Hucklebee, Obama and Kenya.

You are falling into that age-old rut of the have-nots whining about the "haves" and demanding a slice of the haves' pie, rather than going out and using a little imagination, and vision, to earn their keep. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Now that is a fact of human life that will not change. However, one important consideration is whether the rules of the game are fair, thus giving the "have nots" a fair opportunity to change their status. In this country, a person used to be able to earn a fair wage for a day's work. He could afford health care and send his children to a decent school. Now, if the right has its way, we are moving towards a society where only the wealthy will have access to health care and education.

However, one important consideration is whether the rules of the game are fair, thus giving the "have nots" a fair opportunity to change their status. In this country, a person used to be able to earn a fair wage for a day's work. Originally Posted by lizardking

Bottom line is that folks are not going to advance up the financial ladder by earning "a fair wage for a day's work." We have to encourage people to go into business for themselves and create an environment in which those who take the risks can benefit from taking them. There is nothing wrong with working for "a fair wage" and being satisfied with one's level of financial condition. But to take from those who invested their time, money, energy, long hours without time off and vacations, and RISK after they are successful, just to "even the spending (not playing) field" .... is inconsistent with creating an environment in which those who take the risks can benefit from taking them. It will deter those with drive and imagination from expanding opportunities for those who are satisfied to work for a "fair wage."

Seriously, what would the social impact be if we allowed folks to keep $10-20 million and took the rest? How many would be impacted? And precisely how would they be impacted? Would life suck if you only had $20 million? Would young people despair that their opportunities are limited and simply give up? Originally Posted by lizardking

We'd probably do away with the NFL, NBA, MLB immediately. Along with making much progress in telcom and medicine and many other industries. Lizardking, you make a compelling argument for benevolent totalitarianism!

On a more serious note I kinda agree with you about young people. Their unemployment stats are staggering (like 25%) and whatever money they throw into social sec they'll never get back. They should be facebooking and twittering for action!

All this aside, the main thrust of my original post was obscured by the attention given to my comment regarding race. The real problem is that social-conservative fanatics are THE most malleable segment of our society. One's brain has got to be mighty fucking soft to sign-on to any sort of fundamentalist religious belief, and that makes those who do an easy mark. Do you think the chairman of Exxon really gives a fuck about abortion or same-sex marriage? Hell no! But he'll support a candidate that pays lip service to those issues if the guy is on board with low taxes for the wealthy, business deregulation, rejection of climate science, and a host of other "money first" issues. There's a host of bona fide idiots out there, and that's what makes a gut like Huckabee dangerous. Originally Posted by lizardking

Do you enjoy your flashbacks as much as I enjoy reading them?

An individual should be able to work full-time at any job an earn a living (i.e, sufficient income to provide himself and his family with a reasonable standard of living). A growing faction on the right advocates abolishing the minimum wage, and that is just plain wrong. One should not need to "advance up the financial ladder" to have a basic level of food, clothing, shelter, safety, education, and health care.

Certainly, risk, ingenuity, and enterprise should be rewarded, but rewarded fairly. Today, our system of risk and reward is dangerously out of balance. It used to be that a doctor earned about 10x what a bus driver earned, today it's 100x or more. A corporate CEO used to earn about 40x what the average rank-and-file worker earned, today it's 400x. It's difficult to envision a job of greater social importance than teaching, yet teachers earn a disgracefully low wage. This is compounded by the fact that the current budget-cutting frenzy seems to focus on education, probably because that is the path of least resistance. Children, after all, cannot afford the going rate on K Street. The upshot of all of this is that the redistribution of wealth continues apace in this country, and it is a torrential upward flow. There is a tipping point. When we find out exactly where that is, it will be too late.

Do you enjoy your flashbacks as much as I enjoy reading them? Originally Posted by gnadfly

that is funny right there.

We'd probably do away with the NFL, NBA, MLB immediately. Originally Posted by gnadfly

You don't think guys would play pro ball if they were only making, for example, $1mm per year?

Several weeks ago, Bill Maher made the point that the NFL - which is considerably more popular, successful, and profitable than any other professional sports league - is essentially a socialist organization. Truthfully, its more of a collective or a co-op. The NFL shares its largest source of income, TV revenues, equally among its 32 teams. This results in parity that enhances - not diminishes - competition. Small-market teams like Green Bay and Pittsburgh field teams that can compete with teams from New York and Chicago. By contrast, MLB competition is slanted in favor of teams like the Yankees, who have a payroll in excess of $200mm. The MLB is a free-market, and each team negotiates its own TV deal. (Wasn't Ayn Rand a former MLB Commissioner?) Small-market teams only compete every once in a great while, typically only when a few of their heretofore unknown players have breakout years and are lost to the Yankees via free agency. (Sorry, but this is just one more reason why baseball sucks.)

Economic regulation is a inescapable fact of social organization. In fact, from an anthropological perspective, it is one of the first steps in the formation of any society or community. Free-market fundamentalists are not realists. Face it, a criminal statute that makes it an offense for me to knock you up side the head and take your shit is a form of economic regulation at its most basic level. Ask Ron Paul if we should do away with that.

An individual should be able to work full-time at any job an earn a living (i.e, sufficient income to provide himself and his family with a reasonable standard of living). A growing faction on the right advocates abolishing the minimum wage, and that is just plain wrong. One should not need to "advance up the financial ladder" to have a basic level of food, clothing, shelter, safety, education, and health care.

Certainly, risk, ingenuity, and enterprise should be rewarded, but rewarded fairly. Today, our system of risk and reward is dangerously out of balance. It used to be that a doctor earned about 10x what a bus driver earned, today it's 100x or more. A corporate CEO used to earn about 40x what the average rank-and-file worker earned, today it's 400x. It's difficult to envision a job of greater social importance than teaching, yet teachers earn a disgracefully low wage. This is compounded by the fact that the current budget-cutting frenzy seems to focus on education, probably because that is the path of least resistance. Children, after all, cannot afford the going rate on K Street. The upshot of all of this is that the redistribution of wealth continues apace in this country, and it is a torrential upward flow. There is a tipping point. When we find out exactly where that is, it will be too late. Originally Posted by lizardking

It is relatively unpopular to "point out" but teachers are on the job about 180 to 185 days out of the year ... so a teacher making $50,000 a year is actually making the equivalent of $100,000 a year ... and having been a "co-worker" of many teachers in many, if not most, instances, there is not a lot of "work" ongoing in the 180 to 185 days they "show up" ... throwing more $ at the problem rarely is a solution and education is no exception.

When I first taught in public school I received about $480 a month take home. With all due respect...not much has changed except more pregnancies, more drugs, more shootings, and more truancy..... but the intellectually superior left has made it more "fun" and "creative" to be in public school ... particularly if one can "wiggle" one's way into a "protected" classification that provides additional support and assistance.

As for "a fair wage" .... before I would agree I would want to know just who it is that is going to make that decision for me? The Secretary of Human Services, or the Secretary of Labor?

Like any government regulated activity it is not usually the "laws" but the "regulations" that are the mischief and the real rats are the administrators who interpret and apply the regs......that will be the demise of "ObamaCare"!

It is relatively unpopular to "point out" but teachers are on the job about 180 to 185 days out of the year ... so a teacher making $50,000 a year is actually making the equivalent of $100,000 a year ... Originally Posted by LexusLover

$50K is $50K. Where do you propose they get another job that pays another $50K for the 180 "days off"?

and having been a "co-worker" of many teachers in many, if not most, instances, there is not a lot of "work" ongoing in the 180 to 185 days they "show up" ... Originally Posted by LexusLover

This pretty well explains your perspective. No more needs to be said.

throwing more $ at the problem rarely is a solution and education is no exception. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Then we shouldn't have any trouble finding investment bankers to work for $50K, either.

An individual should be able to work full-time at any job an earn a living (i.e, sufficient income to provide himself and his family with a reasonable standard of living).... One should not need to "advance up the financial ladder" to have a basic level of food, clothing, shelter, safety, education, and health care... There is a tipping point. When we find out exactly where that is, it will be too late. Originally Posted by lizardking

We had a tipping point in last years (2010 for you lizard) elections. A lot of people are resentful that public employees make more money than private employees for equivalent work.

You don't think guys would play pro ball if they were only making, for example, $1mm per year?...some weakly veiled threat against my person.. Ask Ron Paul if we should do away with that. Originally Posted by lizardking

You aren't thinking this thru. If the owners weren't capable of making >$20 million off the enterprise or if the TV networks weren't capable of making >$20 million off it(and the list goes on) much of the revenue base wouldn't be there. BTAYQ, yes, less athletes would play or play shorter if the most they could make is $1M.

I'm not a Paulian or Beckian.

Don,

You must not spend much time around rich, old white folks if you've never heard anyone express displeasure at the simple idea of having a black - or any race other than their own, for that matter - President. They don't broadcast it. They don't write op-ed pieces about it. But they express themselves, nonetheless. Again, I have observed the behavior and heard the prejudice expressly stated. It is not my opinion and I am not taking it on faith. However, IN MY OPINION, the whole "birther"/Muslim nonsense has a racist undercurrent.

As for "Dole-care", compare our recently-enacted (or should that be "recently repealed"?) health care legislation to the health care plan proposed and advocated by Bob Dole when he was the GOP nominee. You won't find many differences. Originally Posted by lizardking

It's only expressed when in a comfort zone and surrounded by people they are EXTREMELY comfortable around.......Like certain social clubs in Houston....I have heard this opinion as well..I only hear this when in certain company and in certain places. It is certainly not broadcast or even shared with colleagues that might differ in opinion. I was kidnapped and taken to Southern Hills country club on O.K. and the opinion was prevalent after a few long island ice teas amongst the company I was with. Yes it is there Racism....

Hell it is even here.......How many providers won't see AA? Yet we try and state racism does not exist.....

Hucklebee is a jackass with no chance of running for pres. His attack on Natalie Portman for being single and pregnant was just stupid. How about Palin's daughter? His attack on the President was full of nothing but falsehoods. No matter how you feel about the President you cannot consider Hucklebee for national office if he can't get simple fact straight.

And for all of those who think Obama is leading us to ruin, well he can't do any worse than Bush and the Republicans. Everyone seems to forget that the one-note economic strategy of President George W. Bush, of tax cuts focused on the wealthy, was an abysmal failure yielding the worst investment growth, employment growth and income growth in post-World War II U.S. history—and left the country economically and fiscally exceptionally weak going into the Great Recession. During the Bush years we had not one but two great market failures. If you are going to attack Obama at least be honest about the piss poor job that Bush did. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Can you honestly respect anyone with that name? President Huckelbee ? NO NO NO! It sounds too much like Huckleberry......Nevermind the whole world would laugh at that name...If you took a pole on which name would make you giggle it would be him..Psychographic research would eventually support this.....He has a funny name, that is hard to address as President.

We had a tipping point in last years (2010 for you lizard) elections. Originally Posted by gnadfly

A cyclical swing from Party A to Party A-1 is hardly what I had in mind by "tipping point". At some point, social stratification and and the polarization of wealth become intolerable for the folks on the short side, and radical change often follows . . . and it can be violent, unpredictable, and fraught with unintended consequences. the middle class has been the glue that binds our society together, and it is melting away like a polar ice cap (let's see who bites on that!)

There is much room for criticism of government inefficiency, both quantitative and qualitative. But my observation is that most "guv'ment workers" - including teachers, police (vice excluded, of course), firemen, etc. - are not just lazy fuckers sucking on the government teat. It blows my mind that some people (e.g., teabaggers) get so worked-up about them. I find the billions in profits earned by oil companies exploiting favorable public leases and the obscene salaries paid to the top-level executives of public contractors to be much more objectionable and problematic, but that's just me.

A cyclical swing from Party A to Party A-1 is hardly what I had in mind by "tipping point". At some point, social stratification and and the polarization of wealth become intolerable for the folks on the short side, and radical change often follows . . . and it can be violent, unpredictable, and fraught with unintended consequences. the middle class has been the glue that binds our society together, and it is melting away like a polar ice cap (let's see who bites on that!)

There is much room for criticism of government inefficiency, both quantitative and qualitative. But my observation is that most "guv'ment workers" - including teachers, police (vice excluded, of course), firemen, etc. - are not just lazy fuckers sucking on the government teat. It blows my mind that some people (e.g., teabaggers) get so worked-up about them. I find the billions in profits earned by oil companies exploiting favorable public leases and the obscene salaries paid to the top-level executives of public contractors to be much more objectionable and problematic, but that's just me. Originally Posted by lizardking

Sounds like your trying to get the "middle class" in a revolutionary mind frame. What do you propose we do Mr. Revolution Man?

Can you honestly respect anyone with that name? President Huckelbee ? NO NO NO! It sounds too much like Huckleberry......Nevermind the whole world would laugh at that name...If you took a pole on which name would make you giggle it would be him..Psychographic research would eventually support this.....He has a funny name, that is hard to address as President. Originally Posted by jasmin

It's my fault, I misspelt it in the title, it is Huckabee, not Hucklebee.

But I think Hucklebee suits him better.

One defense of Huckabee, he plays a real mean Bass Guitar. He is a true musician, not a wannabe like Bill Clinton who could, at best, honk out a few high school march tunes on his Sax.

But, otherwise, he is still an idiot.

President Obama thinks I am "rich", because I work my ass off running a business and funishing good jobs for no less than 12 famillys, and He doesn't realize that every dollar he takes from me is less I can put back into my Business.

Sure, I make a confortable living. But at what point will I just say "screw it", and get in the line for handouts like so many seem to do.