tea party people see the end to their unjust benefits and resist the need to share though they pretend to be Christians. Merlin’s views and Christ’s are incompatable.
--------------------
oldman
Posts: 79 | From: Dundas, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Democrats, individually, have brains and do not follow the herd instinct like the automatons in the Rethuglickin' party. This means they don't vote as a mindless bloc.
Wow. That's a good one. Any more and we can have a stand up comedy act. It is Friday.
The jokes already been done by Will Rodgers:
"I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
The moment that changes, I'm going to become something else (but the Republicans and the Tea Party are still way to organized for me), but considering what I know is going on locally, that's very much not likely. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wisewilliam:
For those of us who are Christian Merlin has it all . Christianity is about helping the weak, not about declaring that “homeless people” are homeless by choice, being delinquent and deserving of their fate.
Tea party people see the end to their unjust benefits and resist the need to share though they pretend to be Christians. Merlin’s views and Christ’s are incompatible.
Do any of us get what we deserve just because? Some get what they deserve and others get away with murder. What does deserve have to do with anything?
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least. Anyone can start looking for other work, and gov't institutions are in place in every city of the USA to help people who are evicted and jobless. People don't starve or live on the street except by choice. I am not saying that homeless people are normal people either: most of them are not typical, being mentally handicapped and (or) drug addicts, etc. That is an entirely different problem. But to claim that typical people in America are starving in the streets is pure bullshit.
quote:
The fact is the U.S. is an unjust and vicious society where fifty percent of the wealth is owned by those who are millionaires – half of all the income earned goes to ten per cent of earners. That is an inherently unjust society that Tea Partiers seek to preserve.
"I'm not sure I want popular opinion on my side -- I've noticed those with the most opinions often have the fewest facts." That's one of today's Google quotes. You are certainly in large company. This kind of hyperbole is enormously popular. It doesn't describe reality. It is not factual.
These are the historical facts: the percentage of wealth in the hands of "the rich" is immaterial to the topic of general welfare, simply because the general welfare is dependent on ENOUGH wealth to have what anyone can define as "the good life". And that is the genius of the American system: that the total wealth is available to everyone as they work and obtain. That the "filthy (viciously) rich" provide millions of jobs doesn't mean anything, does it? Oh, I suppose small business heavily regulated by Big Gov't is the answer: the only Big Business should be Big Gov't. Trouble with that is The People will have lost their franchise and Big Gov't will call all the shots. The genius of the American System has been the private entrepreneur. It was these men and women who became the rich that you are envious of. A Big Gov't controlled economy will prevent the initiative of individuals from creating successful businesses: instead, Big Gov't will offer positions within it's halls to the "deserving": and furthermore, Big Gov't will be the arbiter of who is deserving, i.e. the defining of this will be the privilege of Big Gov't as well. This is socialism; it is also fascism when an outside enemy needs trouncing or absorbing....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...the percentage of wealth in the hands of "the rich" is immaterial to the topic of general welfare, simply because the general welfare is dependent on ENOUGH wealth to have what anyone can define as "the good life".
Err, no. Not really. Equality is pretty relevant. Once GDP/capita gets above the level of about Portugal, equality of distribution starts to have a major impact on well-being. You are actually better off earning $15,000 a year in a society where everyone earns about the same, than you would be earning $25,000 in a society where that puts you in the bottom quintile. The effects of poverty - the alienating, dispiriting, dehumanising effects - are largely relative. More equal societies are, on the whole, happier than rich but unequal societies.
quote:
And that is the genius of the American system: that the total wealth is available to everyone as they work and obtain.
It's not 1824 anymore you know. The ladders have pretty much been kicked away. If you are born poor in America, chances are you will stay that way.
quote:
That the "filthy (viciously) rich" provide millions of jobs doesn't mean anything, does it?
Not really, no. If a supermarket moves into town and puts ten small local shops out of business, I don't say, "oh, thank you, great supermarket, for giving us jobs". I say, "damn you, oh evil supermarket, for taking away our economic independence and making us dependent upon the faceless corporation".
quote:
Oh, I suppose small business heavily regulated by Big Gov't is the answer:
Yes. That really is the answer. I'd prefer to say, "small business operating within a regulatory framework which discourages excessive growth" - as long as businesses stay small they do not generally need too much regulation; it's as they grow that they need to be more tightly controlled.
quote:
...the only Big Business should be Big Gov't. Trouble with that is The People will have lost their franchise and Big Gov't will call all the shots.
How so? There are ways of doing this, you know. I mean, it is perfectly possible to have an active state which is also under democratic control. Look up Philip Pettit: "Republicanism, A theory of freedom and government" for a start.
quote:
The genius of the American System has been the private entrepreneur. It was these men and women who became the rich that you are envious of.
How feasible is it to be a private entrepreneur in modern America? Want to start your own shop or workshop? Go ahead. Again, it's not 1824. The private entrepreneur is destroyed by capitalism, replaced by the corporate manager and the venture capitalist.
quote:
A Big Gov't controlled economy will prevent the initiative of individuals from creating successful businesses:
Err, no. Not at all. I mean, it's not like it's an on/off switch. The government can do much to encourage private initiative. Private enterprise has its place - it just shouldn't be allowed to run the place.
quote:
...instead, Big Gov't will offer positions within it's halls to the "deserving": and furthermore, Big Gov't will be the arbiter of who is deserving, i.e. the defining of this will be the privilege of Big Gov't as well.
No, but this is exactly what big corporations do, without being bound by any sort of democratic control - patronage, cronyism.
quote:
This is socialism; it is also fascism when an outside enemy needs trouncing or absorbing....
It's not socialism (although I have a rather narrow view of socialism; in my view you are not a socialist unless your thought is derived from Marx and you favour nationalisation of productive property - everyone else is who leans that way is, in my book, "non-socialist left", "radical", "progressive", or some other label). It's certainly not fascism.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
QJ
Shipmate
# 14873
|
Posted
The tea party people are angry becuase they have assembled and now know that there is nowhere for them to go. They are anti party so they have little real pull except to make politicians lie better to make everyone feel happy.
With the troubled economy all over the globe, the tea party is a good distraction, like the OJ trial.
We all need organized politics so the lobbists know who to pay off for what.
--------------------
QJ
Posts: 111 | From: PA | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
American society needs proper healthcare and the sort of social safety net which exists in Europe and parts of the Commonwealth.
So we can go bankrupt like Europe? Of course, it doesn't matter since we're almost there already.
Australia has a much better health insurance system than the US, and it is nowhere near broke. Barely noticed the GFC here, by comparison to most countries.
When you look at Europe, remember too that the Netherlands has had positive economic growth - they are not quite all like Greece or the UK.
And if you are almost broke now, then it isn't a national heath insurance scheme that caused the problems. It was poor financial regulation (something that Australia actually got right).
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Opined by MerlinTheMad
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least.
Yes, but that is the purest bollocks.
People often become homeless over night, esp in a recession.
People who become homeless, also, are often not capable of getting a job or preparing for their future.
My mum used to work with the homeless, and many of them simply were never quite right in the head. Usually, they were looked after by their mothers until she died, and the home was repossessed or sold. When that happened, it was not uncommon for them to simply walk out of the house, taking nothing with them whatsoever, and become homeless.
This is not the fault of those individuals, but the fault of society as a whole, and there is seldom any provision made whatsoever.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
they are not quite all like Greece or the UK.
Er, we aren't quite the same as Greece yet, mate.
Although I agree with the rest of your otherwise excellent post.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least. Anyone can start looking for other work, and gov't institutions are in place in every city of the USA to help people who are evicted and jobless. People don't starve or live on the street except by choice. I am not saying that homeless people are normal people either: most of them are not typical, being mentally handicapped and (or) drug addicts, etc. That is an entirely different problem. But to claim that typical people in America are starving in the streets is pure bullshit.
You need to get out of your bubble and come meet some of the people I meet out here in the shelter here in L.A. Our shelter host 100 a night, and there are 100 different stories. Some are choices, most are not. Most are bad decisions, some are just plain bad luck.
And, as noted before, almost half are children. How in heaven's name did a homeless child "choose" that life???
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, as noted before, almost half are children. How in heaven's name did a homeless child "choose" that life???
They should have chosen better parents.
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's a pretty disgusting form of triumphalism that says that the disadvantaged could have prevented their falling into low estate.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's a pretty disgusting form of triumphalism that says that the disadvantaged could have prevented their falling into low estate.
Or that we should hold people's mistakes against them for the rest of their lives.
So, someone made a poor decision, maybe.
I've made poor decisions in the past too, so I am
not gonna be the one to throw the first stone.
Perhaps some people have never made poor decisions in all their lives. More likely, they've just had it easy and think their good fortune is more down to them than it really is.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Which isn't to say that everyone who has got money has had it easy, although most probably have.
Some haven't.
But there are more ways of not being sorted than being skint.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Merlin The Mad Said :
quote:
But to claim that typical people in America are starving in the streets is pure bullshit.
The claim was that, left to itself, a "correction" like the great depression will lead to people starving in the streets as has happened several times in history. Nobody claimed that people are starving in the street NOW. But recent studies by the USDA estimate that there will be about 16 million kids in the US facing hunger this summer. (Hunger not starvation) 1 in 5 kids in the US live below the poverty line. And there are more children in need than the available food aid. For example in Oklahoma only 5% of those children in need actually received aid. Food banks are facing overwhelming demand.
But guess what will happen if you take away all government help.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Doesn't the claim
A) The rich all deserve to be rich, and the poor all deserve to be poor
depend on
B) Life is fair.
?
If life is *not* fair, which it isn't, then isn't it ludicrous to claim that the poor all deserve to be poor and the rich all deserve to be rich?
I say it is.
As for "well, who decides what is fair?" - good point, but I don't have to claim to be the Arbiter Of What Is Fair in order to claim that life isn't fair, and if the claim that the poor all deserve to be poor and the rich all deserve to be rich essentially rests on the idea that life is fair (which it does) then it must be mistaken.
Conservatives often claim that people like me think the world ought to be fair. No. We simply say that it is not fair. It is the people who believe that everyone gets what they deserve who think life is, and ought to be, fair. Not people like me.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
wombat
Shipmate
# 5180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely the worst president ever was George Bush. Took a balanced budget and ran it into the red, curtailed human rights in an unprecedented (since Lincoln) manner, got us into two unnecessary and costly wars, gutted the regulatory powers of the government to at least three great disasters, used the power of his office to benefit his cronies.
My own vote is for James Buchanan, whose bungling helped lead to the Civil War, with 600,000 Americans dying.
--------------------
John Walter Biles
Historian in Training
Posts: 363 | From: Maryland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
Insinuiting (or stating) that people are homeless by their own fault is a form of denial. Once poverty is equated with lack of character it helps to avoid facing the fact that there but for the Grace of God go I.
Any one of us can have a reversal of fortune at any time through the circumstances of life. No one is completely safe. And that, I think, is the deep issue here.
So, one emotional response is to make it all the fault of one person who is convenient to blame right now and gather in big groups to voice that sentiment in nasty language heard on radio and tv from hate-mongers.
Ever notice how certain phrases have a shelf life until the next one is coined?. I listened to Rush Limbaugh recently just to hear what he had to say. The word "thug" was used with extreme emphasis so many times I lost count and and applied so so many people that I had a vision of gangs of muggers roaming the streets (and he used large pauses before and after and many repetitions).
I could see the strategy:
Plant the word over and over in the hearts of people who are feeling badly about how their lives are unfolding right now and they will use it without thinking.
Anger is a convenient replacement for anxiety--and so handy because it can become self-perpetuating. It's like having a lifetime supply of blinders.
sabine
[ 19. June 2010, 13:56: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
... The word "thug" was used with extreme emphasis so many times I lost count and and applied so so many people that I had a vision of gangs of muggers roaming the streets ...
Well, they are roaming the streets, although their numbers are decreasing. They're all the Democrats. They are wonderful to care for others - using your money, not theirs.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Democrats don't pay taxes?
Taking care of other people is what humans do. Sorry about your lot.
[ 19. June 2010, 14:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's a pretty disgusting form of triumphalism that says that the disadvantaged could have prevented their falling into low estate.
Or that we should hold people's mistakes against them for the rest of their lives.
So, someone made a poor decision, maybe.
I've made poor decisions in the past too, so I am
not gonna be the one to throw the first stone.
Perhaps some people have never made poor decisions in all their lives. More likely, they've just had it easy and think their good fortune is more down to them than it really is.
Exactly.
When homelessness is a result of some bad decision-making (which again is certainly not all homeless) it's most often not that much different than the bad decisions you or I make every day. The difference in whether a "bad decision" leads to homelessness is usually some combination of:
1. dumb luck.
2. support systems. Some of us have a parent, friend, grandparent, whatever who will bail us out when we mess up, or at least let us crash on their couch for a month or two or 10 while we dig ourselves out. Some people do not. See #1.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least.
And, as noted before, almost half are children. How in heaven's name did a homeless child "choose" that life???
Merlin, I'm repeating this because I really would like an answer.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
... The word "thug" was used with extreme emphasis so many times I lost count and and applied so so many people that I had a vision of gangs of muggers roaming the streets ...
Well, they are roaming the streets, although their numbers are decreasing. They're all the Democrats. They are wonderful to care for others - using your money, not theirs.
This statement has so many holes you could slap it between bread and call it swiss cheese.
Since when are all Democrats thugs? Since when are they using money from everyone but Democrats?
Uninformed retorts can be used to cover up for lack of real substance. Similar strategy to the use of buzz words.
I'm not sure those who are supporting the tea bag POV on this thread are going to be able to adequately verbalize that POV because I think it's too emotional and fragmented.
sabine
[ 19. June 2010, 14:40: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Merlin, I'm repeating this because I really would like an answer.
I'm not sure that this particular notion (the homeless consciously choose their fate and have ample warning to take measures to avoid it) can be supported or answered, cliffsweller, so I'm not holding my breath.
Your previous post and one of my recent posts (three above you) speak to the issue in ways that those who feel the homeless get what they deserve might want to contemplate.
sabine
[ 19. June 2010, 14:45: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Doesn't the claim
A) The rich all deserve to be rich, and the poor all deserve to be poor
depend on
B) Life is fair.
Interesting thought.
We know that tea partiers are, more than most people, wealthy, healthy, and well-educated.
If they thought that they were secure in these blessings, because they deserved the blessings, then what must they think when it looks like they could lose it all, through no fault of their own?
They have to deal with, not just the insecurity and anxiety of wondering whether they can keep their job and pay their mortgage and all of that, but they also have to deal with the implications of their core belief that life is fair.
People resist changing their core beliefs. If one of their core beliefs is that life is fair, what are they to make of the fact that they used to be secure in their wealth and position, but now they're not? Do they no longer deserve these blessings? If that's the case, what have they done wrong that caused them to lose these blessings (or to put them at risk of losing them)? Nothing. So it can't be that.
The next most obvious choice is that they do deserve the blessings they've always had, and if they've lost them, then someone must be doing something to cheat them out of what is rightfully theirs.
No wonder they're angry.
And no wonder crazy conspiracy theories are multiplying. The tea partiers need to explain why they no longer have what they deserve, given their core belief about the way the world works.
They could, of course, give up that core belief, but that is hard to do. It's odd that so many Christians hold it, when it is antithetical to the Scriptures and to all of our tradition. The book of Job tells us there is no relationship between what we have and what we deserve. So does Solomon, when he said that the race goes not to the swift nor bread to the wise, but time and chance happen to all. In the New Testament, we're reminded that God makes the sun shine and the rain fall for the just and the unjust alike. No one sinned and caused the man to be born blind.
Have the various published surveys said anything about the religious views of the tea partiers? I have the impression that most of them identify as Christians.
Can their fear and anger be addressed by ignoring their specific political statements (Obama is a socialist intent on overthrowing the Constitution, the health care reform bill includes death panels, and the like) and addressing the false belief that is behind it? Can we talk to them as Christians, as brothers and sisters who are struggling under the weight of false beliefs -- not beliefs about Obama, or the health care bill, or global warming, but about the nature of this life and of the Gospel?
If they can let go of the idea that life is fair, and accept instead that God is merciful, would the fear and anger simply fade away?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Solid points, Josephine. A minor quibble, though.
I do not find it surprising the number of Christians who feel threatened. I have met a considerable number of Christians who believe in the prosperity doctrine to some degree. I have read enough of the New testament to realize this is at complete odds to the message contained, but there you have it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Radical Whig:
Yes. That really is the answer. I'd prefer to say, "small business operating within a regulatory framework which discourages excessive growth" - as long as businesses stay small they do not generally need too much regulation; it's as they grow that they need to be more tightly controlled.
What I would like to see is tiers of regulation. The larger a business the more regulation imposed by government. I would exempt small business from almost all federal regulations. States and local communities could regulate them as they see fit though they should allow them to thrive.
It is funny how both parties talk about the importance of small business. Both parties also advocate economic policies that are detrimental to them.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Excellent post and suggestion, Beeswax. I am a huge proponent of Small Business and an outspoken critic of the abuses of Big Business. If we can't prevent big businesses altogether, we need to have regulations in place that prevent them from harming the public good.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Sharron Angle got herself selected as the republican nominee for Senate in Nevada, running as the favorite of the Tea Party. Fine, that's the (small "d") democratic process.
But how democratic is it to suggest taking the guns out into the street if she doesn't win?
quote:
She talked once more of guns and politics last month, suggesting that conservatives might have no choice but to turn to violence if she failed to defeat her opponent, the Democratic Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, in the November vote.
“The nation is arming,” she told The Reno Gazette-Journal. “What are they arming for if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways. That’s why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?”
(quote taken from the New York Times OpEd piece, referring to an interview published in The Reno Gazette-Journal)
It would appear from her comments that the Tea Party is so much the only group with acceptable views that no other person should be allowed to win an election.
Of course, we just had that debate about Nick Griffin and the BNP in England, and quite a few of our posters seemed to think he shouldn't have been allowed to occupy his properly-elected seat, so the rot is spreading.
Has everyone forgotten that there may be more than one view as to how to do things, once there are more than two people around?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Josephine, esp. about giving up core beliefs.
And I also agree with LilBuddha that the prosperity gospel has undone a lot of what is actually in the scriptures and created a false sense that God is certainly on favors certain people but not others.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The effects of poverty - the alienating, dispiriting, dehumanising effects - are largely relative. More equal societies are, on the whole, happier than rich but unequal societies.
"On the whole" doesn't include the USA I guess. Yet people keep trying to get in and I don't see anyone trying to leave. I'd say that so-called American poverty is pretty good compared to most of the rest of the world.
Oh dear me, no.
Well, for some parts of the world yes. But it was already stated that equal distribution matters more ONCE YOU GET TO CERTAIN LEVEL OF INCOME. Not if you're coming from a part of the world that is in a generally disastrous state.
But I don't think you realise what you've just claimed. You've claimed that people are trying to get in to America because they'd be happy to live in American poverty. No, the reason they are trying to get in to America is because they all want the chance to NOT live in poverty, of American or any other variety. They all believe they're going to be the ones who WON'T end up in poverty. They'll be the big success.
It's quite ironic actually, because we've already seen that's what you believe about yourself. You'll never be poor because you'll see the warning signs first.
Now, if only someone like you had been in charge of Lehman Brothers...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Actually, contrary to the bullshit that the American right spouts off, we *don't* all want to live in the USA.
I am perfectly happy living in the UK, thanks all the same.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The effects of poverty - the alienating, dispiriting, dehumanising effects - are largely relative. More equal societies are, on the whole, happier than rich but unequal societies.
"On the whole" doesn't include the USA I guess. Yet people keep trying to get in and I don't see anyone trying to leave. I'd say that so-called American poverty is pretty good compared to most of the rest of the world.
quote:
It's not 1824 anymore you know. The ladders have pretty much been kicked away. If you are born poor in America, chances are you will stay that way.
What an odd date to fix on.
That's always been true. Most "poor" people remain poor. They always have. That's because MOST people squat. Only those with initiative better themselves. The welfare/entitlement mentality that has grown throughout the 20th century only makes the squatters more numerous; it doesn't help them in any way to get out of poverty.
Your "ladders" are not going to be replaced in any progressive way by Gov't Big Business replacing the American Dream. A return to earlier economic principles of small gov't interference with private enterprise is the only possible answer; and it's debateable that it can work forever either. But it's the best so far. Socialism has proven a disastrous failure. I am not encouraged by anything ongoing in Europe. But no doubt those examples which have not fallen apart under the weight of their own insolvency will be held up as successes. Economically, relatively, perhaps: but at what cost? I would rather be poor with the freedom to go my own way and strive to improve my lot, than to have Big Gov't take anything it wants to and dole it back "fairly". Nobody is worthy of that kind of trust because that kind of trust turns into legalized brigandage and oppression.
quote:
If a supermarket moves into town and puts ten small local shops out of business, I don't say, "oh, thank you, great supermarket, for giving us jobs". I say, "damn you, oh evil supermarket, for taking away our economic independence and making us dependent upon the faceless corporation".
Over simplification. I know of many "mom and pop" businesses yet. The proportion changes that's all. The savvy operations continue to remain viable if not able to have most of the game their own way as in the past. They adapt. What you seem to be suggesting here is some kind of unrealistic compromise: a gov't BIG enough to forbid megahuge corporations, so that small "mom and pop" businesses can make a go of it; yet avoid the evils of gov't as THE BIG BUSINESS over-ruling all others.
quote:
MerlintheMad said:Oh, I suppose small business heavily regulated by Big Gov't is the answer:
quote:
Yes. That really is the answer. I'd prefer to say, "small business operating within a regulatory framework which discourages excessive growth" - as long as businesses stay small they do not generally need too much regulation; it's as they grow that they need to be more tightly controlled.
This is impossible! To regulate against growth beyond an allowed point is to crush initiative: the gov't defines how much initiative you can have? How do you justify this kind of power?
quote:
...the only Big Business should be Big Gov't. Trouble with that is The People will have lost their franchise and Big Gov't will call all the shots. quote:
How so? There are ways of doing this, you know. I mean, it is perfectly possible to have an active state which is also under democratic control. Look up Philip Pettit: "Republicanism, A theory of freedom and government" for a start.
And you'd trust someone like His Oness to set up a "fix" from a theory book? How do you disfranchise megahuge corporations that exist already? How do you justify taking them down to a "legal" size and dispensing the "excess" wealth? Impossible, because nobody is going to trust anyone like His Oness with that kind of power. And nobody in Congress or any other "ruling" elite body is going to put up with the proletariat dividing up private property that isn't theirs.
quote:
How feasible is it to be a private entrepreneur in modern America?
Not as feasible as it once was; but it isn't because of the wealthy, it's because of the restrictions of Big Gov't messing with the free market: it's precisely because of fear of the present gov't that freezes up the money.
quote:
Private enterprise has its place - it just shouldn't be allowed to run the place.
But Big Gov't should? What else is there to chose between? Either private initiative or turn that over to gov't to dole out: "you may go this far with your business ideas but no further: getting more rich than that is evil and unfair". Right.
quote:
...instead, Big Gov't will offer positions within it's halls to the "deserving": and furthermore, Big Gov't will be the arbiter of who is deserving, i.e. the defining of this will be the privilege of Big Gov't as well. quote:
No, but this is exactly what big corporations do, without being bound by any sort of democratic control - patronage, cronyism.
And there's something wrong with big business having control over its property and employees? Nothing in America allows such megahuge corps to detain employees or force them to work or stay put. Yet socialism morphs into that exact sort of control: and there is NOWHERE for the proletariat to go when Big Gov't is the only Big Business; all regulations apply evenly to every employment opportunity. There is NO competition, ergo no incentive to better oneself, ergo a stagnation of inititative. Only a competitive marketplace fosters the kinds of inventions and productivity that America has been famous for. Your socialistic same-old-same-old system makes people flat; they don't have any reason to work harder than the next guy.
quote:
This is socialism; it is also fascism when an outside enemy needs trouncing or absorbing.... quote:
It's not socialism (although I have a rather narrow view of socialism; in my view you are not a socialist unless your thought is derived from Marx and you favour nationalisation of productive property - everyone else is who leans that way is, in my book, "non-socialist left", "radical", "progressive", or some other label). It's certainly not fascism.
So Marx was the inventor of socialism. None of these communal, gov't controlling ideas existed before Marx.
Look, whatever you call it, if it isn't free enterprise, with private property that can GROW BIGGER through effort/initiative, then it isn't "American". And Americans didn't invent this system: they just were the first ones to try it on full-blown style and make it work. That pisses off the "have-nots" and the envious and whiners. They will always scream that it isn't fair that some people get to be so rich. Never mind, that the whiners have a nice little house, their kids are well-dressed in clothes that cost a fraction of the "designer" crap, and they are educated and can get jobs like mom and dad and raise their own little proletariat families: all they see is that some people have tons more than I do, so they are evil and need trimming. Give some of it to me while you're cutting them down!...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Something RadicalWhig said got me upset “The rise of America's imperial might in the twentieth century….” An Empire conquers other lands to steal its wealth I don’t see that America is doing this or has done it.
Cuba, Puerto Rico, The Philippines, Samoa, Panama, various South Pacific Islands, various overt and covert operations in Central and South America....
Venezuela.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
I have no idea what combo of keys I hit to make that enormous double post happen: I saw everything go away, then my text composition box came back and I kept typing and posted. Sorry about that!....
[so I deleted the first, incomplete, post - JH]
[ 19. June 2010, 20:01: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally Opined by MerlinTheMad
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least. quote:
Yes, but that is the purest bollocks.
People often become homeless over night, esp in a recession.
Malarky! "Often"? Without warning? How does this occur? I'll tell you: by being STOOPID. Dig your head into the sand and say LALALALA. Anyone who can't look their personal finances over and SEE the danger of eviction with nowhere to go is being an idiot (I speak of normal, savvy people who are unwise in their finances and act as if tomorrow will necessarily be as today without a care for saving or planning for the worst case scenario).
quote:
People who become homeless, also, are often not capable of getting a job or preparing for their future.
Then these cases need help. How many of them are unaware of their incapacity? Not many is the answer. How many, being aware of their incapacity, do nothing about it? Quite a few. Stoopid, as I said: yes, prideful and stubborn. They'd rather squat and not let anyone know how badly off they are, until everything falls apart and they are out in the street with their kids.
The answer is to be there to pick them up when they are discovered AFTER it's too late to help them prepare. And advertise the services available BETTER, so that more of them will take advantage of the chance to prepare for the worst, so that it won't happen.
quote:
My mum used to work with the homeless, and many of them simply were never quite right in the head. Usually, they were looked after by their mothers until she died, and the home was repossessed or sold. When that happened, it was not uncommon for them to simply walk out of the house, taking nothing with them whatsoever, and become homeless.
You did notice, I trust, that I said MOST of the homeless we have fit this kind of description? It isn't as though perfectly capable, working people wake up one morning in the street going "My gwad! what just happened? I didn't see THAT coming!"
quote:
This is not the fault of those individuals, but the fault of society as a whole, and there is seldom any provision made whatsoever.
No provision for seeing the development? Or no provision for helping the disadvantaged/handicapped/addicted dregs of society? It seems to me that there are a lot of provisions. It's just that many of these odd people want to remain independent, even if it means being on the vagabond trail....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You need to get out of your bubble and come meet some of the people I meet out here in the shelter here in L.A. Our shelter host 100 a night, and there are 100 different stories. Some are choices, most are not. Most are bad decisions, some are just plain bad luck.
And, as noted before, almost half are children. How in heaven's name did a homeless child "choose" that life???
"It's all about the children". Fine. I accept that as the biggest part of a homeless tragedy. But you nailed it: "Most are bad decisions", which includes not acting at all when there was still time and means to prepare. Now they are homeless. But, they are not STARVING IN THE STREET are they? That was the assertion that started me on this refuting tangent....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Merlin The Mad Said :
quote:
But to claim that typical people in America are starving in the streets is pure bullshit.
The claim was that, left to itself, a "correction" like the great depression will lead to people starving in the streets as has happened several times in history. Nobody claimed that people are starving in the street NOW. But recent studies by the USDA estimate that there will be about 16 million kids in the US facing hunger this summer. (Hunger not starvation) 1 in 5 kids in the US live below the poverty line. And there are more children in need than the available food aid. For example in Oklahoma only 5% of those children in need actually received aid. Food banks are facing overwhelming demand.
But guess what will happen if you take away all government help.
The so-called poverty line supports FAT kids! Look around. American "poor kids" are not starving. You will find an extremely small exceptional segment to that: and in almost all cases there are untypical circumstances causing the malnutrition, or even the lack of calories. Foodbanks will continue to recieve overwhelming demand as long as the momentum is toward more entitlement mentality.
The American Great Depression was not a time of wide-spread starvation. Very few people suffered as other countries would in a similar economic crisis...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally Opined by MerlinTheMad
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least. quote:
Yes, but that is the purest bollocks.
People often become homeless over night, esp in a recession.
Malarky! "Often"? Without warning? How does this occur? I'll tell you: by being STOOPID. Dig your head into the sand and say LALALALA. Anyone who can't look their personal finances over and SEE the danger of eviction with nowhere to go is being an idiot (I speak of normal, savvy people who are unwise in their finances and act as if tomorrow will necessarily be as today without a care for saving or planning for the worst case scenario).
quote:
People who become homeless, also, are often not capable of getting a job or preparing for their future.
Then these cases need help. How many of them are unaware of their incapacity? Not many is the answer. How many, being aware of their incapacity, do nothing about it? Quite a few. Stoopid, as I said: yes, prideful and stubborn. They'd rather squat and not let anyone know how badly off they are, until everything falls apart and they are out in the street with their kids.
The answer is to be there to pick them up when they are discovered AFTER it's too late to help them prepare. And advertise the services available BETTER, so that more of them will take advantage of the chance to prepare for the worst, so that it won't happen.
quote:
My mum used to work with the homeless, and many of them simply were never quite right in the head. Usually, they were looked after by their mothers until she died, and the home was repossessed or sold. When that happened, it was not uncommon for them to simply walk out of the house, taking nothing with them whatsoever, and become homeless.
You did notice, I trust, that I said MOST of the homeless we have fit this kind of description? It isn't as though perfectly capable, working people wake up one morning in the street going "My gwad! what just happened? I didn't see THAT coming!"
quote:
This is not the fault of those individuals, but the fault of society as a whole, and there is seldom any provision made whatsoever.
No provision for seeing the development? Or no provision for helping the disadvantaged/handicapped/addicted dregs of society? It seems to me that there are a lot of provisions. It's just that many of these odd people want to remain independent, even if it means being on the vagabond trail....
Feel free to feel inherently superior to them if you like, but I am betting that you aren't.
Even if you are, so what? What's wrong with a bit of compassion?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
