Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory
The Maelstrom of Violence - Printable Version

+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: The Maelstrom of Violence (/thread-824.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 09-27-2017

(09-27-2017, 08:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-27-2017, 03:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The problem being, too many of the red and blue have similar doubts.

In welfare, there are victims and cheaters.  You’d like to think most would agree that both exist.  The proper thing to do is help the victims and frustrate the cheaters.  Alas, once you buy deeply into one of the two world views, you tend to see either victims or cheaters.

In Pbrower’s case, I’m seeing a victim, but there are more than enough cheaters.

On one side, there are those those who see lots of cheaters, few victims, who might be seen as cynical economically centered misers.  Then are those who see lots of victims, no cheaters, who can be seen as economically ignorant bleeding hearts who should know better.  It isn’t hard to find imbalance.

Then there are those who want to help those who need help, but spend their money wisely.  I'd prefer to be in that camp.

Do we want to force fit an individual into an ideal example of what is wrong with America?  I’m dubious that we want to juggle a guy’s reputation for a political ends.  Yet, that is where we are.
Welfare attracts all kinds of folks. A portion are lazy. A portion are complete idiots who are incapable of providing for themselves. A portion just don't give a shit about themselves, their kids and their quality of life in general. A portion actually need it (no other option) and are using it to get through a major setback (loss of a job, illness, divorce, death of a spouse, ect.) of some sort. A portion use/abuse the system because it's a relatively easy system to become accustomed to once you're in the system. Based on my real life knowledge and experience with welfare's, the portion who need it/ use it as intended are the minority group. You're so-called liberal worldview is way too black (victims) and white (cheaters) for my taste. PB has issues (lots of issues). I have issues. I bet you (Mr. Cozy Blue) even have a few issues from time to time. Americans in general have their own issues to attend to or address on a regular basis. I don't view PB as a victim. He's to old to seriously view him/accept him as a victim.

In my case it will be disability. I have plenty of things wrong with me. But I can live cheap. The community in which I exist (it is not living!) is relatively cheap and safe. It is also an easy place in which to run out of experiences.

I took care of two dying parents with degenerative diseases in three years. Let's put it this way -- having seen my mother dying of Parkinsonism and my father dying of senile dementia. I have become poor in a country that treats the poor as objects of exploitation and abuse, people obliged to smile through their suffering. I wouldn't wish what I went through on anyone; that character-building experience has brought me personal ruin. I have contemplated suicide after I lost my life savings in trying to keep a house up in case of a miracle.

Unemployment, alimony, child support, and pensions are not welfare. Neither is disability. Issues?

Sure, I have talent. At 61, 'talent' is worthless.

Spending the rest of my life as a retail sales clerk in a community that I despise? That Kafkaesque prospect night as well be a prison term. Poverty in America is a prison.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 09-28-2017

(09-27-2017, 11:01 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-27-2017, 08:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-27-2017, 03:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The problem being, too many of the red and blue have similar doubts.

In welfare, there are victims and cheaters.  You’d like to think most would agree that both exist.  The proper thing to do is help the victims and frustrate the cheaters.  Alas, once you buy deeply into one of the two world views, you tend to see either victims or cheaters.

In Pbrower’s case, I’m seeing a victim, but there are more than enough cheaters.

On one side, there are those those who see lots of cheaters, few victims, who might be seen as cynical economically centered misers.  Then are those who see lots of victims, no cheaters, who can be seen as economically ignorant bleeding hearts who should know better.  It isn’t hard to find imbalance.

Then there are those who want to help those who need help, but spend their money wisely.  I'd prefer to be in that camp.

Do we want to force fit an individual into an ideal example of what is wrong with America?  I’m dubious that we want to juggle a guy’s reputation for a political ends.  Yet, that is where we are.
Welfare attracts all kinds of folks. A portion are lazy. A portion are complete idiots who are incapable of providing for themselves. A portion just don't give a shit about themselves, their kids and their quality of life in general. A portion actually need it (no other option) and are using it to get through a major setback (loss of a job, illness, divorce, death of a spouse, ect.) of some sort. A portion use/abuse the system because it's a relatively easy system to become accustomed to once you're in the system. Based on my real life knowledge and experience with welfare, the portion who need it/ use it as intended are the minority group. You're so-called liberal worldview is way too black (victims) and white (cheaters) for my taste. PB has issues (lots of issues). I have issues. I bet you (Mr. Cozy Blue) even have a few issues from time to time. Americans in general have their own issues to attend to or address on a regular basis. I don't view PB as a victim. He's to old to seriously view him/accept him as a victim.

In my case it will be disability. I have plenty of things wrong with me. But I can live cheap. The community in which I exist (it is not living!) is relatively cheap and safe. It is also an easy place in which to run out of experiences.

I took care of two dying parents with degenerative diseases in three years. Let's put it this way -- having seen my mother dying of Parkinsonism and my father dying of senile dementia. I have become poor in a country that treats the poor as objects of exploitation and abuse, people obliged to smile through their suffering. I wouldn't wish what I went through on anyone; that character-building experience has brought me personal ruin. I have contemplated suicide after I lost my life savings in trying to keep a house up in case of a miracle.

Unemployment, alimony, child support, and pensions are not welfare. Neither is disability. Issues?

Sure, I have talent. At 61, 'talent' is worthless.

Spending the rest of my life as a retail sales clerk in a community that I despise? That Kafkaesque prospect night as well be a prison term. Poverty in America is a prison.

Good hard-workin' folks like Classic Xer, who support this system accurately described as one "that treats the poor as objects of exploitation and abuse," call those who can not find work or can't work "lazy" and "idiots," but there are a fair number of such "lazy, idiotic" people, especially in a system that does not provide enough jobs (due to automation, free trade, and bosses that don't care and will fire people for little or no reason). Liberals don't look upon welfare recipients as either victims or cheaters; most are neither. Welfare is just a small item in the federal budget, and of varying sizes in state budgets, that provides a little bit of protection of the kind all of us might need. Many of us aren't even eligible for welfare in that case anyway. Time limits on welfare are abusive punishment, since depressions and recessions are frequent, job losses continual, and various kinds of suffering and disability can happen at any time on more than one occasion to any one of us. Finding a good job has never been easy, and calling people who can't find work "idiots" just blames the people for the troubles which the selfish bosses alone give us.

Welfare is the main scapegoat that impels people like Classic Xer (which includes perhaps 40% of America or more; he's not alone at all) to vote Republican and support the trickle-down theory, which says give breaks to the bosses instead of the people, and then the "job creater" bosses will provide jobs for us. Not only does trickle-down NOT trickle, but the reason that 40% of the good people like Classic Xer and Warren Dew support trickle-down economics, is because they blame welfare recipients and liberal politicians for their high taxes. But blaming welfare has nothing to do with their high taxes, which are not that high to begin with. The government wastes money on wars, weapons, and subsidies to the rich corporations, and by not taxing the wealthy enough-- due to the trickle-down theory.

There may be some welfare cheaters, but we are all victims in a sense; victims of the decision of the people to vote Republican. So a lot of us are responsible for the troubles we all experience living in this system. And that's not even to mention a campaign finance system instituted by Republican Supreme Court justices that favors the rich, gerrymandering that favors Republican legislators since 2010, and voter suppression now underway in many Republican-controlled states. Oh, and I almost forgot: an election system called the electoral college set up to protect slavery, and still doing that job by, among other things, putting into office without majority voter approval the only Republican presidents of the 21st century.

"Unemployment, alimony, child support, and pensions are not welfare. Neither is disability." And neither are social security and medicare, which recipients have paid for and which protect us all, not just a few cheaters. And there's medicaid and Obamacare subsidies; arguably that's welfare, but not welfare per se. And not if healthcare is in fact a right, as liberals proclaim. A right implied in the Declaration of Independence, which announces our right to life.

The veneration of work and the condemnation of those who don't work by conservatives may be obsolete, in an economy that does not provide work, and which could very well save labor for all of us by turning it over to machines, if the bosses were stripped of their current exclusively-given rights to their benefits. We are going to need to be less dogmatic about the economic system into which we are moving, and adapt to the new situation.

And another wrinkle in the conservative myth is veneration of the rich, as people who worked to get ahead and thus deserve their rewards, as opposed to most of us who may aspire to be rich, in the good old American dream, but are not. But the rich do not earn their rewards; that is the myth. The Reaganoid political and economic system we live under provides rewards for them, by allowing them to pay most workers a pittance while they rack up 300 times what their workers get through high salaries and financial games that ruin the economy for everyone but themselves, while meanwhile the workers are no longer protected by adequate minimum wages, low tariffs or declining unions and are often deprived of the education they needed in the first place.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-28-2017

There is where you aren't paying attention to science.  The Europeans have something called the hard on accelerator.  Huge thing.  Miles around.  If you smash two conservatives together, it is theoretically possible that a good idea will fall out.  Of course, there is the problem detecting the good idea...


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 09-28-2017

Well, at least they seem sometimes to fall out of line, in the case of McCain, Collins, Murkowski et.al, after being thrashed around by the Trump DE-Ccelerator.

I'm still waiting for a new bi-partisan majority to form between Democrats and a few Republicans that might accomplish a few things..... nothing really great could be expected, but a little bit is better than nothing where things like health care are concerned....


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 09-28-2017

(09-28-2017, 10:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good hard-workin' folks like Classic Xer, who support this system accurately described as one "that treats the poor as objects of exploitation and abuse," call those who can not find work or can't work "lazy" and "idiots," but there are a fair number of such "lazy, idiotic" people, especially in a system that does not provide enough jobs (due to automation, free trade, and bosses that don't care and will fire people for little or no reason). Liberals don't look upon welfare recipients as either victims or cheaters; most are neither. Welfare is just a small item in the federal budget, and of varying sizes in state budgets, that provides a little bit of protection of the kind all of us might need. Many of us aren't even eligible for welfare in that case anyway. Time limits on welfare are abusive punishment, since depressions and recessions are frequent, job losses continual, and various kinds of suffering and disability can happen at any time on more than one occasion to any one of us. Finding a good job has never been easy, and calling people who can't find work "idiots" just blames the people for the troubles which the selfish bosses alone give us.

...People like Classic X'er and Warren Dew may not recognize how precarious one's qualification as a 'hard-working person' is. We are all but one accident away from no longer being able to work hard. We are also mostly one paycheck to ten away from being destitute. Whether we keep our jobs or not may depend upon an employer having a government contract -- or the choice of some tycoon on which plant gets shut down or which product line is terminated.

Most of us are at much more risk from the arbitrary decisions of our masters than we are from  any tendency to go lazy. Work ethic? Like skill, it must be cultivated. A good system rewards it; a  bad system exacts toil with the threat of brutality, as on a plantation, a KZ-Lager, or a Gulag. 


Quote:Welfare is the main scapegoat that impels people like Classic Xer (which includes perhaps 40% of America or more; he's not alone at all) to vote Republican and support the trickle-down theory, which says give breaks to the bosses instead of the people, and then the "job creator" bosses will provide jobs for us. Not only does trickle-down NOT trickle, but the reason that 40% of the good people like Classic Xer and Warren Dew support trickle-down economics, is because they blame welfare recipients and liberal politicians for their high taxes. But blaming welfare has nothing to do with their high taxes, which are not that high to begin with. The government wastes money on wars, weapons, and subsidies to the rich corporations, and by not taxing the wealthy enough-- due to the trickle-down theory.

I remember a business guru telling people that the net growth of employment at Fortune-500 companies over fifty years (this was about 1990) was negative.  Most of those companies have been profitable. If companies can find more profitable solutions to productivity than labor, then those companies will whittle away at their workforce. Maybe people have to create their own jobs with startup businesses or resort to such employment as domestic help...


Quote:There may be some welfare cheaters, but we are all victims in a sense; victims of the decision of the people to vote Republican. So a lot of us are responsible for the troubles we all experience living in this system. And that's not even to mention a campaign finance system instituted by Republican Supreme Court justices that favors the rich, gerrymandering that favors Republican legislators since 2010, and voter suppression now underway in many Republican-controlled states. Oh, and I almost forgot: an election system called the electoral college set up to protect slavery, and still doing that job by, among other things, putting into office without majority voter approval the only Republican presidents of the 21st century.

Our economic system works very well for (1) financiers and tycoons, (2) business executives, (3) big landowners, (3) well-connected professionals such as corporate attorneys, lobbyists, and investment bankers, and (4) organized crime. With his connections to organized crime, Donald Trump exemplifies American capitalism at its worst.

In the area in which I live, there are huge numbers of Old Order Amish. Few of us would like to live as they do... leaving school at age sixteen is the worst of it, something that makes their rejection of electronic entertainments a minor inconvenience by contrast. This is not praise of a simple life -- no 'behold the lilies of the field, for they toil not'. Theirs are lives of toil. But at least they have some security as small farmers, and they seem to have no parasitical elite of bureaucracy among them. Of course that means that they have no white-collar work except perhaps for the preacher or the teacher... 

Is that what it takes?


Quote:"Unemployment, alimony, child support, and pensions are not welfare. Neither is disability." And neither are social security and medicare, which recipients have paid for and which protect us all, not just a few cheaters. And there's medicaid and Obamacare subsidies; arguably that's welfare, but not welfare per se. And not if healthcare is in fact a right, as liberals proclaim. A right implied in the Declaration of Independence, which announces our right to life.

The Hard Right has practically devolved to the idea that we all owe all to the economic elites from whom all blessings flow -- of course, at the will of those elites, who know that if the flow is 'too strong', then people might not fear those elites enough. Having worked at jobs in which suffering was a certainty but smiling was a necessity, I see such as a fraud.



Quote:The veneration of work and the condemnation of those who don't work by conservatives may be obsolete, in an economy that does not provide work, and which could very well save labor for all of us by turning it over to machines, if the bosses were stripped of their current exclusively-given rights to their benefits. We are going to need to be less dogmatic about the economic system into which we are moving, and adapt to the new situation.

If capitalism can produce far more than all human needs, then it must also offer the means of buying the fruit of the production. before people get complacent about the potential for capitalist tyranny, then consider how things go in Nineteen Eighty-Four: although productivity is high, far outstripping all human need, the workers keep finding their lives increasingly debased. Sure, the system calls itself "socialist", but the "socialism" is with no humanistic values, and in view of the linguistic fraud that is the basis of communication, one can doubt whether the system is socialist. It looks like an every-man-for-himself order. Or maybe it is 'socialism' only for the Party bureaucracy, with everyone else being obliged to take entrepreneurial risks for slave-like compensation and treatment. Let us hope that when someone speaks of free enterprise it is of competitive markets and personal choice instead of enterprises free to do to people all sorts of evil at the behest of owners and managers.

Quote:And another wrinkle in the conservative myth is veneration of the rich, as people who worked to get ahead and thus deserve their rewards, as opposed to most of us who may aspire to be rich, in the good old American dream, but are not. But the rich do not earn their rewards; that is the myth. The Reaganoid political and economic system we live under provides rewards for them, by allowing them to pay most workers a pittance while they rack up 300 times what their workers get through high salaries and financial games that ruin the economy for everyone but themselves, while meanwhile the workers are no longer protected by adequate minimum wages, low tariffs or declining unions and are often deprived of the education they needed in the first place.

The easiest way to get rich is to be born into a rich family. The second easiest is to marry into money. The third easiest is to do crime. The fourth is to invest or innovate.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - beechnut79 - 09-28-2017

(09-28-2017, 05:27 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-28-2017, 10:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good hard-workin' folks like Classic Xer, who support this system accurately described as one "that treats the poor as objects of exploitation and abuse," call those who can not find work or can't work "lazy" and "idiots," but there are a fair number of such "lazy, idiotic" people, especially in a system that does not provide enough jobs (due to automation, free trade, and bosses that don't care and will fire people for little or no reason). Liberals don't look upon welfare recipients as either victims or cheaters; most are neither. Welfare is just a small item in the federal budget, and of varying sizes in state budgets, that provides a little bit of protection of the kind all of us might need. Many of us aren't even eligible for welfare in that case anyway. Time limits on welfare are abusive punishment, since depressions and recessions are frequent, job losses continual, and various kinds of suffering and disability can happen at any time on more than one occasion to any one of us. Finding a good job has never been easy, and calling people who can't find work "idiots" just blames the people for the troubles which the selfish bosses alone give us.

...People like Classic X'er and Warren Dew may not recognize how precarious one's qualification as a 'hard-working person' is. We are all but one accident away from no longer being able to work hard. We are also mostly one paycheck to ten away from being destitute. Whether we keep our jobs or not may depend upon an employer having a government contract -- or the choice of some tycoon on which plant gets shut down or which product line is terminated.

Most of us are at much more risk from the arbitrary decisions of our masters than we are from  any tendency to go lazy. Work ethic? Like skill, it must be cultivated. A good system rewards it; a  bad system exacts toil with the threat of brutality, as on a plantation, a KZ-Lager, or a Gulag. 


Quote:Welfare is the main scapegoat that impels people like Classic Xer (which includes perhaps 40% of America or more; he's not alone at all) to vote Republican and support the trickle-down theory, which says give breaks to the bosses instead of the people, and then the "job creator" bosses will provide jobs for us. Not only does trickle-down NOT trickle, but the reason that 40% of the good people like Classic Xer and Warren Dew support trickle-down economics, is because they blame welfare recipients and liberal politicians for their high taxes. But blaming welfare has nothing to do with their high taxes, which are not that high to begin with. The government wastes money on wars, weapons, and subsidies to the rich corporations, and by not taxing the wealthy enough-- due to the trickle-down theory.

I remember a business guru telling people that the net growth of employment at Fortune-500 companies over fifty years (this was about 1990) was negative.  Most of those companies have been profitable. If companies can find more profitable solutions to productivity than labor, then those companies will whittle away at their workforce. Maybe people have to create their own jobs with startup businesses or resort to such employment as domestic help...


Quote:There may be some welfare cheaters, but we are all victims in a sense; victims of the decision of the people to vote Republican. So a lot of us are responsible for the troubles we all experience living in this system. And that's not even to mention a campaign finance system instituted by Republican Supreme Court justices that favors the rich, gerrymandering that favors Republican legislators since 2010, and voter suppression now underway in many Republican-controlled states. Oh, and I almost forgot: an election system called the electoral college set up to protect slavery, and still doing that job by, among other things, putting into office without majority voter approval the only Republican presidents of the 21st century.

Our economic system works very well for (1) financiers and tycoons, (2) business executives, (3) big landowners, (3) well-connected professionals such as corporate attorneys, lobbyists, and investment bankers, and (4) organized crime. With his connections to organized crime, Donald Trump exemplifies American capitalism at its worst.

In the area in which I live, there are huge numbers of Old Order Amish. Few of us would like to live as they do... leaving school at age sixteen is the worst of it, something that makes their rejection of electronic entertainments a minor inconvenience by contrast. This is not praise of a simple life -- no 'behold the lilies of the field, for they toil not'. Theirs are lives of toil. But at least they have some security as small farmers, and they seem to have no parasitical elite of bureaucracy among them. Of course that means that they have no white-collar work except perhaps for the preacher or the teacher... 

Is that what it takes?


Quote:"Unemployment, alimony, child support, and pensions are not welfare. Neither is disability." And neither are social security and medicare, which recipients have paid for and which protect us all, not just a few cheaters. And there's medicaid and Obamacare subsidies; arguably that's welfare, but not welfare per se. And not if healthcare is in fact a right, as liberals proclaim. A right implied in the Declaration of Independence, which announces our right to life.

The Hard Right has practically devolved to the idea that we all owe all to the economic elites from whom all blessings flow -- of course, at the will of those elites, who know that if the flow is 'too strong', then people might not fear those elites enough. Having worked at jobs in which suffering was a certainty but smiling was a necessity, I see such as a fraud.  



Quote:The veneration of work and the condemnation of those who don't work by conservatives may be obsolete, in an economy that does not provide work, and which could very well save labor for all of us by turning it over to machines, if the bosses were stripped of their current exclusively-given rights to their benefits. We are going to need to be less dogmatic about the economic system into which we are moving, and adapt to the new situation.

If capitalism can produce far more than all human needs, then it must also offer the means of buying the fruit of the production. before people get complacent about the potential for capitalist tyranny, then consider how things go in Nineteen Eighty-Four: although productivity is high, far outstripping all human need, the workers keep finding their lives increasingly debased. Sure, the system calls itself "socialist", but the "socialism" is with no humanistic values, and in view of the linguistic fraud that is the basis of communication, one can doubt whether the system is socialist. It looks like an every-man-for-himself order. Or maybe it is 'socialism' only for the Party bureaucracy, with everyone else being obliged to take entrepreneurial risks for slave-like compensation and treatment. Let us hope that when someone speaks of free enterprise it is of competitive markets and personal choice instead of enterprises free to do to people all sorts of evil at the behest of owners and managers.

Quote:And another wrinkle in the conservative myth is veneration of the rich, as people who worked to get ahead and thus deserve their rewards, as opposed to most of us who may aspire to be rich, in the good old American dream, but are not. But the rich do not earn their rewards; that is the myth. The Reaganoid political and economic system we live under provides rewards for them, by allowing them to pay most workers a pittance while they rack up 300 times what their workers get through high salaries and financial games that ruin the economy for everyone but themselves, while meanwhile the workers are no longer protected by adequate minimum wages, low tariffs or declining unions and are often deprived of the education they needed in the first place.

The easiest way to get rich is to be born into a rich family. The second easiest is to marry into money. The third easiest is to do crime. The fourth is to invest or innovate.

Where Item #2 is concerned, the marrying into money no longer comes from huge lavish debutante balls, which in many ways were the forerunners of some of today's dating services, many of which are priced out of reach of "average" singles. Many felt that such snobbery was no longer needed once "nice" girls ended up going off to college, getting good jobs, etc.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-28-2017

(09-28-2017, 10:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-27-2017, 11:01 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-27-2017, 08:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-27-2017, 03:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The problem being, too many of the red and blue have similar doubts.

In welfare, there are victims and cheaters.  You’d like to think most would agree that both exist.  The proper thing to do is help the victims and frustrate the cheaters.  Alas, once you buy deeply into one of the two world views, you tend to see either victims or cheaters.

In Pbrower’s case, I’m seeing a victim, but there are more than enough cheaters.

On one side, there are those those who see lots of cheaters, few victims, who might be seen as cynical economically centered misers.  Then are those who see lots of victims, no cheaters, who can be seen as economically ignorant bleeding hearts who should know better.  It isn’t hard to find imbalance.

Then there are those who want to help those who need help, but spend their money wisely.  I'd prefer to be in that camp.

Do we want to force fit an individual into an ideal example of what is wrong with America?  I’m dubious that we want to juggle a guy’s reputation for a political ends.  Yet, that is where we are.
Welfare attracts all kinds of folks. A portion are lazy. A portion are complete idiots who are incapable of providing for themselves. A portion just don't give a shit about themselves, their kids and their quality of life in general. A portion actually need it (no other option) and are using it to get through a major setback (loss of a job, illness, divorce, death of a spouse, ect.) of some sort. A portion use/abuse the system because it's a relatively easy system to become accustomed to once you're in the system. Based on my real life knowledge and experience with welfare, the portion who need it/ use it as intended are the minority group. You're so-called liberal worldview is way too black (victims) and white (cheaters) for my taste. PB has issues (lots of issues). I have issues. I bet you (Mr. Cozy Blue) even have a few issues from time to time. Americans in general have their own issues to attend to or address on a regular basis. I don't view PB as a victim. He's to old to seriously view him/accept him as a victim.

In my case it will be disability. I have plenty of things wrong with me. But I can live cheap. The community in which I exist (it is not living!) is relatively cheap and safe. It is also an easy place in which to run out of experiences.

I took care of two dying parents with degenerative diseases in three years. Let's put it this way -- having seen my mother dying of Parkinsonism and my father dying of senile dementia. I have become poor in a country that treats the poor as objects of exploitation and abuse, people obliged to smile through their suffering. I wouldn't wish what I went through on anyone; that character-building experience has brought me personal ruin. I have contemplated suicide after I lost my life savings in trying to keep a house up in case of a miracle.

Unemployment, alimony, child support, and pensions are not welfare. Neither is disability. Issues?

Sure, I have talent. At 61, 'talent' is worthless.

Spending the rest of my life as a retail sales clerk in a community that I despise? That Kafkaesque prospect night as well be a prison term. Poverty in America is a prison.

Good hard-workin' folks like Classic Xer, who support this system accurately described as one "that treats the poor as objects of exploitation and abuse," call those who can not find work or can't work "lazy" and "idiots," but there are a fair number of such "lazy, idiotic" people, especially in a system that does not provide enough jobs (due to automation, free trade, and bosses that don't care and will fire people for little or no reason). Liberals don't look upon welfare recipients as either victims or cheaters; most are neither. Welfare is just a small item in the federal budget, and of varying sizes in state budgets, that provides a little bit of protection of the kind all of us might need. Many of us aren't even eligible for welfare in that case anyway. Time limits on welfare are abusive punishment, since depressions and recessions are frequent, job losses continual, and various kinds of suffering and disability can happen at any time on more than one occasion to any one of us. Finding a good job has never been easy, and calling people who can't find work "idiots" just blames the people for the troubles which the selfish bosses alone give us.

Welfare is the main scapegoat that impels people like Classic Xer (which includes perhaps 40% of America or more; he's not alone at all) to vote Republican and support the trickle-down theory, which says give breaks to the bosses instead of the people, and then the "job creater" bosses will provide jobs for us. Not only does trickle-down NOT trickle, but the reason that 40% of the good people like Classic Xer and Warren Dew support trickle-down economics, is because they blame welfare recipients and liberal politicians for their high taxes. But blaming welfare has nothing to do with their high taxes, which are not that high to begin with. The government wastes money on wars, weapons, and subsidies to the rich corporations, and by not taxing the wealthy enough-- due to the trickle-down theory.

There may be some welfare cheaters, but we are all victims in a sense; victims of the decision of the people to vote Republican. So a lot of us are responsible for the troubles we all experience living in this system. And that's not even to mention a campaign finance system instituted by Republican Supreme Court justices that favors the rich, gerrymandering that favors Republican legislators since 2010, and voter suppression now underway in many Republican-controlled states. Oh, and I almost forgot: an election system called the electoral college set up to protect slavery, and still doing that job by, among other things, putting into office without majority voter approval the only Republican presidents of the 21st century.

"Unemployment, alimony, child support, and pensions are not welfare. Neither is disability." And neither are social security and medicare, which recipients have paid for and which protect us all, not just a few cheaters. And there's medicaid and Obamacare subsidies; arguably that's welfare, but not welfare per se. And not if healthcare is in fact a right, as liberals proclaim. A right implied in the Declaration of Independence, which announces our right to life.

The veneration of work and the condemnation of those who don't work by conservatives may be obsolete, in an economy that does not provide work, and which could very well save labor for all of us by turning it over to machines, if the bosses were stripped of their current exclusively-given rights to their benefits. We are going to need to be less dogmatic about the economic system into which we are moving, and adapt to the new situation.

And another wrinkle in the conservative myth is veneration of the rich, as people who worked to get ahead and thus deserve their rewards, as opposed to most of us who may aspire to be rich, in the good old American dream, but are not. But the rich do not earn their rewards; that is the myth. The Reaganoid political and economic system we live under provides rewards for them, by allowing them to pay most workers a pittance while they rack up 300 times what their workers get through high salaries and financial games that ruin the economy for everyone but themselves, while meanwhile the workers are no longer protected by adequate minimum wages, low tariffs or declining unions and are often deprived of the education they needed in the first place.
How far do you have to travel to see/meet/bump into a welfare recipient of some sort/type these days? Welfare recipients are much more common then they were 30 years ago. Welfare recipients are also more expensive and more demanding than they were 30 years ago as well. Which group of welfare recipients would you like to discuss with me? I'm probably familiar with all of them. I should inform you that I grew up with the working class that was around while you were out doing blue Hippie shit. I was going school with there kids, playing sports with their kids, flirting with their daughters and competing with their sons. BTW, the majority of them including the American raised Mexicans and the working women are no longer Democratic voters.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 09-28-2017

(09-28-2017, 07:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-28-2017, 10:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-27-2017, 11:01 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-27-2017, 08:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-27-2017, 03:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The problem being, too many of the red and blue have similar doubts.

In welfare, there are victims and cheaters.  You’d like to think most would agree that both exist.  The proper thing to do is help the victims and frustrate the cheaters.  Alas, once you buy deeply into one of the two world views, you tend to see either victims or cheaters.

In Pbrower’s case, I’m seeing a victim, but there are more than enough cheaters.

On one side, there are those those who see lots of cheaters, few victims, who might be seen as cynical economically centered misers.  Then are those who see lots of victims, no cheaters, who can be seen as economically ignorant bleeding hearts who should know better.  It isn’t hard to find imbalance.

Then there are those who want to help those who need help, but spend their money wisely.  I'd prefer to be in that camp.

Do we want to force fit an individual into an ideal example of what is wrong with America?  I’m dubious that we want to juggle a guy’s reputation for a political ends.  Yet, that is where we are.
Welfare attracts all kinds of folks. A portion are lazy. A portion are complete idiots who are incapable of providing for themselves. A portion just don't give a shit about themselves, their kids and their quality of life in general. A portion actually need it (no other option) and are using it to get through a major setback (loss of a job, illness, divorce, death of a spouse, ect.) of some sort. A portion use/abuse the system because it's a relatively easy system to become accustomed to once you're in the system. Based on my real life knowledge and experience with welfare, the portion who need it/ use it as intended are the minority group. You're so-called liberal worldview is way too black (victims) and white (cheaters) for my taste. PB has issues (lots of issues). I have issues. I bet you (Mr. Cozy Blue) even have a few issues from time to time. Americans in general have their own issues to attend to or address on a regular basis. I don't view PB as a victim. He's to old to seriously view him/accept him as a victim.

In my case it will be disability. I have plenty of things wrong with me. But I can live cheap. The community in which I exist (it is not living!) is relatively cheap and safe. It is also an easy place in which to run out of experiences.

I took care of two dying parents with degenerative diseases in three years. Let's put it this way -- having seen my mother dying of Parkinsonism and my father dying of senile dementia. I have become poor in a country that treats the poor as objects of exploitation and abuse, people obliged to smile through their suffering. I wouldn't wish what I went through on anyone; that character-building experience has brought me personal ruin. I have contemplated suicide after I lost my life savings in trying to keep a house up in case of a miracle.

Unemployment, alimony, child support, and pensions are not welfare. Neither is disability. Issues?

Sure, I have talent. At 61, 'talent' is worthless.

Spending the rest of my life as a retail sales clerk in a community that I despise? That Kafkaesque prospect night as well be a prison term. Poverty in America is a prison.

Good hard-workin' folks like Classic Xer, who support this system accurately described as one "that treats the poor as objects of exploitation and abuse," call those who can not find work or can't work "lazy" and "idiots," but there are a fair number of such "lazy, idiotic" people, especially in a system that does not provide enough jobs (due to automation, free trade, and bosses that don't care and will fire people for little or no reason). Liberals don't look upon welfare recipients as either victims or cheaters; most are neither. Welfare is just a small item in the federal budget, and of varying sizes in state budgets, that provides a little bit of protection of the kind all of us might need. Many of us aren't even eligible for welfare in that case anyway. Time limits on welfare are abusive punishment, since depressions and recessions are frequent, job losses continual, and various kinds of suffering and disability can happen at any time on more than one occasion to any one of us. Finding a good job has never been easy, and calling people who can't find work "idiots" just blames the people for the troubles which the selfish bosses alone give us.

Welfare is the main scapegoat that impels people like Classic Xer (which includes perhaps 40% of America or more; he's not alone at all) to vote Republican and support the trickle-down theory, which says give breaks to the bosses instead of the people, and then the "job creater" bosses will provide jobs for us. Not only does trickle-down NOT trickle, but the reason that 40% of the good people like Classic Xer and Warren Dew support trickle-down economics, is because they blame welfare recipients and liberal politicians for their high taxes. But blaming welfare has nothing to do with their high taxes, which are not that high to begin with. The government wastes money on wars, weapons, and subsidies to the rich corporations, and by not taxing the wealthy enough-- due to the trickle-down theory.

There may be some welfare cheaters, but we are all victims in a sense; victims of the decision of the people to vote Republican. So a lot of us are responsible for the troubles we all experience living in this system. And that's not even to mention a campaign finance system instituted by Republican Supreme Court justices that favors the rich, gerrymandering that favors Republican legislators since 2010, and voter suppression now underway in many Republican-controlled states. Oh, and I almost forgot: an election system called the electoral college set up to protect slavery, and still doing that job by, among other things, putting into office without majority voter approval the only Republican presidents of the 21st century.

"Unemployment, alimony, child support, and pensions are not welfare. Neither is disability." And neither are social security and medicare, which recipients have paid for and which protect us all, not just a few cheaters. And there's medicaid and Obamacare subsidies; arguably that's welfare, but not welfare per se. And not if healthcare is in fact a right, as liberals proclaim. A right implied in the Declaration of Independence, which announces our right to life.

The veneration of work and the condemnation of those who don't work by conservatives may be obsolete, in an economy that does not provide work, and which could very well save labor for all of us by turning it over to machines, if the bosses were stripped of their current exclusively-given rights to their benefits. We are going to need to be less dogmatic about the economic system into which we are moving, and adapt to the new situation.

And another wrinkle in the conservative myth is veneration of the rich, as people who worked to get ahead and thus deserve their rewards, as opposed to most of us who may aspire to be rich, in the good old American dream, but are not. But the rich do not earn their rewards; that is the myth. The Reaganoid political and economic system we live under provides rewards for them, by allowing them to pay most workers a pittance while they rack up 300 times what their workers get through high salaries and financial games that ruin the economy for everyone but themselves, while meanwhile the workers are no longer protected by adequate minimum wages, low tariffs or declining unions and are often deprived of the education they needed in the first place.
How far do you have to travel to see/meet/bump into a welfare recipient of some sort/type these days? Welfare recipients are much more common then they were 30 years ago. Welfare recipients are also more expensive and more demanding than they were 30 years ago as well. Which group of welfare recipients would you like to discuss with me? I'm probably familiar with all of them. I should inform you that I grew up with the working class that was around while you were out doing blue Hippie shit. I was going school with there kids, playing sports with their kids, flirting with their daughters and competing with their sons. BTW, the majority of them including the American raised Mexicans and the working women are no longer Democratic voters.


You are dealing in stereotypes instead of reality. I know at least one welfare recipient (teenager who bore a couple cute cash cows). If welfare recipients are more expensive than they used to be, then so is about everything not in the cost-cutting curve of high-tech objects.  I have not sought out poor people, but I have seen them. Most of the poverty that I have seen recently is temporary bad luck or being 'working poor' -- doing real work but getting a travesty of a paycheck. 

I have never gone through a hippie phase. My casual clothing has been typical for a golf course. I was a virgin well into my twenties. I am ferociously anti-drug, as you can see from my posts when the topic comes up. But that is fairly typical of people with Asperger's. I can be the most judgmental a$$hole that you have ever met. But what excuse does anyone have for being an alcoholic or an addict?

Many of the working-class kids did not like me because I seemed like the "Little Professor" who paid attention to school books instead of cars. When I was in high school in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1972 to 1974 I got along badly with the white low-achievers, but got along very well with Asian-Americans and people that I mistook for German-Americans because of their surnames (get it?). Surprising for someone who thought that he would come off as a hayseed?

Although white working-class people voted heavily for Trump, the majority of Mexican-Americans in the Twin Cities area , who are much more politically astute than under-educated white people, still vote heavily Democratic .


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-28-2017

(09-27-2017, 11:01 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-27-2017, 08:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-27-2017, 03:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The problem being, too many of the red and blue have similar doubts.

In welfare, there are victims and cheaters.  You’d like to think most would agree that both exist.  The proper thing to do is help the victims and frustrate the cheaters.  Alas, once you buy deeply into one of the two world views, you tend to see either victims or cheaters.

In Pbrower’s case, I’m seeing a victim, but there are more than enough cheaters.

On one side, there are those those who see lots of cheaters, few victims, who might be seen as cynical economically centered misers.  Then are those who see lots of victims, no cheaters, who can be seen as economically ignorant bleeding hearts who should know better.  It isn’t hard to find imbalance.

Then there are those who want to help those who need help, but spend their money wisely.  I'd prefer to be in that camp.

Do we want to force fit an individual into an ideal example of what is wrong with America?  I’m dubious that we want to juggle a guy’s reputation for a political ends.  Yet, that is where we are.
Welfare attracts all kinds of folks. A portion are lazy. A portion are complete idiots who are incapable of providing for themselves. A portion just don't give a shit about themselves, their kids and their quality of life in general. A portion actually need it (no other option) and are using it to get through a major setback (loss of a job, illness, divorce, death of a spouse, ect.) of some sort. A portion use/abuse the system because it's a relatively easy system to become accustomed to once you're in the system. Based on my real life knowledge and experience with welfare's, the portion who need it/ use it as intended are the minority group. You're so-called liberal worldview is way too black (victims) and white (cheaters) for my taste. PB has issues (lots of issues). I have issues. I bet you (Mr. Cozy Blue) even have a few issues from time to time. Americans in general have their own issues to attend to or address on a regular basis. I don't view PB as a victim. He's to old to seriously view him/accept him as a victim.

In my case it will be disability. I have plenty of things wrong with me. But I can live cheap. The community in which I exist (it is not living!) is relatively cheap and safe. It is also an easy place in which to run out of experiences.

I took care of two dying parents with degenerative diseases in three years. Let's put it this way -- having seen my mother dying of Parkinsonism and my father dying of senile dementia. I have become poor in a country that treats the poor as objects of exploitation and abuse, people obliged to smile through their suffering. I wouldn't wish what I went through on anyone; that character-building experience has brought me personal ruin. I have contemplated suicide after I lost my life savings in trying to keep a house up in case of a miracle.

Unemployment, alimony, child support, and pensions are not welfare. Neither is disability. Issues?

Sure, I have talent. At 61, 'talent' is worthless.

Spending the rest of my life as a retail sales clerk in a community that I despise? That Kafkaesque prospect night as well be a prison term. Poverty in America is a prison.
You shouldn't have been counting on receiving your parents money *inheritance*.  My mother died of Alzheimer's a few years ago. I helped take care of her for a year and witnessed her decline. I was in charge of managing her retirement funds. I never viewed her money as my money. My father was physically disabled by a severe heart attack that damn near killed. A year later, he suffered a major stroke which eventually killed him a month later. I witnessed it all and inherited a plate full of his responsibilities as a kid. His death pretty much ended my childhood and placed me in a similar situation as you until I was old to get a driver's license and begin to work for a living. So, I can relate to what you've been saying/feeling about your life. However, I can't relate to you/ your issues/ your views as a fellow older adult.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-28-2017

(09-28-2017, 08:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: You are dealing in stereotypes instead of reality. I know at least one welfare recipient (teenager who bore a couple cute cash cows). If welfare recipients are more expensive than they used to be, then so is about everything not in the cost-cutting curve of high-tech objects.  I have not sought out poor people, but I have seen them. Most of the poverty that I have seen recently is temporary bad luck or being 'working poor' -- doing real work but getting a travesty of a paycheck. 

I have never gone through a hippie phase. My casual clothing has been typical for a golf course. I was a virgin well into my twenties. I am ferociously anti-drug, as you can see from my posts when the topic comes up. But that is fairly typical of people with Asperger's. I can be the most judgmental a$$hole that you have ever met. But what excuse does anyone have for being an alcoholic or an addict?

Many of the working-class kids did not like me because I seemed like the "Little Professor" who paid attention to school books instead of cars. When I was in high school in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1972 to 1974 I got along badly with the white low-achievers, but got along very well with Asian-Americans and people that I mistook for German-Americans because of their surnames (get it?). Surprising for someone who thought that he would come off as a hayseed?

Although white working-class people voted heavily for Trump, the majority of Mexican-Americans in the Twin Cities area , who are much more politically astute than under-educated white people, still vote heavily Democratic .
I'm dealing in realities while your stuck on stereotypes. I don't do stereotypes. I tend to ignore them and judge for myself. I would've ran out of friends along time ago had I stuck to stereotypes. Lets see, I've seen the teenager a couple of cash as you said. BTW, I view her so-called cash cows as poverty anchors. BTW, I would classify the teenager with the cash cows as an idiot welfare recipient. 

How much does their healthcare for themselves and their children cost us? How much does the roof over their heads for them and their children cost us? These aren't small ticket items. How much does the education or at least the attempt to educate their children or themselves and all the other services available to them cost us? I'd really like to see a breakdown of the costs associated with entitlement programs.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-28-2017

(09-28-2017, 10:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-28-2017, 08:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: You are dealing in stereotypes instead of reality. I know at least one welfare recipient (teenager who bore a couple cute cash cows). If welfare recipients are more expensive than they used to be, then so is about everything not in the cost-cutting curve of high-tech objects.  I have not sought out poor people, but I have seen them. Most of the poverty that I have seen recently is temporary bad luck or being 'working poor' -- doing real work but getting a travesty of a paycheck. 

I have never gone through a hippie phase. My casual clothing has been typical for a golf course. I was a virgin well into my twenties. I am ferociously anti-drug, as you can see from my posts when the topic comes up. But that is fairly typical of people with Asperger's. I can be the most judgmental a$$hole that you have ever met. But what excuse does anyone have for being an alcoholic or an addict?

Many of the working-class kids did not like me because I seemed like the "Little Professor" who paid attention to school books instead of cars. When I was in high school in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1972 to 1974 I got along badly with the white low-achievers, but got along very well with Asian-Americans and people that I mistook for German-Americans because of their surnames (get it?). Surprising for someone who thought that he would come off as a hayseed?

Although white working-class people voted heavily for Trump, the majority of Mexican-Americans in the Twin Cities area , who are much more politically astute than under-educated white people, still vote heavily Democratic .
I'm dealing in realities while your stuck on stereotypes. I don't do stereotypes. I tend to ignore them and judge for myself. I would've ran out of friends along time ago had I stuck to stereotypes. Lets see, I've seen the teenager a couple of cash as you said. BTW, I view her so-called cash cows as poverty anchors. BTW, I would classify the teenager with the cash cows as an idiot welfare recipient. 

How much does their healthcare for themselves and their children cost us? How much does the roof over their heads for them and their children cost us? These aren't small ticket items. How much does the education or at least the attempt to educate their children or themselves and all the other services available to them cost us? I'd really like to see a breakdown of the costs associated with entitlement programs.
Classic

You claim you are not stuck on stereotypes, then go with 'cash cow', 'poverty anchors' and 'idiot welfare recipient'. You follow up with variations of 'How much does it cost us...' This does, of course, pull one into one perspective.

The conflict between the two stripes does show the difference between focusing on helping the victim as opposed to economic values and pursuing the cheater. The question to a great extent is whether the cheating was real? Are we looking at someone in need or someone gaming the system for a free ride. It seems you are ready to perceive the cheater.

To a large extent this is a values question which people have to judge for themselves. Me, if people have real needs they should be satisfied, but there shouldn't be a free ride. This is a difficult balance between two values which can both be respected. It is a difficult question to hand over to a bureaucracy. They would too often prefer a clear place to whack their rubber stamps. Meanwhile, too many have seen things from one angle only, and perceive only one error or the other.

My perspective comes from a broken family. Two grandparents are doing what they can for a pair of grand kids. In the middle is a drug addicted mother who married a sexual predator. After all, a marriage between a sexual predator with some money and an addicted woman who makes money off sex with kids must be ideal, right? Then there are the kids who shouldn't fall into the usual traps, and a system prejudiced to put the kids with the natural mother, no matter the evidence. And, you know, if the middle people know more about gaming the system than the grandparents who have never used the system, and the system chooses which victim is labeled the good guys, you wind up with something chilling.

There are people with real needs. The people who are supposed to protect, don't always. The first level of stereotype is often not enough. A financially stable family with decent values can go bad real fast. And you know, the simplistic stereotypes are never fully illustrative.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 09-29-2017

The inheritance would have been enough for me to get some 'experiential' therapy -- getting away from the scene with some out-of-region travel. Dating, something that I could never do while in a custodial mode, would have been a good thing to do. But it is pointless except if one has money to spend.

Economics to the extent of class identity overpowers almost everything else (except perhaps the injunctions against outright crime) in America. Our economic order is no longer competitive capitalist; all that matters anymore is that the Right People get what they want and that all others comply with the whims of economic sadists who rule us. To be sure, those economic sadists will allow people to keep the pretenses to middle-class ways of life to the extent that such serves the elites (as in getting people into and keeping them in debt so that they will do as they are told just to avoid going destitute).

Spending the rest of my life in a dreary hick town and being confined to an apartment except when doing mindless work as a convenience-store cashier is a living nightmare. All that would keep me from committing suicide is fear of Hell. Someone else might as well have that horrid job as I. No, that is not Donald Trump's fault; he is only a symptom of economic elites devoid of any moral compass but insatiable appetites for personal indulgence. I am tempted to say to members of such an elite that I find culpable:

"I hate your world and I hate the life that you demand that I endure. For me a sudden fatal coronary would be a blessing. You make me regret that I did not take up chain smoking and that I ever counted calories. You are no better than the robber who kills a victim; like such a robber you do not care about anyone but yourself, your immediate family members, and your cronies. I do not need to use any four-letter words; you have provided more than enough vulgar profanity through your actions.

There might be some schmuck who considers you a great benefactor. Maybe your world is tolerable for people like them. It is not for me".


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 09-29-2017

More on this theme:

[Image: OccsX.jpg]


It is possible to look at this chart and see at the low end (10th percentile) what the intellectual qualifications are. A not-so-brilliant physician might be consigned to specialties that might not be so intellectually demanding. Getting into the medical profession is obviously difficult, requiring much intellectual proficiency before getting into med school. The second-most demanding looks like "legal professions".  I can imagine the low end being involved in such activities as collecting a debt through the use of a threat with a legal firm. Better this than the dead fish delivered to the doorstep of someone who gambled on credit and lost. College professors? The 10th percentile is around 95%. This may suggest the pedantic professor at a liberal arts school who knows one book and teaches it in a Great Books tradition. As such schools disappear, that sort of professor is clearly dying out or being consigned to a high school, where he needs more flexibility (10th percentile at an IQ of 91).

Hard work and dedicated specialization may put one in a surprisingly-strong field.  Could it be that smart but lazy, troubled, or indecisive people can end up as janitors or truck drivers?

But if one is smart, has a good work ethic, has access to credit and the willingness to use it, then the sky might be the limit. I would guess that although a job description can describe a paper-pushing clerk well, it poorly describes Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or Albert Einstein. Those two were basically what they did, and they got to choose what they did. For this one can look at the 90th percentile. Yes, there might be a janitor with an IQ of 130, but I doubt that such a janitor would be happy with such a job. 90% of all janitors have an IQ under 111...

I look at the 90th percentile for physicians, attorneys, college professors, and natural scientists/musicians, and I see an IQ of 132. It is easy to assume that someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Noam Chomsky loves what he does. It is safe to assume that the 91st through 99th percentiles of intelligence encompass people like this. There just aren't that many people with IQs over 130 that people so smart can be 10% of any profession.

So let's look at the 90th percentiles for people in some other categories:

electrical engineers 128
material and design engineers 128
finance/insurance/real estate occupations 128
computer occupations 128
social scientists 126
administrative occupations 126
high-school teachers 125
creative occupations 125
service managers 125
social workers and clergy 124

These fields offer much to those who do them. Even if the pay isn't so great for high-school teachers, social workers and clergy, and lots of artists and writers are 'starving', the work offers potentially far more satisfaction than 'it pays the bills'.

Now let's look at the other end for the 90th percentile.

metalworking craftsmen 107 (the lowest level of IQ at the 90th percentile)
"operatives, other" (whatever that means) 109
truck drivers 109
freight and material handlers 109
janitors and sextons 111
carpenters 111
construction craftsmen other than carpenters 111
plumbers 112
assemblers 113

It is clear that one does most of these jobs solely for the money. It's hard to imagine any intellectual satisfaction from doing them.  Maybe there are virtues in having low expectations in life. Plumbers are skilled workers, but their work is unpleasant and often dangerous. Metalworking craftsmen? That includes foundry work. It might be more skilled and demanding than "janitors and sextons", but if you have ever worked in a foundry you have experienced a world that fits some images of hell. Maybe no brimstone, but certainly much fire.

It is obviously difficult to keep working for long in an occupation for which one lacks the intellectual standards. But working at an occupation far below one's talent? That is one possible component of alienation.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 09-29-2017

(09-28-2017, 10:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-28-2017, 08:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: You are dealing in stereotypes instead of reality. I know at least one welfare recipient (teenager who bore a couple cute cash cows). If welfare recipients are more expensive than they used to be, then so is about everything not in the cost-cutting curve of high-tech objects.  I have not sought out poor people, but I have seen them. Most of the poverty that I have seen recently is temporary bad luck or being 'working poor' -- doing real work but getting a travesty of a paycheck. 

I have never gone through a hippie phase. My casual clothing has been typical for a golf course. I was a virgin well into my twenties. I am ferociously anti-drug, as you can see from my posts when the topic comes up. But that is fairly typical of people with Asperger's. I can be the most judgmental a$$hole that you have ever met. But what excuse does anyone have for being an alcoholic or an addict?

Many of the working-class kids did not like me because I seemed like the "Little Professor" who paid attention to school books instead of cars. When I was in high school in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1972 to 1974 I got along badly with the white low-achievers, but got along very well with Asian-Americans and people that I mistook for German-Americans because of their surnames (get it?). Surprising for someone who thought that he would come off as a hayseed?

Although white working-class people voted heavily for Trump, the majority of Mexican-Americans in the Twin Cities area , who are much more politically astute than under-educated white people, still vote heavily Democratic .
I'm dealing in realities while your stuck on stereotypes. I don't do stereotypes. I tend to ignore them and judge for myself. I would've ran out of friends along time ago had I stuck to stereotypes. Lets see, I've seen the teenager a couple of cash as you said. BTW, I view her so-called cash cows as poverty anchors. BTW, I would classify the teenager with the cash cows as an idiot welfare recipient. 

How much does their healthcare for themselves and their children cost us? How much does the roof over their heads for them and their children cost us? These aren't small ticket items. How much does the education or at least the attempt to educate their children or themselves and all the other services available to them cost us? I'd really like to see a breakdown of the costs associated with entitlement programs.

I would have thought you did some research and found out already how much they cost before you judged them as idiots and voted Republican because of people like them. The fact is that AFDC welfare recipients don't get enough to live on.

And you don't seem to know what an entitlement program is. Entitlement programs are those which the recipient has paid for, and thus is entitled to. Like social security. Welfare is not an entitlement program. Public education is something provided to all children, and is necessary if we are to continue living in a democratic society-- such as it is.

Your post illustrates the fact that Republican voters often vote on the basis of prejudice and resentment, rather than facts.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 09-29-2017

(09-29-2017, 10:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-28-2017, 10:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm dealing in realities while your stuck on stereotypes. I don't do stereotypes. I tend to ignore them and judge for myself. I would've ran out of friends along time ago had I stuck to stereotypes. Lets see, I've seen the teenager a couple of cash as you said. BTW, I view her so-called cash cows as poverty anchors. BTW, I would classify the teenager with the cash cows as an idiot welfare recipient. 

How much does their healthcare for themselves and their children cost us? How much does the roof over their heads for them and their children cost us? These aren't small ticket items. How much does the education or at least the attempt to educate their children or themselves and all the other services available to them cost us? I'd really like to see a breakdown of the costs associated with entitlement programs.

I would have thought you did some research and found out already how much they cost before you judged them as idiots and voted Republican because of people like them. The fact is that AFDC welfare recipients don't get enough to live on.

And you don't seem to know what an entitlement program is. Entitlement programs are those which the recipient has paid for, and thus is entitled to. Like social security. Welfare is not an entitlement program. Public education is something provided to all children, and is necessary if we are to continue living in a democratic society-- such as it is.

Your post illustrates the fact that Republican voters often vote on the basis of prejudice and resentment, rather than facts.

In fact, welfare recipients have every incentive to take low-paying jobs as retail cashiers and fast-food workers.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-29-2017

(09-29-2017, 10:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would have thought you did some research and found out already how much they cost before you judged them as idiots and voted Republican because of people like them. The fact is that AFDC welfare recipients don't get enough to live on.

And you don't seem to know what an entitlement program is. Entitlement programs are those which the recipient has paid for, and thus is entitled to. Like social security. Welfare is not an entitlement program. Public education is something provided to all children, and is necessary if we are to continue living in a democratic society-- such as it is.

Your post illustrates the fact that Republican voters often vote on the basis of prejudice and resentment, rather than facts.
I vote against the welfare system/state and those who represent it. Just so we understand one another, if I were a welfare recipient, I wouldn't to give up my free healthcare, free dental and eye coverage, free housing or housing subsidies, free energy or subsidized energy/utilities, free daycare or subsidized daycare, free furnaces and water heaters, fee higher education or subsidized higher education, ect. because that would be down right stupid of me. Hmm, none of them are small ticket item based of my knowledge of all the costs associated with them. See, I don't think blues are that stupid. As far as the welfare recipients, I have to many relationships with to many of them for me to believe what you other blues always say that I believe is true. As I said, I don't do stereotypes. You're right, I am entitled to receive my social security and medicare. How many years of receiving freebies or substantially reduced costs before they are viewed by welfare recipients as entitlements? You're the resident expert on welfare recipients. You tell me. I know one who has been receiving freebies for at least 20 years which seems to be long enough based on her attitude and her views she's expressed to me directly. She pretty open with me. She should because she has known me for almost her entire life and she knows that I have contributed plenty to her well being. You're an idiot for sticking with stereotypes in today's world. But, then again that's what idiots do.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-29-2017

(09-29-2017, 08:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-29-2017, 10:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-28-2017, 10:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm dealing in realities while your stuck on stereotypes. I don't do stereotypes. I tend to ignore them and judge for myself. I would've ran out of friends along time ago had I stuck to stereotypes. Lets see, I've seen the teenager a couple of cash as you said. BTW, I view her so-called cash cows as poverty anchors. BTW, I would classify the teenager with the cash cows as an idiot welfare recipient. 

How much does their healthcare for themselves and their children cost us? How much does the roof over their heads for them and their children cost us? These aren't small ticket items. How much does the education or at least the attempt to educate their children or themselves and all the other services available to them cost us? I'd really like to see a breakdown of the costs associated with entitlement programs.

I would have thought you did some research and found out already how much they cost before you judged them as idiots and voted Republican because of people like them. The fact is that AFDC welfare recipients don't get enough to live on.

And you don't seem to know what an entitlement program is. Entitlement programs are those which the recipient has paid for, and thus is entitled to. Like social security. Welfare is not an entitlement program. Public education is something provided to all children, and is necessary if we are to continue living in a democratic society-- such as it is.

Your post illustrates the fact that Republican voters often vote on the basis of prejudice and resentment, rather than facts.

In fact, welfare recipients have every incentive to take low-paying jobs as retail cashiers and fast-food workers.
True, you can live ok on minimum wage when taxpayers are absorbing the bulk of your higher costs. I lived really good when I was working full time and living in Mom's home before entering vocational school.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-30-2017

(09-29-2017, 08:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: More on this theme:

[Image: OccsX.jpg]


It is possible to look at this chart and see at the low end (10th percentile) what the intellectual qualifications are. A not-so-brilliant physician might be consigned to specialties that might not be so intellectually demanding. Getting into the medical profession is obviously difficult, requiring much intellectual proficiency before getting into med school. The second-most demanding looks like "legal professions".  I can imagine the low end being involved in such activities as collecting a debt through the use of a threat with a legal firm. Better this than the dead fish delivered to the doorstep of someone who gambled on credit and lost. College professors? The 10th percentile is around 95%. This may suggest the pedantic professor at a liberal arts school who knows one book and teaches it in a Great Books tradition. As such schools disappear, that sort of professor is clearly dying out or being consigned to a high school, where he needs more flexibility (10th percentile at an IQ of 91).

Hard work and dedicated specialization may put one in a surprisingly-strong field.  Could it be that smart but lazy, troubled, or indecisive people can end up as janitors or truck drivers?

But if one is smart, has a good work ethic, has access to credit and the willingness to use it, then the sky might be the limit. I would guess that although a job description can describe a paper-pushing clerk well, it poorly describes Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or Albert Einstein. Those two were basically what they did, and they got to choose what they did. For this one can look at the 90th percentile. Yes, there might be a janitor with an IQ of 130, but I doubt that such a janitor would be happy with such a job. 90% of all janitors have an IQ under 111...

I look at the 90th percentile for physicians, attorneys, college professors, and natural scientists/musicians, and I see an IQ of 132. It is easy to assume that someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Noam Chomsky loves what he does. It is safe to assume that the 91st through 99th percentiles of intelligence encompass people like this. There just aren't that many people with IQs over 130 that people so smart can be 10% of any profession.

So let's look at the 90th percentiles for people in some other categories:

electrical engineers 128
material and design engineers 128
finance/insurance/real estate occupations 128
computer occupations 128
social scientists 126
administrative occupations 126
high-school teachers 125
creative occupations 125
service managers 125
social workers and clergy 124

These fields offer much to those who do them. Even if the pay isn't so great for high-school teachers, social workers and clergy,  and lots of artists and writers are 'starving', the work offers potentially far more satisfaction than 'it pays the bills'.

Now let's look at the other end for the 90th percentile.

metalworking craftsmen 107 (the lowest level of IQ at the 90th percentile)
"operatives, other" (whatever that means) 109
truck drivers 109
freight and material handlers 109
janitors and sextons 111
carpenters 111
construction craftsmen other than carpenters 111
plumbers 112
assemblers 113

It is clear that one does most of these jobs solely for the money. It's hard to imagine any intellectual satisfaction from doing them.  Maybe there are virtues in having low expectations in life. Plumbers are skilled workers, but their work is unpleasant and often dangerous. Metalworking craftsmen? That includes foundry work. It might be more skilled and demanding than "janitors and sextons", but if you have ever worked in a foundry you have experienced a world that fits some images of hell. Maybe no brimstone, but certainly much fire.

It is obviously difficult to keep working for long in an occupation for which one lacks the intellectual standards. But working at an occupation far below one's talent? That is one possible component of alienation.
The work requires a variety of skills and a variety of knowledge and know how relating to different tasks and is often very fulfilling. Guess who was in that category 30 years ago. I've advanced since then. I assume you've never had a person standing and watching  in awe of what you are capable of doing or the work your capable of accomplishing or the problem you're able to solve.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 09-30-2017

(09-25-2017, 04:41 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-24-2017, 09:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-24-2017, 11:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 10:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 04:53 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, first, Kinser is pretty unique.  I don't think anyone is doing the same thing as Kinser.

Oh please, you sound like you've never seen a black man who is conservative on some issues before.  Which if you've ever seen a black man at all, you've probably seen a black man who is conservative on some issues.

That would assume I have a bin labeled ‘conservative black’.  Everyone in the bin is considered alike.  I would supposedly act on that presumption freely.

So clearly you didn't understand my post at all.

Possibly not.  You are a rational sentient being, and should be treated as such, as unique, as judged by yourself rather than your skin pigmentation.  I live in the suburbs, and may have had different life experiences than you, different ideas on people.  Those I have seen have succeed at the economic games and don't play the victim card often.  You obsess on a different culture.

Unique was supposed to be a mutual complement saying I'm paying attention to a person who is worth paying attention to.

The people I have met have been software engineers, retired military, experienced role players, folks who have retired on a waterfront property, not professional leeches and victim card players.  Each in their own way have done well in messy environments.  It is not hard at all to treat them as equals.  Your obsession with skin pigmentation is fairly rare to me.  This would be part of why we see people so differently.

"Unique" may have been a supposed complement, it clearly was not taken that way.  My point was that I'm a black man who is conservative on some issues.  Most black men are conservative on one issue or an other, most people are conservative on one issue or an other.  This isn't about identity though it is about politics which is only informed indirectly by identity through culture.

Not really, see I'm not obsessed with skin pigmentation at all--white liberals are though.  After all, it is they who are the first to be upset with me for Supporting Trump While Black (STWB), something not even other blacks are quick to be upset with me over. The same crime Kanye West is guilty of.  Though unlike Kanye I voted for the man.  I mean lets look at my life.  I have a boyfriend of 12 years now, he's white.  I have a kid, also white.  My kid has a significant other who is first generation American of Korean dissent (he and his folks are often over--"mama-san" likes giving me home made kimchi), so yeah to have the "rainbow family" around my place I just need a latino houseboy. Unfortunately I can't afford a houseboy.  So I can't say that I have any obsession with skin pigmentation, unless you mean my public announcement of not being attracted to other black people--which is not as strange as you may think.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 09-30-2017

(09-25-2017, 05:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  But I will say this about Thoreau, I have always found his works to be rather insipid, but then again Fredrick Douglas has always resonated with me more strongly than any of the trancendentalists who mostly scribbled what looks like woo-woo on the level that Eric posts every day.

That's a decent synopsis of how values work.  If an idea doesn't mesh with what you already believe, you find an excuse not to listen or understand.

Yeah well it isn't hard to disreguard the transcendentalists. Seriously if you read them, it reads like the new age shit Eric posts about but in 19th century speak. It is totally uninteresting or enlightening. I did have to read some of them for English Class though, but I often got poor grades in Literature anyway since I often came up with things that were the opposite of what Mrs. White-Liberal-Teaching-Lady wanted me to.

Quote:
(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I did describe them accurately, and it also applies to the current crop of Dims too.  As for populist politicans, actually I haven't.  Daddy isn't a politician which is why the Swamp hates him.  

Of course he his a politician.  As soon as he declared himself and started entering primaries, he was a politician.  Hiring half the swamp was gravy.  

I disagree. Being an elected official does not a politician make. If you noticed most of the people he's hired have had a 6-7 month tenure in office and then he fires them. He hires swamp creatures because they know where the levers are and can show him where they are. Once he knows where they are and what they do, he fires the swamp thing and replaces them with someone more reliable.

Quote:
(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'm going to "flame" whomever I choose to, for whatever reason I choose too.  If that hurts your fee fees I don't care.  Fuck your fee fees!

As for banning...I'm not interested in banning anyone unless they're up on the forum posting tons of spam or porn or something.  

Obscenity?

Were I a moderator, which I am not, I would not ban anyone for saying "shit" or "fuck" or even "nigger". And believe me some of you people can be far more obscene without using any of those words. If you want a forum where such things would be censored you're free to go there, or fuckbook or where ever.

Quote:The unraveling memes

Don't care. Just because you're stuck in a time warp doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Quote:
(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Great, we have another who can't come up with an original argument.  Back to your papal bull meme again.  When it comes to my view of PBR it is formed off of his statements and his actions.  Is my interpretation of those statements and actions influenced by my world view?  Yes, but whose isn't?  Certainly not yours.

You do have strong values, which in many ways is great, but you do tend to try to project them absurdly.  Try to listen to yourself.

I do listen to myself. If you notice that when I post I rarely use mispelled words, and often have correct punctuation. This means that when I post I take the time to proof read and make sure that I'm saying what I want to say.

As for projection, is that you just projecting yourself onto others as you do incredibly frequently or is that you honestly see me as doing. Obviously the previous sentence is a rhetorical question--I honestly don't care one way or the other, as demonstrated in previous posts you have little to no understanding of economics and thus have little to no understanding of anything else.

Quote:
(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As Philip Johnson said:  The first complete sentence out of my mouth was probably that line about consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds.

Still, utter inconsistency isn't the best part of your act.

I'm glad to see that particular hobgoblin has crept in and boggles your tiny mind. Tongue

Quote:
(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Are you stupid?  Government is force, it has always been force, and always will be force.  The main difference between a state's government and the mafia is that the government on occasion throws a public popularity contest where as the mafia has no need for such extravagances.

You really think that?  This is what I mean by having unusual values and trying to project them as truth.  We could stand more off the wall opinions, but people should know when they are off the wall.

Of course I really think that. Why does the government have the authority it does? Because it is assumed to also have the only legitimate use of force in society. Ergo government must be force. A mafia is force as well. The question is as to whether a government is force or is not force, not as to whether or not the use of that force is legitimate; which is an entirely separate question.

As for it being off the wall, not so much. It is purely logical and only off the wall to those who are inherently illogical, which maybe, Bob, you are.

Quote:
(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Man in his primordial state is in a state of anarchy.  Indeed I'd go so far as to say that anarchy is man's natural state, and wanting to have civilization yet remain as close to the natural state as possible I have slowly, accepted that minarchism is a requirement to maintain civilization.

You are closer to Thoreau than you know, if allergic to the trappings, thus unable to comprehend his ideas.  "That government is best which governs least..."

But I find the premise questionable.  I've looked enough at great apes and their governing structures to expect, leaders, territories, tribes, etc...  They lack the language needed to go as far with it as humans, but I seriously doubt mankind's primordial state was anarchy.  Basing a political system on a convenient lie is problematic.  Like it or not, we are a political species.  The question is how to force the elites to respect the needs and wants of every man.  

We will have to see...

As I said previously, my main problem with Thoreau is the pseudo-mystical nonsense he wraps up his libertarianism in, not the libertarianism itself. I also mentioned Fredrick Douglass who wrote about politics extensively and yet avoided what I term woo-woo and found him much more appealing. The same can be said of other writers, while I may agree with what they have to say stripped of all the nonsense, it is the nonsense that I have a problem with.

As to anarchy, I mean anarchy in the sense that a state is absent. The state is a more recent invention of mankind arising around the time of the agricultural revolution. While humans may be political animals, isolated tribes in the amazon do not have a state just like the pygmies of the Congo also lack a state.

Since both are in as close to a state of nature as is observable, then it becomes clear that anarchy is the natural state.