StrangeSox

So they're trying to take the Bourne series down a 007 path?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 04:03 PM) But see, this is the attitude which kills any real reform in this area. It's not a one side fix. It's not just saying the rich have exploited the system to be more rich. Sure, that's a huge problem, but at the same time we've basically accepted the fact that a large portion of the country is completely dependent on the rest of us to live. They have no driving force to better their lives. They have no qualms with accepting public money. In fact, they want more. And because the system is set up for the rich, the middle class ends up getting double screwed because they're forced to foot the bill without getting much of the benefit. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 05:16 PM) Eh, we've had this argument before. From my personal experience looking at the Chicago public welfare scene, it is like that. There are certainly people out there who work their asses off and still have problems getting ahead. But they're a minority. And really, those people don't even get much public aid, which is part of the problem with the system. Those people, who do work their ass off and have jobs and have kids and still have trouble don't get the assistance they need. But there's a very large number of people out there who do just accept their check, take it, and stick their hand out again. I met/learned about countless numbers of them at various public housing projects in the city. And it's a BS point that people can't better their lives. People do that every single day. But it's the American problem - you actually have to work for it to get there. Who wants to do that when I can just point at someone else and scream "not fair!" QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) IMO all that is talking about extremes. Can you go from really poor to really rich without any help. Maybe not. But that ignores the reality that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet had help, but some of that may have been of their own doing. But either way, people can improve their lot in life from having nothing or having to work two jobs and barely scraping by to getting themselves more educated and qualified and getting a solid career. They may never be rich, but they can be comfortable in life. The problem is most people make huge mistakes in life that they then have to pay for. Having kids too early, being caught up in crime which screws up future employment, choosing not to finish school, etc. Well, yeah, that sucks for them, but it's not like the system kept them from living a comfortable life. No one is saying it's easy. You gotta work for it, but I can't agree that it's not possible. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 11:28 AM) I don't disagree with what you're saying, other than the part about the "capitalism lottery." I don't think it's as harsh as you say it is. We're still talking about a minor chunk of societal pie here. My point is that if you make the right choices in life (abide by the law, obtain an education, work hard, etc) the odds are extremely stacked in your favor to come out with a successful life, regardless of how s***ty your home/family life is. Are there a ton of people who grow up in really s***ty situations? Absolutely. But governments role in that person's life is to (a) prevent that s***ty situation from happening as much as possible (safer streets, better schools, etc), and (B) assisting those that try but still fail. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) It doesn't, but so what? That's life. So long as everyone has an equal opportunity that's all that society can (and should) provide. I'm not suggesting the system is perfect. But I think that if you're a law abiding person that works hard and strives for a better life you can do what you want. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) Well, those are the possibilities yes, and you can add in "horrible luck" too. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) That's not my argument. My argument is opposing your idea that unless you're a white male that inherits land you're basically screwed no matter how hard you work. I said that you overplay the "capitalism lottery" point since we're talking about a minority of people and that for the most part if you try in this world and stay out of trouble you'll be just fine. I never claimed you'd be guaranteed to be rich, I never claimed that the system we have is perfect, i'm just saying that if you do those things chances are pretty good that you'll be fine. That's true. So this idea that it all doesn't matter is bulls***. And why is it so ridiculous to claim that poor people are poor for those reasons? That's true is it not? If you have a criminal record it's going to be more difficult to find a job, and therefore you're more likely to be poor. Same with being lazy. Edit: perhaps you should stop reading into my argument that i'm claiming that ALL poor people are that way. I've stated numerous times that i'm not talking about ALL people. Here, I've highlighted the places where you've stated or implied, over and over and over again, that a majority of poor people are poor because they're lazy, stupid and/or criminals, that they've no drive to better themselves and are happier to collect government money than to work hard. I haven't made anything up. These are your abhorrent ideas, in your own words and in context. Own up to them.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) Edit: perhaps you should stop reading into my argument that i'm claiming that ALL poor people are that way. I've stated numerous times that i'm not talking about ALL people. No, but you've stated that a majority of them are. You're hand-waving away millions of Americans who do bust their ass, do graduate high school or even college, do strive for a better life and are law-abiding yet still fail to climb out of poverty. And you're ignoring thousands of Americans born into a comfortable life who have to put in comparatively little effort to maintain or improve that quality of life.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) That's not my argument. My argument is opposing your idea that unless you're a white male with land you're basically screwed no matter how hard you work. I did not make that claim and made explicit statements to the contrary. The corollary of your argument is that (for the most part) if you aren't 'just fine', you must not have tried hard and stayed out of trouble. This again implies that the poor are mostly lazy, stupid criminals who just want to suck on the government tit. I've provided at least some support for my claims while you're just relying on your own opinion. Stating "that's true" doesn't make it so. And, again, I never said effort amount to nothing. You are stereotyping tens of millions of Americans with your ignorant and insulting perception of why they're poor. Can being lazy lead to being poor? Sure (but not necessarily). Can being a criminal lead to being poor? Sure (but not necessarily). These are very, very far from being the only or leading causes of poverty.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 11:52 AM) Yeah, this argument does nothing for me. Both of my grandparents were poor farmers who made it on their own. They provided their kids with a better life, and the same for my parents to me. They didn't ask the government for a handout to "make it right" because their life was "unfair." You don't seem to be following the argument at all. This isn't necessarily about "government handouts" but about your ridiculous ideas that poor people are poor because they're lazy, stupid criminals who don't want a better life and want to live off of welfare. Also, personal anecdotes don't trump data.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) Well, those are the possibilities yes, and you can add in "horrible luck" too. "Well, sorry, millions of hard-working poor, law-abiding Americans! You just had the horrible luck of being a minority and/or born into a lower economic class! But we swear, somehow our system rewards merit!"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 11:45 AM) Well, that's just false. You provide equal opportunity with what you can provide. You can't provide 2 loving parents to every kid out there, but what you can provide is a safe environment for him/her to grow up in and the means to attain an education. These are things that the government provides to everyone, regardless of your background. Sounds like you want equal results. Hmm, this assertion of yours doesn't fit with equally-educated blacks having twice as high unemployment as whites. This isn't about "what government provides" but if our economic system really rewards merit, is equal in any measurable way and if ss2k5's assertions about a social safety net being "enslavement" and budget gap problems being caused by taxing the rich too much. edit: actually mostly this is in response to your terrible perception of why people are poor:

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 11:30 AM) Ironically, he's essentially proposing eliminating Medicare for people over 65 and replacing it with what Obamacare sets up for people under 65. Yeah, that's a large part of the LOL. "We hate OBAMACARE! REPEAL! And we'll replace it with pretty much exactly the same thing!"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) It doesn't, but so what? That's life. So long as everyone has an equal opportunity that's all that society can (and should) provide. I'm not suggesting the system is perfect. But I think that if you're a law abiding person that works hard and strives for a better life you can do what you want. LOL, that's the whole point! There isn't equal opportunity and meritocracy is a myth. "working hard" and "pulling yourself up by your boostraps" isn't guaranteed to get a decent living. What you think doesn't really match with reality for many people. It also implicitly states, again, that anyone who isn't successful (eg median wage or better) doesn't work hard, made huge mistakes, isn't law-abiding or doesn't strive for a better life.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) Change we can believe in.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 08:05 AM) I saw that too. I think its interesting, a lot of people seem to focus on government overspending/undertaxing/debt in some form as the biggest political issue currently putting the country at risk. And that's certainly a big one. But I honestly am starting to think something scares me more - the rising strength of corporatism and particularly high executives, combined with the assinine SCOTUS ruling that says a corporation is a person for political contribution purposes. Add to that the bizarro lobbying rules and laws and a populace that is mostly ignorant of even the simplest political knowledge, and you really have an enormous risk of the US becoming the corporate-ruled malverse we see in future-looking science fiction. Scares the bejeezus out of me. They deserve the bonuses. Gotta retain the top talent, and all that. For some reason, this does not apply to government.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 07:43 AM) Can we officially designate April to be "Junk shot" month? The lack of site record-keeping from the 60's and 70's is pretty shocking.

How does that factor in stats like college-educated blacks having twice as high unemployment as college-educated whites? Equal merit, equal work does not result in equal outcomes.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Apr 3, 2011 -> 05:17 PM) Let Ozzie learn his lessons now against bad teams that aren't going to be any competition for us going out. He hasn't learned his lessons in 6 seasons of managing. I don't think it''ll change, and I don't think he's the only manager who will continue to make poor sacrifice decisions.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Apr 3, 2011 -> 03:51 PM) Why? Did I enter an alternate reality where we warped into the NL or its the AL and its 1950. Its the AL teams score runs. Nibbling around for a single run when other teams pile on runs is a recipe for failure. If you want to bunt late in the game for the tying run, then sure go for it. Before the 7th inning now, no reason at all. The Manager is still trying to recreate his Marlin's NL team. Thank God that Kenny at least took away one of his NL capabilities and found a real DH. The first two games showed a lot of excellent hitting. Hitting to all fields and driving the ball. Hopefully that approach is what we see most of the season. I hope that the "strategy" is taken out of Guillens hands this year. ^^ Three games into the season and I've already found a reason to be pissed at Ozzie! (

GOP budget proposal

50% drop-off in offense from the start of the season through today's game has me a little worried. edit FIRE GREG WALKER

TCQ~

Thanks balta, that ties in well with my rantings on corporatism lately.

Well apparently WGN isn't going to come in for me today

Scientific American gives up

Had to follow the first game on my phone yesterday, glad to see today's is on WGN.

Obama announces economic plans: "By 2023, I want 0% unemployment and an average wage of $250,000 for every American!"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 10:28 AM) My point is that if you make the right choices in life (abide by the law, obtain an education, work hard, etc) the odds are extremely stacked in your favor to come out with a successful life, Would be nice, were it true. eta Productivity, Profits Up, Wages Down "Doing the right thing" is no guarantee of success.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 02:13 PM) Or we've just gone to a more service oriented economy because the price of manufacturing is cheaper elsewhere. Either way, the fact that we have more people on the payroll of the government than in private business in manufacturing is still an issue IMO. Isn't that what Balta is saying? Free trade has meant that it's much, much cheaper for companies to send manufacturing jobs overseas to people making 1/100 of the minimum wage in the US. We've also valued heavy expansion in the pushing-around-money sectors over the last couple of decades way more than we've valued actual production of goods. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 2, 2011 -> 08:14 AM) And we have decided that everyone has a fever, and it needs more government! corporate subsidies! Response elsewhere: "{the] article is a piece of junk that glorifies the fact that corporations are able to make huge profits by replacing workers with machines and overseas child labor and somehow implies that the government's inability to do so is some sort of terrible social curse"