An example of why Liberals are hurting.

[kamikat]

Here’s a question for liberals, why is it that you’re afraid of the government intruding in your personal life, but you believe the government should be put in charge of Income redistrobution?

Because, at the heart of the true old-fashion Democratic Party, income redostrobution in not there. I come from a long line of liberal Democrats and was certainly raised to be one. There are certain things that insiders know about Republican administrations that would curl your hair and have me convinced to never vote Republican, the most dangerous of all is that the Republican always cut funding (or flat funding in a period of inflation)to USDA inspectors. This results in a higher occurance of wide spread food borne illnesses during Republican administrations. As a Democrat, who is becoming more Libertarian the longer she's married to the local head of the Lib. Party, I can tell you 2 reasons why the Dems are failing. The first is the take-over by progressives. There is a big difference between Liberal and Progressive. Take a look at what happened this Christmas, for example. Liberals want the inclusion of all religions in the school Christmas concerts. After all, it wouldn't be Christmas for me without the dreidal song. Progressives want to eliminate all religion from Christmas. The other reason is that we, as a nation, have matured and no longer have need of the true heart of the party. At the beginning of the 20th century, we needed liberals to institute women's sufferage, child labor laws, 5 day work week, intergration, ect. Even if those laws were removed from the books today, noone would send their 10 year old child to work in a factory or put up "whites only" above a water fountain, but they were needed at the time. While I believe a strong opposition party is essential to the survival of our democracy, the current incarnation of the Democratic party isn't that party. We have had various parties throughout our country's history. Just because the current Dem party isn't successful, doesn't mean that something else won't take it's place. Dissent is essential to freedom.
kamikat

 

[ITG]

There is a big difference between Liberal and Progressive. Take a look at what happened this Christmas, for example. Liberals want the inclusion of all religions in the school Christmas concerts. After all, it wouldn't be Christmas for me without the dreidal song. Progressives want to eliminate all religion from Christmas.

See that's what I don't get...Christmas is a Christian holiday...hence the word "Christ" in there. What sense would it make to include other religions in a holiday that celebrates the birth of Christ when they don't recognize Christ in their religions? (Unfortunately the meaning of Christmas is becoming lost and taken over by Santa Claus which maybe is why other religions feel they have a stake in Christmas.)

 

[The Wingnut]

(Unfortunately the meaning of Christmas is becoming lost and taken over by Santa Claus which maybe is why other religions feel they have a stake in Christmas.)

Actually, Christmas isn't Christian at all, it's the Roman festival of Saturnalia, which was 'churchified' by Constantine. It's basically the celebration of winter solstice, during which they would literally deck the halls of their homes with green tree boughs and candles, and show favor to their friends with gifts. Sound familiar? Evergreen trees were adopted in later as a sign of fetility, since they never lose their needles.

Christ was born in the late spring to early summer. About the only parallel between Christ and Christmas that could be drawn are the gifts of the Magi, who found him more than a year after his birth, in Bethlehem(never mind their presence in manger scenes, the only others present for that were the shepherds, who would not be out in pastures tending sheep at night during the winter months). Also, nowhere in Scripture is it stated that Christ's followers should celebrate his birth.

Modern Christmas is more about tradition and family than anything else, unless you're on the corporate side. Then, it's about revenue. We're losing the traditional Christmas because we've lost the traditional family, and our society has become more greed-driven.

 

[MK]

.

Agreed....to a small degree. Jesus may have been born another time than December.....but Christmas is about Christ. Roman festival of Saturnalia is a trivia question answer. People know that it is about Christ. Some are just trying to run away from that reality....in the same way that some people on veterens day celebrate other things ....like sports.....than those in uniform who serve our country.

Both are sad.

 

[jamespowers]

Progressives want to eliminate all religion from Christmas. The other reason is that we, as a nation, have matured and no longer have need of the true heart of the party. At the beginning of the 20th century, we needed liberals to institute women's sufferage, child labor laws, 5 day work week, intergration, ect. Even if those laws were removed from the books today, no one would send their 10 year old child to work in a factory or put up "whites only" above a water fountain, but they were needed at the time.

Now there is something I can really agree with you about. You are right on there. I think your husband is having more of an effect on you than you think.

Regards to all,

J

 

[SappySwami]

And to add to what Wingnut said, we get the date of December 25th from the Cult of Mithras, which was around prior to Constantine winning power. The bull of creation that was worshiped, had that date as it's birthday.

Anyway, about Income redistribution: Money is a wonderful creator of inequality. I always like to think when I see rich people on TV buying things they don't need, how many poor people does it take to make them? And that is the problem, the more money that is collected in small areas, the less there is to go around, creating inequalities between people. Democracy only works in a society where most people are similar, and if we have large gaps between socio-economic classes, it creates even more differences. So we need a way of breaking those areas up, and freeing money to allow it to move. Many people will say "But everyone has the opportunity to move up the ladder and make more money through hard work and saving." Well, that just isn't true. I have met enough people in that lovely spiral of poverty who have no way of saving money, let alone somehow finding a job that will allow them to move up any economic hierarchy. Ultimately, I subscribe to the elitist critique, that capitalism and democracy aren't compatible. Now, it is supposed to be the aim of capitalism to work toward a free market (which, contrary to what people say, we don't have), and would create more wealth in the long run. But even in a free market system that is successfully creating more wealth, I still don't see how it is compatible with democracy, because it is always creating a hierarchy.

Sorry if I rambled or got confusing, It's 1.30 am and I need sleep.

 

[MK]

?

capitalism and democracy aren't compatible.

I can't agree there at all. Capitalism and democracy have a wonderful partership.

I know personally many immigrants who are success stories. Look at the Vietnamise. Those that came here, came only with the clothes on their backs. In just 10 - 15 years they were not just doing well, they were putting thier kids through college to be doctors and lawyers.

The USA is still the land of opportunity .....IF you have a good work ethic and are willing to learn.
I do agree with one thing you said:

You DO need some sleep.

 

[kamikat]

"capitalism and democracy aren't compatible."

"I can't agree there at all. Capitalism and democracy have a wonderful partership. "

I can see his point. No matter how much opportunity there is, our large corporations are still controlled by rich, white dudes and the large corporations, as well as unions on the other side, control our government. We see the same dudes running for office again and again. This past election was an example. Both guys were privilaged white dudes with Ivy League backgrounds and help from their family connections. We still have that "good ole' boy" network. Chris Rock does a bit about it in his newest stand-up movie. Minorities can be rich, but only white people are wealthy. He also does a bit about how only white people can own businesses that profit from killing people, like liquor or tobacco. To me, it's a matter of "while our system isn't perfect, it's the best one out there".
kamikat

 

[MK]

.

Why bring race into it? It doesn't matter what color people are. These days it seems it is always the left that wants to divide people based on race.

You can go as far as you want....if you are willing and are driven. Oprah Winfrey is not white or a man. She is a billionaire. I don't hear anyone knocking her...and no one should. She deserves to make what she can

There seems to be a movement to discriminate against white men. If you are a white man and you do well....you are bad and don't deserve what you have earned.

I don't buy it.

 

[SappySwami]

I understand why race comes into the topic. As you said, minorities have the ability to make it as well, like people from certain Asian countries that have done well. But in a capitalist economy, it takes many people to not succeed, for the few to, and that's my problem with it. I'm sure you will also concede that there isn't opportunity for everyone. We can't all be managers and CEO's, there has to be the little guy to manage. And there might be the ability for that guy to move up in the company, but by far not everyone can, particularly not quickly, because there would never be anyone around long enough to get anything done. So for every Oprah, he have so many black Americans who are in poverty to the point where maybe they don't have a car, so can't get work further away, but because the job they have doesn't pay well enough, can't save the money for a car, etc... Not that I'm blaming successful people Like Oprah, because she has done much to break down some walls not just for black Americans but women as well. I'm just saying that opportunity isn't, and can't be, universally applicable.

(And yeah, I need to stop going to bed at 2.)

 

[farnham54]

Swammi,

Who said we all had to be CEO's to be successful? If you are willing to work, and be happy in your work (or, at least, keep you eyes open for a job that will MAKE you happy), and you are willing to learn, then there is no limit to how HAPPY you can be.

Personally, I don't measure happyness by the number of zeroes in my bank account (if I did...you guys would NOT want to hang out with me, cuz I'd be a REAL downer ). Success isn't dollars. It's happyness. And anyone with even a lower wage job (not minimum, I think that is to low but I won't get into that now) and the willingness to learn about financial planning CAN put their kids through school. and they CAN be "successful", in my mind.

Just my two cents, though.

Cheers,
Craig

 

[jamespowers]

I figured we would get his kind of argument so lets plumb its depths. Below is a list of 50 of the Fortune 500 top executives in the US that just happen to be black. I could get a list of 500 but I thought I would save room. These people all have over $34 million to their name as well. The problem is that you just never hear of them.
There is opportunity out there. A person is not stuck at the "caste" of our parents. Opportunity as one economic author put it is a collection of choices that form the stepping-stones to success. Let's face it.
If you choose to use drugs then your mind will not be clear for learning or decent grades to get you into college. If you choose not to pay attention in class and never turn in your assignments then you are going to fail. If you choose to have children before the age of twenty then you are likely dooming yourself to poverty unless you are married and your spouse has a well paying job. If you buy more than you can afford and run up huge debts then you are likely to become part of the spiral of dependency. These are all poor choices. It is hard enough to get ahead doing all the right things without making it harder.
Think about it as you mull over the list below that contains names like Myrtle Potter COO of Genentech. Who is just 43 and ranks 18 in our list. I am sure she made quite a few correct choices to get to her present status.

Regards to all,

J




Rank Name Title Company
1 Stanley O'Neal COO Merrill Lynch
2 Ken Chenault CEO American Express
3 Richard Parsons CEO AOL Time Warner
4 Franklin Raines CEO Fannie Mae
5 Thomas Jones CEO of Global Investments, Private Banking, and Asset Management Citigroup
6 Bruce Gordon President of Retail Markets Verizon
7 Adebayo Ogunlesi Head of Investment Banking Credit Suisse First Boston
8 Calvin Darden SVP, U.S. Operations UPS
9 Vernon Jordan Senior Managing Director Lazard LLC
10 Oprah Winfrey Chairman and CEO Harpo Inc.
11 Lloyd Trotter President and CEO, GE Industrial Systems General Electric
12 John Thompson CEO Symantec
13 William Lewis Head of Banking Morgan Stanley
14 Ray Wilkins Group President, Marketing and Sales SBC Communications
15 Alfred Zollar GM, Lotus Software IBM
16 Eula Adams SEVP First Data Corp.
17 Arnold Donald CEO Merisant
18 Myrtle Potter COO Genentech
19 Rod Adkins GM, Pervasive Computing IBM
20 Brenda Gaines President Diners Club North America
21 Ron Williams President Aetna
22 Earl Graves Founder and Publisher Black Enterprise
23 Frank Clark President ComEd
24 Paula Sneed President of E-Commerce and Marketing Kraft
25 Robert Johnson Founder and CEO BET
26 Virgis Colbert EVP Miller Brewing
27 Pamela Thomas-Graham President and CEO CNBC
28 Ursula Burns SVP Xerox
29 Lawrence Jackson SVP for Supply Operations Safeway
30 Erroll Davis Jr. Chairman & CEO Alliant Energy
31 Al Edmonds President of Government Information Solutions Electronic Data Systems
32 Bradley Sheares President of U.S. Human Health Merck
33 Earvin "Magic" Johnson CEO Johnson Development Corp.
34 Cathy Hughes Chairman and Founder Radio One
35 Lana Corbi CEO Hallmark Channel
36 Marc Belton SVP General Mills
37 Brian Anderson CFO Baxter International
38 Christopher Williams Founder and CEO Williams Capital Group
39 Jacqueline Woods VP of Global Pricing and Licensing Oracle
40 Calvin Hudson EVP Hartford Financial Group
41 Russell Simmons Chairman and CEO Rush Communications
42 Bertram Scott President TIAA-CREF Life Insurance
43 Charles Tribbett Managing Director Russell Reynolds
44 Tony Brown VP of Global Purchasing Ford
45 Kim Crawford VP and GM of Networking Dell Computer
46 David Turner Senior VP, Sales and Marketing Gateway
47 Roger Gibson VP United Cargo
48 Carla Harris Head of Equity Private Placement Morgan Stanley
49 Keith Williamson President of Capital Services Pitney Bowes
50 Cecil Pickett President Schering-Plough Research Institute

 

[SappySwami]

You're quite right. I didn't mean to imply that all that matters in a job or career is money, because I generally don't believe that. What I was trying to get at, I might not have been clear, is that the idea that anyone can make it as high up on the economic latter as they want through hard work, just isn't a reality, because there has to be people on the lower rungs, so there is an inherent limit to how far one can go, and often it isn't very high if the person is born with less ability to find opportunity.

But I agree with you, working isn't all about money. That was just my focus because of the tax discussion. I always like to witness that person who loves their work, no matter what it is. Like when you see the cook at a Diner or something, who is just a genius with the grill, and doesn't have that "I can't wait to get the heck out of here" look on their face. I just love seeing it, because the person is happy without doing what TV tells you is a job that will make you happy. I think as a society we focus too much on making money, and not doing what we love, or helping people with a service.

Which is why, I have already come to terms with the fact that I will most likely be poor all my life.

In response to James (he beat me to the post button): Drugs and having children young, or being lazy aren't the only things to hold someone back in school, not allowing them to move on to better things. My parents aren't wealthy by any means, but they make enough o send me to college and buy my books, and they don't want me to work so I can focus on school, so buy my food and everything. (I don't care what they say, I want to get a job soon so I don't feel useless.) But say a guy wants to take all the same classes as me, but is living below the poverty line with his parents. He can still go to school, but needs to go on scholarships. And to keep those scholarships- if he can get them- paying enough to cover his books and classes and anything else he might need to get to class, like car tires, he needs to keep his grades as high as possible. So while I can float by with a C and never study for a thing (I don't do this by the way ), he has to work his tail off to maintain his grades, because his education is at stake.

As for black Americans being able to "make it", I have no doubt. Three quarters of African Americans are middle class or higher. Giving them the opportunities middle class or higher whites have.

What it comes down to, is that I hate when people don't think they have any responsibility to other people when they make more money than they need to (and my that, I mean enough to live on.) And this attitude is apparently growing, if the gap between rich and poor is any indication. I think is sociology class we settled on 1% of the nation owning 85% of the wealth.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Kamikat

You really answered my question, thanks.

How can “progressives� demand that the government intrude in other people’s lives and income, while at the same time demanding that the government not intrude in other such things? It’s inconsistant…

I totally agree with you that the heart of the Democratic party has been stolen by progressives. That’s a REAL problem, and I hope that after the past four years the party can be brought back to the center, or just prepair for more republicans to be ellected.

There are certain things that insiders know about Republican administrations that would curl your hair and have me convinced to never vote Republican, the most dangerous of all is that the Republican always cut funding (or flat funding in a period of inflation)to USDA inspectors.

Think about how we felt from 1993-2000… There are certain things that insiders (Dick Moris) know about Democratic administration that would curl your hair and have me convinced to never vote democratic again, the most dangerous of all is that the Clinton administration was cutting funding (or flat funding in a period of inflation) to the US Military…

Or Janet Reno via Jamie Gerelick tieing the hands of the FBI and CIA by preventing them from communicating with each other… making it ILEGAL for member of either agency from talking with each other. Then there’s the missed opertunities Clinton had in capturing Osama…

Nope, neither party is perfect. I hope the libertarian party picks up some steam soon.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Sappy,
I can’t believe some of what you’re saying, I have to imagine that it’s what’s being taught in schools coupled with your lack of sleep.

If you apply your logic that the rich should be obligated and forced by the government and to other areas, I shutter to think what kind of world we would live in…

Since you’re a healthy woman, you should be forced and obligated to be a sarrogate mother for those women who can’t have children. The government should be allowed to take your healthy cells with out your body with out your prermision to cure those who are less healty, including violent offeners in jail.

How far do you go when taking from some to give to others? My fear is that the government has a hard time drawing lines and saying “This far, no further.�

I have already come to terms with the fact that I will most likely be poor all my life.

Then you’re already lost the battle. You’ve given up. Why should I have to pay more taxes because you’ve surrendered? If you choose a particular line of work, why should I have to pay more then 15% to pick up your slack? (Again… nobody should pay more then 15% in taxes. Period… asked and answered why earlier.)

Why should you have to pay more in taxes because your parents worked hard to do the right thing and provide you with an education, while other parents wouldn’t? How is that fair?

 

[SappySwami]

Both parties are going to either go through a lot of changes in the next few years, or split down the middle. The GOP is almost two parties already, with the Fiscal conservatives, and the social conservatives, and at some point there is going to be a tug of war between who gets the reins. The NY Times had an article about this by Nicholas D. Kristof, Living Poor, Voting Rich. And then with the Democrats, they will try to become more conservative than ever, to try to win back some of it's old New Deal Coalition, and then at some point there will be friction between progressives and liberals, though I don't see it coming as soon. But hey, a four party system would be really cool. Maybe have some options for once.

(I'll reply to Renderking Fisk after a nap. Where did you get your name, by the way?)

 

[up196]

With all due respect, I have to disagree . . .

. . . only white people can own businesses that profit from killing people, like liquor or tobacco.

In my line of work, I've had occasion to meet lots of "business people" who were not white but who nevertheless made a profit from killing people, like crack or heroin.