Poor People's Campaign Readies Nationwide Mobilization

[lewisnotmiller]

But, really, who pays for the "Public schools" and the "Public housing"? Wouldn't it be better if you could provide a path for those that are willing to work for it to be able to afford the things in life that they deem important (as I am sure you did). Don't get me wrong, I am totally in favor of helping those that need help; but I know the joy and freedom of rising from living on handouts to not having to ask for a damn thing I didn't earn.

Without public education, I wouldn't have received a decent education. No public universities with merit based entry, I wouldn't have gone to university.
University, and the resultant overseas job I got from graduating were great for me. For the first time I got to really mix with people from various backgrounds, people whose views of the world were different to mine, larger in some cases, stranger in others. I grew a lot in those 5 years. I was just a suburban kid from a working class neighborhood.

I haven't mentioned handouts here, and I don't feel like I've received much of anything over the course of my life. I still have just a hint of my blue-collar background I carry about, and the subsequent pride at having achieved despite that.

But...I still needed public education. And I was lucky...my parents weren't always exactly supportive, but I had a roof and meals until I graduated. I know better than to think I made it only due to my own hard work.

All I've suggested in this thread is that schools in rich districts shouldn't receive more government money than schools in poor districts. It doesn't sound very controversial to me. Parents can do what they want with their money, but I don't think the state should operate that way.

The "path" you have mentioned is the very thing social mobility represents. An actual realistic chance for people to achieve based on the sweat of their own brow.

 

[BSM1]

As the work of Thomas Piketty and numerous others has demonstrated, capitalism is a superb system for creating wealth but pretty much fails as a system to equitably distribute wealth. Consequently, capitalism when freely allowed to run its course, inevitably results in oligarchies and eventually in tyrannies as the wealth of a society becomes increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

So what's better?

 

[Sunstone]

So what's better?

Are you asking what's better than tyranny?

 

[BSM1]

Without public education, I wouldn't have received a decent education. No public universities with merit based entry, I wouldn't have gone to university.
University, and the resultant overseas job I got from graduating were great for me. For the first time I got to really mix with people from various backgrounds, people whose views of the world were different to mine, larger in some cases, stranger in others. I grew a lot in those 5 years. I was just a suburban kid from a working class neighborhood.

I haven't mentioned handouts here, and I don't feel like I've received much of anything over the course of my life. I still have just a hint of my blue-collar background I carry about, and the subsequent pride at having achieved despite that.

But...I still needed public education. And I was lucky...my parents weren't always exactly supportive, but I had a roof and meals until I graduated. I know better than to think I made it only due to my own hard work.

All I've suggested in this thread is that schools in rich districts shouldn't receive more government money than schools in poor districts. It doesn't sound very controversial to me. Parents can do what they want with their money, but I don't think the state should operate that way.

The "path" you have mentioned is the very thing social mobility represents. An actual realistic chance for people to achieve based on the sweat of their own brow.

Sorry. Doesn't wash. I, too, am a product of a public education. However, for the most part I had to pay for my college experience. This meant working a job and raising a family while taking a full load. The take away here is that if you want it bad enough you'll find a way to get it; and if your not willing to sacrifice, suffer, and work for what you want don't expect someone else to give it to you.

 

[BSM1]

Are you asking what's better than tyranny?

No. But since you asked, tell me what's not tyrannic?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sorry. Doesn't wash. I, too, am a product of a public education. However, for the most part I had to pay for my college experience. This meant working a job and raising a family while taking a full load. The take away here is that if you want it bad enough you'll find a way to get it; and if your not willing to sacrifice, suffer, and work for what you want don't expect someone else to give it to you.

Good grief. Awesome. Let's all build a society where the rich have all the inherent advantages, then say that poor people are lazy if they don't succeed, since...ya know...the fittest win. And how would we measure fitness apart from by money. It's the only measure that's worth using, right?

For what it's worth, I paid for my tuition too, although here the government will lend you money for your first degree which you pay back automatically once earning a certain amount. Subsequent degrees (like my second one) is a different story.

So the poor guy has to want it a lot more to succeed here. It's hard yakka. But it's possible. It's becoming increasingly less possible in America, to what benefit I don't know. Unless you somehow think this approach has left you with a stronger society?

 

[leibowde84]

Obviously you don't have a clue either. You talking about Fascism or, at best, Socialism. There is no "private industry" in Communism.

Actually, as I correctly stated, when a government becomes communist the state takes over private industry. Obviously, that means that there is no private industry in communism.

 

[Akivah]

I am sorry but I don't care how they rank it themselves. I want the hard facts.
I do believe that people can actually earn that much money on their own. The question is: How often ?

EDIT: And also, to what extent did they get help to get there ?

Ah, I see. Your reasoning is in line with Obama's insane infamous quote "You didn't build that."

 

[Falvlun]

Ah, I see. Your reasoning is in line with Obama's insane infamous quote "You didn't build that."

... on your own.

How many roads does Amazon build? Would be kinda hard to deliver packages without those.

How many of their employees did Google pay to educate, K-12? Would be kinda hard to run a company if no one can read.

How many smoke jumpers does Boeing employ? Would be kinda hard to have a business if forest fires are allowed to burn uncontrolled.

 

[Revoltingest]

... on your own.

How many roads does Amazon build? Would be kinda hard to deliver packages without those.

How many of their employees did Google pay to educate, K-12? Would be kinda hard to run a company if no one can read.

How many smoke jumpers does Boeing employ? Would be kinda hard to have a business if forest fires are allowed to burn uncontrolled.

And so....

 

[Falvlun]

And so....

In the context of taxes and wages, the acknowledgment that no man is an island is pertinent.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the context of taxes and wages, the acknowledgment that no man is an island is pertinent.

But that's not what Obama said or intended.
The documentary I showed you is the best
objective non-partisan analysis yet.

 

[Falvlun]

But that's not what Obama said or intended.
The documentary I showed you is the best
objective non-partisan analysis yet.

Nah. You presented a partisan joke that ignores the context of the original remark and that of this thread.

 

[Koldo]

Ah, I see. Your reasoning is in line with Obama's insane infamous quote "You didn't build that."

Are you taking that quote out of context like other people ? If you are, I am not impressed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nah. You presented a partisan joke that ignores the context of the original remark and that of this thread.

No, I read Obama's speech, & thoroughly grokked his intent.
Besides, it's a documentary on the internet. Case closed.

 

[Underhill]

I don't think productivity would increase by slashing the workweek.
It would mean hiring more workers, which would require more
supervision. And as you point out, it would increase prices, which
would make foreign goods more competitive.
But also, smaller businesses would ignore the shorter work week,
thus increasing their relative competitiveness, thereby lessening
the overall effect.

No productivity wouldn't go up more. I am saying productivity has gone up and the workers have reaped none of the benefits of that increase. It's all gone into corporate profits and higher pay for those at the top.

And yes, anyone who wanted to ignore the work week could, just as anyone who wants a second job, or to work overtime now, can.

It would have to be a global movement, but such things have happened before.

 

[tytlyf]

No productivity wouldn't go up more. I am saying productivity has gone up and the workers have reaped none of the benefits of that increase. It's all gone into corporate profits and higher pay for those at the top.

And yes, anyone who wanted to ignore the work week could, just as anyone who wants a second job, or to work overtime now, can.

It would have to be a global movement, but such things have happened before.

Precisely. Democrats should point this difference out between the party platforms and policies.

Democrats want to lower taxes on the middle class and increase on the wealthy.
Republicans want to increase taxes on the middle class and decrease on the wealthy.

A republican vote is a vote for the further elimination of the middle class. But that's capitalism for ya. Greed controls the republican party at this point. Never trust anything a republican elitist says. They're crooked.