Trumps budget

[flowerseverywhere]

This was released when he was out of the country, and it does not appear like the administration is defending it. It looks to me like reverse Robin Hood. The super rich get rich, middle class continues the downward slide and poor and lower middle class get screwed.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/16/news/economy/trump-budget-plan-americans/index.html

[iris lilies]

It includes a new social welfare program that pays parents for 6 weeks of maternity/paternity leave.

I hope Paul Ryan stops this in its tracks.

[flowerseverywhere]

It includes a new social welfare program that pays parents for 6 weeks of maternity/paternity leave.

I hope Paul Ryan stops this in its tracks.

do you think that six weeks paid maternity leave is wrong? What do you think of the rest of the budget?

[iris lilies]

do you think that six weeks paid maternity leave is wrong? What do you think of the rest of the budget?
6 weeks, 18 Weeks, two years paid maternity leave, I dont care. As long as the taxpayers arent made to pay for it, it doesnt matter to me. This Democrat in the
White House wants Nanny G. to cough up the money, though.

I like the nod to balancing the U.S. Bidget evenif it is pie in the sky. I am glad someone is talking about it.

Selling off petroleum reserves might well be a good idea.

[bae]

In Norway, you get 46 weeks of parental leave. Iceland, 9 months. Sweden ~16 months. Finland 2-6 months or so.

I just got back from several months in these countries. Lovely places. I enjoyed seeing lots of dads out with their new kids, during the work day, all over the place. I think it is wonderful.

I had the threaten my previous employer with a lawsuit from some very nasty people to get my lawfully-entitled time when my daughter was born, here in the USA.

[BikingLady]

I am removed from childbearing years many moons ago. I am at a loss on why others would need to pay for someone(s) else's choice to have baby. Plan, Save, Prepare are novel ideas in general. I was young and did not plan a baby, yet the second I found out the planning and saving of the tiny pennies began, knowing I had to be off work. Time off is different then paid time off. Go to WM here and you can see dad's with the kids all work day long, probably not for the same reason though.

I guess I am not versed in much that the budget includes or does not include. Same as most I imagine "as long as it does not affect my concerns". I have a son on disability, so yes I am watching this entire process with stress. I do not have the answers.

[Tammy]

I pay for libraries that I don't use. And highways. And parks. And schools. Because I use kindle and I homeschooled and I don't like to drive ...

I love and kiss and feed and change diapers and buy gifts for my foster grandchildren just as I do for my bio grandchildren.

I would love to pay for parental leave for new families. This is the heart of being civilized -- Caring about the group and not just oneself.

[LDAHL]

Would the taxpayers actually be paying for parental leave in this budget, or are they just imposing an unfunded mandate on employers?

[Tybee]

I would love to pay for parental leave for new families. This is the heart of being civilized -- Caring about the group and not just oneself.
+1
It is also much more cost efficient in the long run to invest in healthy family structures than to pay for problems down the road.

[Rogar]

I don't have a strong opinion on parental leave, at least relative to the other changes, but the budget plus the any new tax reform looks like the reverse Robin Hood effect to me. It does look like it is leaving Medicare and SS alone, but Ryan will probably push for changes to that. My biggest beef is the cutbacks in government funded scientific research and environmental projects. What ever cuts are in the plans seem to be offset by spending on military and I'm sure the DOJ will be loading up the prisons with low level drug offenders, deporting illegal immigrants, and building the wall. Here's a list of the 66 programs that will have cutbacks. Some I could agree with, but most not.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/334768-here-are-the-66-programs-eliminated-in-trumps-budget

[LDAHL]

Doesn't "leaving Medicare and Social Security alone" simply leave those programs on a predictable slide into insolvency?

[Williamsmith]

My wife has worked in childcare for a national non profit for thirteen years. She is also a teachers aide in an elementary school emotional support classroom. She has a degree in Elementary and Special Education. What she has taught me in our walking conversations is that the quality of care on a day to day basis is shockingly substandard.

Parents are unbelievably disconnected from their children from infancy all the way up through the age when they can be left alone. Childcare workers are sometimes uncommitted to excellence, distracted and ambivalent about the mission. They are routinely paid a meager salary that demonstrates they are not important.

Childcare administrators for providers routinely run programs short of staff and endanger the health and safety of children in their care. This is motivated sometimes by cost and sometimes by convenience. My daughter and her husband have placed their name on an adoption list. My wife has volunteered to care for that child if it comes along.....to keep it out of a daycare program.

To be sure, there are dedicated and wonderful people in the daycare system but a country that is confused about the importance of their children as reflected by parents abdicating their responsibilities for mentoring and care and a country with a lack of commitment to funding is a country forging its own demise.

I dont believe in government solutions to societal problems. Funding an expanded parental leave program is a bandaid on a deep gash. But we abandoned the model that worked a long time ago in exchange for gross debt and self indulgence. I would be satisfied at this point for a few less unauthorized wars and a few more mothers and fathers playing with their kids at home on the living room floor.

[Alan]

Doesn't "leaving Medicare and Social Security alone" simply leave those programs on a predictable slide into insolvency?Yes, but that's the next generations problem. Paul Ryan should be ashamed of himself for attempting to stop its eventual demise.

[iris lilies]

Would the taxpayers actually be paying for parental leave in this budget, or are they just imposing an unfunded mandate on employers?
It comes out of unemployment insurance fund, so I guess you are right!

Then that is fine, let the employers pay for it! They have tons of money! Win-win, so great. What could possibly be wrong with this?

[LDAHL]

It comes out of unemployment insurance fund, so I guess you are right!

Then that is fine, let the employers pay for it! They have tons of money! Win-win, so great. What could possibly be wrong with this?

Time to invest more in robotics stocks?

[Rogar]

Doesn't "leaving Medicare and Social Security alone" simply leave those programs on a predictable slide into insolvency?

The bean counters seem to say that the two programs are not sustainable with the present system. It doesn't have to mean that benefits should be cut, and there are alternate solutions that have been suggested. Bernie had some ideas, but there are more. No doubt there will come a day of reckoning.

[catherine]

I dont believe in government solutions to societal problems. Funding an expanded parental leave program is a bandaid on a deep gash. But we abandoned the model that worked a long time ago in exchange for gross debt and self indulgence. I would be satisfied at this point for a few less unauthorized wars and a few more mothers and fathers playing with their kids at home on the living room floor.

+1

Government funding can't turn bad parents into good ones, but the idea of setting aside time for bonding as a family is well-established as critically important for the health of the family. And the idea of paid leave is not just a financial one. It doesn't matter how many pennies you save up--Paid leave also protects the employee from losing his/her job while they are taking government-sanctioned and legally protected time off.

[LDAHL]

I dont believe in government solutions to societal problems.

I think that's very true. A good culture will generally produce good government, but a government can do little to produce or promote a good culture. Culture is the result of generations building traditions, common values and a sense of personal responsibility. Lacking that, government is based on this week's politics and a sense of personal entitlement and resentment. People who confuse political agendas with prescriptive morality are prone to breathtaking, often tragic foolishness.

[Zoe Girl]

I also work in the childcare/youth development business. I am very proud to work with an organization that pushes us all the time to safety and excellence. I am often struggling with staffing, but I am hiring all the time. I had a rough year with this, staff that were not quality and needed to be 'coached out', staff just leaving, and ones with serious accidents. What that means is that as the administrator I have spent a lot of time in program to make sure that ratios and quality is met. We have 50 schools in our program, I sometimes see things that I am not okay with and I call it out every time. However that means super long hours at times.

I think that the parents inclined to be really good parents are stressed out by the workloads that everyone is expected to do, the lack of reasonable ways to take leave, and overall intensity of our society that they sometimes have few choices. I see parents across the spectrum, however it breaks my heart to see hardworking parents need to take multiple jobs or accept poor quality care when they truly want better.

[catherine]

I think that's very true. A good culture will generally produce good government, but a government can do little to produce or promote a good culture. Culture is the result of generations building traditions, common values and a sense of personal responsibility. Lacking that, government is based on this week's politics and a sense of personal entitlement and resentment. People who confuse political agendas with prescriptive morality are prone to breathtaking, often tragic foolishness.

Do you disagree that Republicans, for all their laissez-faire anti-governmant, anti-morality economic agendas, cling to a strong prescriptive morality-based social agenda? Government interference is totally appropriate in anti-abortion policy, "Just war" policy, drug use policy, death penalty policy--but not in policies that protect our economically weakest citizens?

[creaker]

Doesn't "leaving Medicare and Social Security alone" simply leave those programs on a predictable slide into insolvency?

When promised revenues from the current budget don't materialize, they'll be able to shift from it being their option to leave these to mandatory changes to fix the budget. And at least at that point provide lawmakers with the argument that they had no choice.

[Teacher Terry]

This budget is horrible but I don't think it has a chance of being passed the way it is. Yes parents deserve 6 weeks paid leave. That is very little. WS: if your wife has a degree why is she not working as a elementary teacher where the pay would be much better? I guess if you are in a rural area it may be a lack of jobs.

[LDAHL]

Do you disagree that Republicans, for all their laissez-faire anti-governmant, anti-morality economic agendas, cling to a strong prescriptive morality-based social agenda? Government interference is totally appropriate in anti-abortion policy, "Just war" policy, drug use policy, death penalty policy--but not in policies that protect our economically weakest citizens?

I think that would depend on the issue and the Republican, but that wasn't my point.

My point was that a corrupt, infantilized culture is ill-equipped for producing good government and that expecting government to act as a sort of agent for moral or cultural change is like trying to trim your eyebrows with a chainsaw. It is a foolish mistake whether undertaken by the left or the right.

[pinkytoe]

Parents are unbelievably disconnected from their children
I have noticed this too in the last generation or so. Much of the parenting out there is abysmal and makes me worry for the future. I would rather pay for time off to parent than adn increase in war machines.

[Williamsmith]

This budget is horrible but I don't think it has a chance of being passed the way it is. Yes parents deserve 6 weeks paid leave. That is very little. WS: if your wife has a degree why is she not working as a elementary teacher where the pay would be much better? I guess if you are in a rural area it may be a lack of jobs.

The simplest answer is that she chose to stay at home full time and raise our three children for the first ten years of their lives. That coincided with the most productive years she could have been teaching and pursuing a masters degree, creating the kind of connections with public school employees that could have produced a career accompanied by a decent pension.

At the time, I was too wrapped up in my own career to understand what a huge sacrifice this was for her but I now do. She hopes that the reason our three kids are successful, self sufficient and highly motivated is in part due to that sacrifice. She is incredibly unselfish.

Undoubtedly, our region is suffering from a shrinking tax base and school districts that are in financial crisis. Our schools are falling apart, the roofs are leaking, and positions are being consolidated, abolished and eliminated as staff retires. Many are fleeing south and west. My youngest son has gone to Texas where he has prospered. Here..... drug abuse and suicide are all too common.

Most have learned the hard way that government really offers few solutions. The solution is in the mirror. You have to accept what you truly see, not what you wish to see. That is why it appears to me the age old political tactic of promising to throw other people's money at poor voters isn't working much anymore. Not around here anyway. Nobody expects to see dollar bills falling from the sky and they won't vote for people who promise it. More likely to see pigs in suits fly.

At least, there is the military. And plenty of people in need of discipline to fill the uniform.

[catherine]

I think that would depend on the issue and the Republican, but that wasn't my point.

My point was that a corrupt, infantilized culture is ill-equipped for producing good government and that expecting government to act as a sort of agent for moral or cultural change is like trying to trim your eyebrows with a chainsaw. It is a foolish mistake whether undertaken by the left or the right.

I agree with the first part, but the role of government is to support the culture's values, right? Our gun laws are different than the gun laws in other countries because our culture values the right of Americans to bear arms. Obviously the government "by the people" is going to reflect the values of the culture. We have a lot of culture clashes in this country because it's so big and so diverse and sometimes we're forced to get the government to mediate or even forcefully intervene--i.e., Civil Rights in the 60s.

[flowerseverywhere]

One of the theories is if benefits are cut people will just work harder and not become accustomed to relying on the government. While that may be true for some, I fear for people who have done everything right yet still need help.
but maybe the goal is survival of the fittest. A disabled child, they certainly don't need food and medicine. Blind elderly? Who needs them. Factory closed down and jobs outsourced to Asia? Boo hoo,for you. Suck it up. Pregnant, go squat in a corner and pop that baby out and get back to work.

What is wrong with those free loaders. They should have planned better.

[LDAHL]

I agree with the first part, but the role of government is to support the culture's values, right?

I'm not so sure of that. Saying government should support our values sounds too close to saying government should impose those values. I'm more comfortable with idea that the government should exercise its (narrowly defined) powers through elected officials who are making decisions informed by their culture's best values. Most times, that should result in a workable consensus.

A culture with corrupt or naive values will inevitably result in a corrupt, naive government. But government can't itself move the needle on values itself. "Politics is downstream of culture", and always will be. What is more loathsome than a politician of any persuasion lecturing us on morality?

[catherine]

One of the theories is if benefits are cut people will just work harder and not become accustomed to relying on the government. While that may be true for some, I fear for people who have done everything right yet still need help.
but maybe the goal is survival of the fittest. A disabled child, they certainly don't need food and medicine. Blind elderly? Who needs them. Factory closed down and jobs outsourced to Asia? Boo hoo,for you. Suck it up. Pregnant, go squat in a corner and pop that baby out and get back to work.

What is wrong with those free loaders. They should have planned better.

When I think about the "suck it up" mentality, I always think about that movie Trading Places--specifically I really wonder how many people have been in a situation where they needed help through no fault of their own. I know that Bush 43 made "random acts of kindness" a catch-phrase, but what person who has encountered real misfortune wants to rely on random acts? I have been through tough times despite being able, hard-working and ambitious, and I prevailed only because of my strong and loving nuclear family. But not everyone has a strong family like I did. So let's just kick them to the curb and let them fend for themselves.

I prefer to think of government as extended family. Others think of it as a just a means to pave roads. Purely philosophical differences.

[Teacher Terry]

WS: I found myself in a similar situation as your wife. I did not start college until my youngest went to school. Then I got a BA and no job. So a master's and a crappy job, etc. Eventually we left WI because I was so frustrated at spending so much time and effort in college to never have a career. Luckily my DH had a job that he could do almost anywhere. That made it so at least I ended up with a 15 year pension. I know that now is not a good time to be a public employee there. All my friends retired when they could see the handwriting on the wall. Luckily they had enough time in to do so.

[BikingLady]

Correct me as you will, I just surfed as I am not educated on the budget as well as others. The paid maternity leave as I just read is an extension of unemployment insurance? Which will be left up to states to set and fund? That is far different than I had understood it to be and better.

[Alan]

One of the theories is if benefits are cut people will just work harder and not become accustomed to relying on the government. While that may be true for some, I fear for people who have done everything right yet still need help.
but maybe the goal is survival of the fittest. A disabled child, they certainly don't need food and medicine. Blind elderly? Who needs them. Factory closed down and jobs outsourced to Asia? Boo hoo,for you. Suck it up. Pregnant, go squat in a corner and pop that baby out and get back to work.

What is wrong with those free loaders. They should have planned better.
I don't think anyone is advocating an all or nothing approach, consider the reality of middle ground.

[jp1]

I don't think anyone is advocating an all or nothing approach, consider the reality of middle ground.

Trump, based on his budget, seems to be advocating as close to nothing as he possibly can.

[flowerseverywhere]

I don't think anyone is advocating an all or nothing approach, consider the reality of middle ground.

it is an all or nothing approach if you are affected. Did you read the CBO report on the effects of the healthcare bill? Have you read the budget cuts and who they might affect? The deep Medicaid cuts will affect school districts, and people who are trying to make an honest living but cannot fund the basic necessities like food and health insurance Maybe someone finally found Reagans mythological welfare queens after all these years but I don't think so.

In the meantime the wealthy get wealthier, more money is funneled to big companies to build our war machine, and we continue to meddle in other countries. America first? Not likely. Maybe rich Americans first.

We do do a lot of traveling in the US. Like to Presidential libraries, museums, historical sites, national and state parks. In the course we often are passing through small town rural America. Smaller towns have dollar generals, a supermarket, and larger areas have super Walmarts. Abandoned factories, closed down stores in the small cities. Few mom and pop restaurants but chains where frozen food is brought in. Corner hardware stores, butchers and so on increasingly hard to find. No jobs with any future except for the few that might become managers in a chain.

find solutions, just don't make cuts.

[MaryHu]

The truly rich don't see the truly poor as even being human. They consider them a sub-species. That makes it so much easier to deny them things like health care, child care, food stamps etc. They think if someone is poor it's because they are lazy, shiftless, unambitious, stupid. They never consider all the things that can happen, that are totally beyond a person's control, to make and keep them poor*. As for their own good fortune; most of them were born on third base and truly believe they made that home run all by themselves with only their own effort. And they had such a hard time of it. They really deserve a break.

*(not to mention official public policy to have a certain percentage of unemployment to keep wages low, inflation in check etc.)

"It's only called class warfare when the poor fight back." The rest of the time it's called business as usual.

[nswef]

You explained it well MaryHu.

[catherine]

You explained it well MaryHu.

I agree. MaryHu, your comment about third base made me think of this book, which I've been meaning to read. Born on Third Base by Chuck Colllins is about a 1%er who gave away a lot of his wealth and spends his time talking about why such inequality is bad, and how to build bridges between the wealthy and the non-wealthy for the common good.

https://www.chelseagreen.com/born-on-third-base

[Alan]

The truly rich don't see the truly poor as even being human. They consider them a sub-species. That makes it so much easier to deny them things like health care, child care, food stamps etc. They think if someone is poor it's because they are lazy, shiftless, unambitious, stupid.


You explained it well ......

http://www.happyjar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014-05-30-Confirmation-Bias.png

[nswef]

That cartoon certainly applies to many!

[catherine]

Alan, why is always the other guy's belief that is wrong? Why is it always the other guy who refuses to listen to the other side? Why is always the other guy with faulty evidence?

[Alan]

Alan, why is always the other guy's belief that is wrong? Why is it always the other guy who refuses to listen to the other side? Why is always the other guy with faulty evidence?I suspect it's simple confirmation bias. But maybe that's my bias showing, perhaps rich people really do think the way they're always presented here, I doubt it though.

[catherine]

I suspect it's simple confirmation bias. But maybe that's my bias showing, perhaps rich people really do think the way they're always presented here, I doubt it though.

I also highly doubt all rich people treat the underclass like subspecies, but unfortunately history has shown this to be true for probably most, if not all, civilizations where money is the measure of where you stand in society and how much power you can buy.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I suspect that pretty much everyone sees the VERY poor (and I do mean the VERY poor) as less than human sometimes, so offended by the obvious truth, not so much so.

Afterall, it's very hard sometimes to see as human the homeless people one encounters begging on the freeway entrance, lying on the streets, living in tent cities etc.. and often times one wishes they would just stop annoying one as well (as in: "I'm so sick of them here begging for money"). But actual political power is a different thing than getting silently annoyed at a homeless person on a freeway on-ramp, and the rich have it more than anyone, so society reflects their actual preferences much more than my annoyance.

[flowerseverywhere]

I suspect it's simple confirmation bias. But maybe that's my bias showing, perhaps rich people really do think the way they're always presented here, I doubt it though.

well some rich people think only of themselves and how to make more money. As long as their family and cronies are benefiting. . Some rich people enjoy the fruits of their labor and also are generous and philanthropic. I would probably be defined as rich however I started at the other end of the spectrum. My sibs and I were taken from our home and ended up in foster care. If government programs did not help us I cannot imagine where we would be. Who cares about biracial orphans? Lucky for us the government did.
Fast forward 40 years and we ended up nurses, social workers and an engineer. It did not happen without the safety net. We have all paid back many times the help we received. And none of us were disabled. Can you imagine in your wildest dream what would have happened to us if anyone was not pretty smart. What if we had a disability?

Some people get served a shit sandwich. If we had not benefitted from government programs we might have ended up prostitutes or dead. We were not losers, parasites or takers. And we have all given back through service and taxes many times what was given to us.

[rosarugosa]

Flowers: That is an amazing story; thanks for sharing with us!
ANM: I think there's a defense mechanism whereby people perceive others as less than human (e.g. slave owners in the American south, Germans in Germany during WW2) to defend against the horrible thought of "that could be me or my loved ones!"

[Williamsmith]

well some rich people think only of themselves and how to make more money. As long as their family and cronies are benefiting. . Some rich people enjoy the fruits of their labor and also are generous and philanthropic. I would probably be defined as rich however I started at the other end of the spectrum. My sibs and I were taken from our home and ended up in foster care. If government programs did not help us I cannot imagine where we would be. Who cares about biracial orphans? Lucky for us the government did.
Fast forward 40 years and we ended up nurses, social workers and an engineer. It did not happen without the safety net. We have all paid back many times the help we received. And none of us were disabled. Can you imagine in your wildest dream what would have happened to us if anyone was not pretty smart. What if we had a disability?

Some people get served a shit sandwich. If we had not benefitted from government programs we might have ended up prostitutes or dead. We were not losers, parasites or takers. And we have all given back through service and taxes many times what was given to us.

While I respect the story, it must be acknowledged that prior to Roosevelts "New Deal" and Johnsons "Great Society" many orphans, poor and unlucky people were born with little opportunity and made similar successes of themselves without government reliance.

LDAHL posted a truth that should be understood. Good government is a reflection of a moral people. A government system can not make good stewards of its people. Giving credit to the government for individual success undermines your own freedom and autonomy. I do not wish to succeed as a result of government policies.....I wish to succeed despite them. And the best scenario is that I succeed without its many interferences where it is not needed in the first place.

flowerseverywhere....charity was not the invention of government. Good people, like you and your siblings define it and make it possible.

[catherine]

While I respect the story, it must be acknowledged that prior to Roosevelts "New Deal" and Johnsons "Great Society" many orphans, poor and unlucky people were born with little opportunity and made similar successes of themselves without government reliance.

LDAHL posted a truth that should be understood. Good government is a reflection of a moral people. A government system can not make good stewards of its people. Giving credit to the government for individual success undermines your own freedom and autonomy. I do not wish to succeed as a result of government policies.....I wish to succeed despite them. And the best scenario is that I succeed without its many interferences where it is not needed in the first place.

flowerseverywhere....charity was not the invention of government. Good people, like you and your siblings define it and make it possible.

This is a chicken and egg argument that can go round and round. Yes, government is a product "of the people, by the people and for the people." No, none of us make it "on our own" without government policies and infrastructure. Yes, those policies were created by our three branches of government. No, it is not wrong to expect our government to support our values, nor is it possible for the government NOT to support them unless you are a strict libertarian.

What is success? Is your success built on the backs of other people? Is your success due to the advantages granted to you by family? Were those advantages given to your family through the laws and policies of the government? Did our elected officials determine the level of "charity" based on our votes? Of course. Should government support even be called "charity"?

What is government interference? The laws that protect churches from taxation? The laws that permit a woman control over her own body? The laws that enabled the South to be desegretated? The laws that determine that minor drug offenders land in jail? The laws that permit the poor and infirm to access to out tax dollars for medical purposes? Whose morality are these laws meant to uphold? Which of these laws do you support and which do I support? If you support different laws that I do, are you more "moral" than I?

Point being, the tension between government and morality is constantly in flux and impossible to untangle. You may think that there should be NO government interference other than collecting the necessary funds to pay our bills. That's fine. But that's a value judgement in and of itself. Some say it's the duty of government to promote the general welfare (that was the writers of the Constitution)--it's up to us to decide where that line is drawn.

[catherine]

While I respect the story, it must be acknowledged that prior to Roosevelts "New Deal" and Johnsons "Great Society" many orphans, poor and unlucky people were born with little opportunity and made similar successes of themselves without government reliance.



Just like my unlucky great-grandfather who, because he was poor, was thrown into an asylum and buried in an unmarked mass grave. Not everyone is a Horatio Alger. And if they aren't, it's not necessarily because they had no character or morals.

[ApatheticNoMore]

While I respect the story, it must be acknowledged that prior to Roosevelts "New Deal" and Johnsons "Great Society" many orphans, poor and unlucky people were born with little opportunity and made similar successes of themselves without government reliance.

some did but many of us have relatives helped a lot by say the G.I. Bill. Many succeeded then in ways that just aren't even applicable now, like high school drop outs succeeded, but very few parents that actually want success for their kid would recommend that path. They would recommend something far more conventional: graduate high school or at least get a G.E.D. then ideally go to college (but try to limit debt while doing so, unless quite certain it will pay off) or if that's absolutely untenable based on one's personality, find a way to apprentice or train for a lucrative trade etc.. Why? Because it's advice that is much more tailored to the modern world than how someone succeeded in 1910, which is likely to lead to almost *spectacular* failure in the modern world.

While there are political policies that have made things much worse economically than anyone can defend (including things like outsourcing jobs), the modern world is so different from the world in say 1910, that it is literally *never* going to be that world (technology, population increases globally and nationally etc.).

Morality and financial success have very little to do with each other. I suppose it is possible to be such a rotten person, that karma bites one back hard, and one makes enough enemies to undermine their success as noone is on one's side anymore. But on the other hand, many people have chosen at any (or many) given points in their life to take a less lucrative job over one that was more morally dubious. And so their rewards for doing so are certainly not in terms of financial success, which may have been greater otherwise. But then they are presumably people with enough character not to measure themselves primarily by financial success anyway (although in this culture it can be tempting and of course money is still practically useful).


Giving credit to the government for individual success undermines your own freedom and autonomy.

very few people live by that degree of autonomy, it's very rare no matter what people pretend (observation tends to show otherwise). And I think those who do probably have a harder time of it, and I probably come far closer than most, to relying on noone but oneself (I obviously don't mean in a survivalist sense). They may not rely on the government, but most people rely on spouses/lovers, rely on their parents etc.. And they get A LOT of help here, their parents have been doing stuff to help them get ahead from day 1 pretty much, and I don't just mean "oh we had enough to eat and never went hungry growing up" although even that is helpful, I mean making sure they go to good schools etc.. Their lives are heavily planned actually they just don't tend to see it, because they are like a fish in water. Some people have no such advantages and it makes all the sense in the world for them to take government help instead even if it's just a grant to go to college for low income people etc. (the help can be a help or a hindrance but it has nothing to do with government help per se - it's probably far more often a help). Because really very few other successful people are doing it without help of some sort either.

[BikingLady]

They may not rely on the government, but most people rely on spouses/lovers, rely on their parents etc

I am not sure I can agree with that line.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well help is anything, in a mundane sense, it's your parents checking everyday that you are doing your homework as a kid. But then I've seen white collar parents micromanaging what their college age kid does. It's shocking at first, these are young ADULTS, what is up with these helicopter parents? But although it's hardly some pure good for parents to have to be so involved in the lives of young adults, it kind of makes sense when on realizes the economy they are coming into is worse than say what I did (even then hardly good times), and so there is less room for error, so parents feel they have to helicopter.

It's the S.A.T. prep and S.A.T. study places thicker than Starbucks coffee locations in some upper class neighborhoods, thick as roaches, these prep places are everywhere there. Don't think you'll find quite so many in a poor neighborhood. It's the never ending obsession among white collar parents about getting their kid into a good school district (really it is a topic of constant conversation among parents of school age kids). Parents with less income seldom have that option. It's meeting whole groups of people with very lucrative careers like lawyers and knowing many of them went to pretty fancy private and not public schools and seeing how they raise their kids. It's parents giving advice to their 20 somethings to work real hard and maximize income and savings now for their future. You have to spend some time among the top 20-30% income people to see it, if not one isn't ever going to see what tremendous advantages kids raised in that class have. And that's not even the super super rich, I'm not talking Rockefeller here, I'm sure those kids have advantages beyond fathoming, but that's beyond my social group needless to say. Yes even having enough to eat growing up is an advantage over not, but it really doesn't stop there.

As for relying on spouses and lovers, that's maybe more peripheral. I'm super feminist, so I can hardly let a man pay for my meal even, and usually don't. But women sometimes do use their sex to their economic advantage sad to say (I'm always a little shocked at this as well, but it's not that uncommon). And sometimes spouses help each other financially which is sweet of course, but even then other single people (and being single especially financially is really more a pure case of self-reliance if self-reliance is our ideal) have it harder than couples who are helping each other out financially.

[razz]

What Wsmith et al seem to have forgotten is that the wonderful jobs and benefits that his/our parents enjoyed which have now disappeared -caused in 86% of cases to automation according to reputable research- was the result of government policies which generated jobs for the returning soldiers from WW2. What does a government do when that many people return from war? The war machine converted to creating household goods, GI education for new opportunities...
Churches or other supportive agencies prior to WW2 just could not have done what was needed. IMHO anyway.

[BikingLady]

Wow I assumed this was a simple living board not a slam those that have money board.

[flowerseverywhere]

While I respect the story, it must be acknowledged that prior to Roosevelts "New Deal" and Johnsons "Great Society" many orphans, poor and unlucky people were born with little opportunity and made similar successes of themselves without government reliance.

LDAHL posted a truth that should be understood. Good government is a reflection of a moral people. A government system can not make good stewards of its people. Giving credit to the government for individual success undermines your own freedom and autonomy. I do not wish to succeed as a result of government policies.....I wish to succeed despite them. And the best scenario is that I succeed without its many interferences where it is not needed in the first place.

flowerseverywhere....charity was not the invention of government. Good people, like you and your siblings define it and make it possible.

Bull. Government programs saved my life and I would be terribly selfish and ungrateful not to admit that.

[catherine]

Wow I assumed this was a simple living board not a slam those that have money board.

Sorry, BikingLady, I don't see these comments as slamming those that have money at all. Why do you?

[Teacher Terry]

Flowers: thanks so much for sharing. I spent my career in human services first in social work working with abused kids and their families and then helping people with disabilities get back to work. It is a myth that people don't want to work and live off the government $. These people are few and far between. Without special programs people with disabilities would never get to work. There is employer discrimination big time. Many people acquire a disability later in life and need help/training to change to a career that they can physically do, etc. It is no one's fault but just life. Do you want to feed a hungry child now or wait until they have a low IQ because of lack of nutrition and then you will care for this person your entire life? Yes I had cases like that by at the age of 3 the child's fate was sealed because the Mom had a low IQ and did not realize she was starving her 3 kids. Finally someone called social services to intervene.

[Teacher Terry]

Many rich people do great things by giving most of their $ to charity. Think about Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, many movie stars, etc.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Wow I assumed this was a simple living board not a slam those that have money board.

I don't know who that is a response to, but I think (?) the point I was making was much more focused on: very little in life is a result of self-reliance in any pure form (not when you look at it, but all generalizations have an occasional exception) and so noone should be ashamed of taking government help if they need it or if it can help them get ahead in life.

And there is no reason to feel like doing so undermines their freedom and autonomy. While undermining autonomy might theoretically be possible, getting say government help to go to college if one is poor (or EVEN IF one is middle class. Although direct grants are mostly for the poor many programs to help the middle class with this also exist), is far more likely to enable one to be in a better position than NOT doing so. And it will also probably allow one to have more freedom and autonomy later than those who don't do so (for instance one is more likely to find work, is more likely to stay in a relationship for reasons besides dire financial need to do so etc. - those things are autonomy in a real sense).

Especially as pure, never took any help from anyone, autonomy is a VERY hard road and most successful people actually get a ton of help along the way to get them there, even when they don't see it because they only socialize with people just like them.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Do you want to feed a hungry child now or wait until they have a low IQ because of lack of nutrition and then you will care for this person your entire life? Yes I had cases like that by at the age of 3 the child's fate was sealed because the Mom had a low IQ and did not realize she was starving her 3 kids. Finally someone called social services to intervene.

yea someone refusing assistance while their kid goes hungry would be another obvious example of: just take government help, please! (but not something most mothers would do regardless of ideology, closer to frank mental illness there. I mean trying to be heroically self-reliant without kids is one thing and while perhaps stupid and ill advised still sane and entirely one's own prerogative. But you have to be pretty deeply disturbed to not get help for your kids if they need food etc.).

[catherine]

Many rich people do great things by giving most of their $ to charity. Think about Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, many movie stars, etc.

Of course they do! I'm not saying all the rich are selfish and greedy any more than I would say that all poor people are lazy and shiftless. This thread is not an indictment of rich people--it's a discussion of the government's role in our lives. That's how I see it anyway.

[Alan]

Wow I assumed this was a simple living board not a slam those that have money board.To be fair, the attitude has been tempered over the years but you still need a thick skin sometimes, especially if you're a white male, well-to-do, Republican. I think we're under-represented here because we spend all our time subjugating, moralizing, denying basic rights and celebrating when those beneath us die. That can often take all day.

[jp1]

I fail to see how pointing out that people don't succeed entirely of their own effort is slamming people with money. if our society and our wealth and our government and infrastructure didn't have a role in helping people succeed there would be just as many success stories in poor countries like Haiti or any other third world country.

[Tradd]

I'm disturbed by the cut in environmental programs on the Great Lakes. We get our water from the Great Lakes, but more than that, as a new diver who has been dreaming of Great Lakes shipwrecks for years, I now have the chance to dive them. I don't want the water quality diminished. Remember what happened off Ohio in Lake Erie within the past couple of years with all the algae or whatever it was that made water undrinkable for a while?

[ApatheticNoMore]

To be fair, the attitude has been tempered over the years but you still need a thick skin sometimes, especially if you're a white male, well-to-do, Republican. I think we're under-represented here because we spend all our time subjugating, moralizing, denying basic rights and celebrating when those beneath us die.

or maybe you are simply wrong :).

[rosarugosa]

To be fair, the attitude has been tempered over the years but you still need a thick skin sometimes, especially if you're a white male, well-to-do, Republican. I think we're under-represented here because we spend all our time subjugating, moralizing, denying basic rights and celebrating when those beneath us die. That can often take all day.

Alan, you are such a smart-ass! You crack me up sometimes!:laff:

[iris lilies]

To be fair, the attitude has been tempered over the years but you still need a thick skin sometimes, especially if you're a white male, well-to-do, Republican. I think we're under-represented here because we spend all our time subjugating, moralizing, denying basic rights and celebrating when those beneath us die. That can often take all day.

But your time is coming to an end, my pretty. Just you wait. You wont be able to tread on me much longer.

:)

[catherine]

I'm disturbed by the cut in environmental programs on the Great Lakes. We get our water from the Great Lakes, but more than that, as a new diver who has been dreaming of Great Lakes shipwrecks for years, I now have the chance to dive them. I don't want the water quality diminished. Remember what happened off Ohio in Lake Erie within the past couple of years with all the algae or whatever it was that made water undrinkable for a while?

That's a shame.. And if the Great Barrier Reef is on your bucket list of dives, you better get there quick.

[Tradd]

The GBF isn't on my bucket list.

[Teacher Terry]

Catherine: no I was not talking about your post but about others. ANM: the mother was not refusing help she was intellectually disabled (very low IQ) and had no clue she was starving her kids.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I suppose I may have been overly sarcastic in mocking status chasing and status maintenance (like saying "S.A.T. prep places were as thick as cockroaches"). That's all I can figure is the language got over the top since the main point seems to have been lost.

Not relying on anything and all that ... when my dad had me he was 52 years old, he gave me a hard time sometimes (and not in a joking way either) for not being self-supporting at age 16 like he was, but to do that I would have had to drop out of HIGH SCHOOL. And I didn't even learn of the existence of GEDs till after I had graduated high school, so it's not like he was *even* pushing that route. Being a high school drop out would have done me no good, as the job market for my generation had nothing to do with how it was 50 years ago! The world had changed radically by that point. Although no my dad even then NEVER made special standards for me because I was female (because I don't think people growing up poor like him had them), it was always whatever he did 50 years ago as a man, I should do now, but the problem is the world had changed in 50 years. So yes I find applying standards that predate the New Deal (even my dad wasn't exactly pre New Deal) to be ridiculous in the year 2017. And yes most people get lots of help.

[LDAHL]

To be fair, the attitude has been tempered over the years but you still need a thick skin sometimes, especially if you're a white male, well-to-do, Republican. I think we're under-represented here because we spend all our time subjugating, moralizing, denying basic rights and celebrating when those beneath us die. That can often take all day.

Don't forget all that time in SAT prep courses and looking for tax loopholes.

[LDAHL]

But your time is coming to an end, my pretty.

:)

And your little dog too.

[flowerseverywhere]

Many rich people do great things by giving most of their $ to charity. Think about Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, many movie stars, etc.

you are right. Matt Damon and clean drinking water, Bono and African debt relief, Andre Agassi and his school in Las Vegas, the list goes on and on. And many middle class give lots of time and money to help others (think literacy volunteers, meals on wheels for example). Things that truly help people live better, ore productive lives.

And then hen there are families who spend huge amounts of money on clothes , like Melanie's 51,000 jacket (more than the US Median income)
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/27/melania-trumps-pricey-jacket-draws-attention-in-sicily.html

and tweet about making champagne pospicles to celebrate Memorial Day. Fun fun fun! http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/politics/ivanka-trump-champagne-popsicle-twitter-memorial-day/

it is is the latter group that stands out to most people especially since I have seen no evidence of Trump hospital wings, schools etc. like many super wealthy. And of course they have not released tax returns or evidence that they are philanthropic in any way. It must be hard for them to live in a dump like the White House with the opulence they are used to. It is their money and they are entitled to do with it what they wish, but it is incredibly sad to me and I cannot fathom how you would get satisfaction out of making yet another million to add to the coffers.

[Williamsmith]

My region benefitted more from the philanthropy of wealthy industrialists than it ever did from (corrupt)government. Many in this country and a few here have gotten too much of an appetite for socialism lately. Hatred for the wealthy fueled by hired typists of the left masquerading as investigative journalists is now the norm.

As a teen with a desire to learn through reading books, I visited libraries and each one had a common trait. They were called "Carnegie" libraries because without Andrew Carnegie's financial backing, they wouldn't have existed. He was once the wealthiest person on the planet. And after he retired at age 66.... he gave away 90% of his fortune. Carnegie funded scientific research and set up a pension fund for teachers with a 10 million dollar donation. He built more that 2000 public libraries and donated over $125 million dollars to colleges.

I imagine that some would have rather 90% of Carnegie's wealth were seized from him and placed into the coffers of politicians so that they could efficiently and fairly distribute it to the deserving masses. But an examination of the fairness and efficiency of Congress and D.C. should be enough to cure you of the willingness to accept this fairytale.

[iris lilies]

And your little dog too.
I'll bet Moose and Squirrel would give those flying monkeys a run for the money.

[Lainey]

I imagine that those living in the democratic socialist countries would disagree with you, Williamsmith.

Count me as another one who does not want to rely solely on the largesse of the billionaire class; likewise I do not want to see political candidates elected thanks to their donations of multi millions of dollars to install their chosen politicians who will continue to let them escape their fair share of taxes.

And, once again, the "hatred" for the wealthy? That's a hatred of their outsize influence which damages our democracy.

[creaker]

My region benefitted more from the philanthropy of wealthy industrialists than it ever did from (corrupt)government. Many in this country and a few here have gotten too much of an appetite for socialism lately. Hatred for the wealthy fueled by hired typists of the left masquerading as investigative journalists is now the norm.

As a teen with a desire to learn through reading books, I visited libraries and each one had a common trait. They were called "Carnegie" libraries because without Andrew Carnegie's financial backing, they wouldn't have existed. He was once the wealthiest person on the planet. And after he retired at age 66.... he gave away 90% of his fortune. Carnegie funded scientific research and set up a pension fund for teachers with a 10 million dollar donation. He built more that 2000 public libraries and donated over $125 million dollars to colleges.

I imagine that some would have rather 90% of Carnegie's wealth were seized from him and placed into the coffers of politicians so that they could efficiently and fairly distribute it to the deserving masses. But an examination of the fairness and efficiency of Congress and D.C. should be enough to cure you of the willingness to accept this fairytale.

Didn't folks like Carnegie leverage "corrupt government" to help build their wealth in the first place?

[LDAHL]

I'll bet Moose and Squirrel would give those flying monkeys a run for the money.

I hear Trump's son-in-law is tight with Boris Badenov.

[LDAHL]

And, once again, the "hatred" for the wealthy? That's a hatred of their outsize influence which damages our democracy.

If money conquers all, why did Clinton lose to Trump despite spending twice as much?

[Alan]

I'll bet Moose and Squirrel would give those flying monkeys a run for the money.Moose suffered a stroke two years ago and had to be put down. Squirrel would yap them to distraction though.

[ApatheticNoMore]

There a library around here that was originally a Carnegie library, of course the New Deal project that was the Hoover damn is also still producing power some 80 years later as well.

[catherine]

My region benefitted more from the philanthropy of wealthy industrialists than it ever did from (corrupt)government. Many in this country and a few here have gotten too much of an appetite for socialism lately. Hatred for the wealthy fueled by hired typists of the left masquerading as investigative journalists is now the norm.

As a teen with a desire to learn through reading books, I visited libraries and each one had a common trait. They were called "Carnegie" libraries because without Andrew Carnegie's financial backing, they wouldn't have existed. He was once the wealthiest person on the planet. And after he retired at age 66.... he gave away 90% of his fortune. Carnegie funded scientific research and set up a pension fund for teachers with a 10 million dollar donation. He built more that 2000 public libraries and donated over $125 million dollars to colleges.

I imagine that some would have rather 90% of Carnegie's wealth were seized from him and placed into the coffers of politicians so that they could efficiently and fairly distribute it to the deserving masses. But an examination of the fairness and efficiency of Congress and D.C. should be enough to cure you of the willingness to accept this fairytale.

Williamsmith, I think deflection of the argument into an insinuation that the wealthy are hated and should be stripped of their wealth is counterproductive to this argument. I would expect this type of response from superficial thinkers, but not from the intelligent people posting here.

Let me say for the record:
I don't hate wealthy people--I simply have issue with the fact that there are fewer and fewer checks and balances that discourage vast inequality of wealth. It's not a matter of jealousy--it's a matter that has been proven time and again a that vast inequality of wealth in any country is bad for the country. Think French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, even the American Revolution was ignited by tax inequalities.

You talk about your neck of the woods, and you're right, Andrew Carnegie was compelled to give back to his local community as well as wider community. But even he said "The man that dies rich dies disgraced." I admire Andrew Carnegie--even recognizing that he exploited his workers and had to handle a rebellion among them from to time. But he was for taxing the rich:


The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The State of Pennsylvania now takes—subject to some exceptions—one-tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death-duties; and, most significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for - public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. --Gospel of Wealth

People like me who appreciate Bernie Sanders don't want a free meal ticket and if McCarthism came back, I'd be clean. Just as there are checks and balances built our system, we want economic checks and balances to counter the potential negative outcomes of capitalism, of which even Adam Smith and Keynes wrote extensively and warned against. We want reins on inequality and injustice, and we want all people to benefit from the greatness this country has to offer.

I want capitalism that's based on voluntary co-operation, not sociopathic winner-take-all:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/sociopathic-capitalism/506240/?utm_source=atlfb


ETA a closing statement by Carnegie: "There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; but in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor—a reign of harmony."

[jp1]

If money conquers all, why did Clinton lose to Trump despite spending twice as much?

As with everything there are always outliers. One data point does not make a statistic.

[LDAHL]

As with everything there are always outliers. One data point does not make a statistic.

Let me put it another way. Has a political ad ever convinced you of anything (excepting the venality of political ads)?

[Williamsmith]

Williamsmith, I think deflection of the argument into an insinuation that the wealthy are hated and should be stripped of their wealth is counterproductive to this argument. I would expect this type of response from superficial thinkers, but not from the intelligent people posting here.

Let me say for the record:
I don't hate wealthy people--I simply have issue with the fact that there are fewer and fewer checks and balances that discourage vast inequality of wealth. It's not a matter of jealousy--it's a matter that has been proven time and again a that vast inequality of wealth in any country is bad for the country. Think French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, even the American Revolution was ignited by tax inequalities.

You talk about your neck of the woods, and you're right, Andrew Carnegie was compelled to give back to his local community as well as wider community. But even he said "The man that dies rich dies disgraced." I admire Andrew Carnegie--even recognizing that he exploited his workers and had to handle a rebellion among them from to time. But he was for taxing the rich:

The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The State of Pennsylvania now takes—subject to some exceptions—one-tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death-duties; and, most significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for - public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. --Gospel of Wealth

People like me who appreciate Bernie Sanders don't want a free meal ticket and if McCarthism came back, I'd be clean. Just as there are checks and balances built our system, we want economic checks and balances to counter the potential negative outcomes of capitalism, of which even Adam Smith and Keynes wrote extensively and warned against. We want reins on inequality and injustice, and we want all people to benefit from the greatness this country has to offer.

I want capitalism that's based on voluntary co-operation, not sociopathic winner-take-all:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/sociopathic-capitalism/506240/?utm_source=atlfb


ETA a closing statement by Carnegie: "There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; but in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor—a reign of harmony."




To have been insulted as a dimwitted simpleton in such an eloquent fashion reflects a certain arrogance with a touch of pity. Kind of ironic that simple thinkers could be out of place amongst more highly evolved life forms on a simple living forum.

Thinking of the wealthy as some sort of rainy day fund and turning over those assets to the same politicians who are conspiring to make them wealthy......well that doesn't seem like good "back woods" logic to this hillbilly. Last election was a sort of simpletons trifecta. Clinton was embarrassed, Sanders was bamboozled, and Trump was coronated.

[jp1]

In the last 56 years of presidential elections only twice has the loser spent significantly more than the winner.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/26816/has-every-u-s-presidential-election-been-won-by-the-candidate-with-the-most-mon

And in congressional races the bigger spender wins over 90% of the time.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/money-pretty-good-predictor-will-win-elections/

To be sure one could make the argument that correlation doesn't equal causation. Perhaps it's incumbency that matters more for congress. Or perhaps the ability to raise more money is indicative of a candidate's better electibility for other reasons. But regardless, if I was asked to predict elections based on only any one data point I could choose I think I'd choose the amount of money raised to make my prediction.

[catherine]

To have been insulted as a dimwitted simpleton in such an eloquent fashion reflects a certain arrogance with a touch of pity. Kind of ironic that simple thinkers could be out of place amongst more highly evolved life forms on a simple living forum.


Haha.. Sincerely didn't mean to insult.. I thought I called out your intelligence. I'm just tired of answering a challenge to the status quo with the same old "all you socialists hate rich people" argument.

Anyway, you'd think I've learned by now that in some places on this forum "east is east and west is west and ne'er the twain shall meet." So I've said my piece. Over and out.