GOP 2012 budget to make $4 trillion-plus in cuts

No, someone in the top 1% is at the top.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. Just please know that you're wrong.

 

Well, when there are people like you out there who assume people who work multiple jobs are screw ups, I think that pretty much explains why I have a negative outlook. There are too many elitists out there who think they're better than everyone else, and quite frankly, they're the problem. They're the ones who held back blacks after the Civil War. They're the ones who kept women from voting. They're the ones who want to blame the poor for everything.

As a public school teacher, I see problems every day. I deal with teenagers who have no time to study. Why? Because their parents are working multiple jobs just to put food on the table, and sometimes those teenagers have to get jobs too to help out. I suppose you would say their parents are screw ups. When we look at the poor, isn't it just amazing how many screw ups there are? I mean, look at the number of poor blacks! WOW! So many screw ups. But I guess they should've just worked harder during Jim Crow so that they could've dug themselves out of the hole they were in. Unfortunately, they couldn't because they weren't legally allowed to. Still makes them a screw up, though, right?

As you seem to be implying that I'd support a hefty tax increase for the wealthy, I don't necessarily think that's a viable solution. We are a democratic republic, however, and there are definitely more non-wealthy people than wealthy people in the US. We all get the same vote though, so if the poor rose up and outvoted the wealthy, I think it would be an interesting day in America. Will that happen? Probably not, but it's an interesting concept.

I guess in a worse case scenario situation we could always follow Jonathan Swift's idea and eat the babies. :shrug:

-Matt

 

It's clear we see the world quite differently. There is nothing I could say here to change your mind and vice-versa. I will say your argument about Jim Crow laws is a bit outdated. Was treatment of blacks awful from the end of the civil war through the 1960's? Absolutely, it wasn't fair and it wasn't right. But how long can you continue to blame policies that ended 60 years ago for the problems in a community?

At any rate, this discussion was supposed to be about the budget. In the interest of getting back on track I say they didn't cut nearly enough. At some point to get things under control we're going to have to make cuts to defense/military spending. I'm looking forward to the upcoming debate regarding raising the debt ceiling. Should be interesting.

 

I don't know if I can agree. Wouldn't poverty be a motivator? That would something the upper middle class could never understand.

 

Poverty as a motivator? Sure, but it can also be a demotivator.

Regardless, upper middle class individuals also have social expectations that lower class individuals lack.

The reality is that a poor individual must work harder than an upper middle class individual to achieve the same results.

 

Really? Where did you find that information?

 

Common sense. When an upper middle class person sets out to climb the ladder they are already half way up the ladder before a poor person even steps a foot on the bottom step. Naturally a poor person is going to have to work harder and longer to get to where the upper middle class person already is. Upper middle class most likely also has connections and help that poor individuals lack and therefore the upper middle will progress faster and without as much effort. You can't really sit there and tell me that you think things are so equal that a poor person and an upper middle class person would get the same spot doing exactly the same thing...really?

 

As mentioned above, it's nearly so obvious to be self-evident.

Circumstances affect an individual's achievements. If you grow up in an upper middle class household, you have greater access to education, you don't lack nutrition, you have economic resources that contribute to your success. You have more connections through your parents' social and professional networks. You tend to go to better schools with more affluent students, thereby providing more opportunities to cultivate business networks. Etc. etc

 

No, no. Members on this forum constantly ask for a source when people present "facts" they disagree with, I'm simply doing the same thing. Without factual evidence, you're just making blind statements based on opinion.

In response to Ellia, I think people are rewarded for working hard and doing the right things. I don't care where you start on the socio-economic "ladder", if you do what you're supposed to do you will be successful. I obviously believe there are advantages to being wealthy, but I don't think someone from a less affluent background is at a significant disadvantage versus members of the middle class (whether that be lower-middle, middle-middle or upper-middle).

 

Where are your "facts?" We have provided our rationale, but you have not given any reasons for your case other than you "don't think." If you want justification for our position, open up just about any sociology textbook. Mining the library for specific citations is of no interest to me because this is a philosophical conflict, and the resources would not likely convince you on a philosophical matter.

 

A simple "I don't have any facts" would have sufficed.

 

I do have facts, however. I simply don't have the desire to compile them for you on this forum.

Regardless, somehow your blanket assertions are excluded from your requirement to publish facts?

You have declared that you are correct by fiat on numerous occasions, and in this case, you have done no different.

But, I will indulge a bit.

From a basic sociology textbook, Mooney, L.A., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2007), Understanding Social Problems, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson:

The authors cite (among others) Corcoran and Adams's report of a longitudinal survey (1997) "Race, Sex, and the Intergenerational Transmission of Poverty" in Consequences of Growing Up Poor that "children in poor families were still much more likely to be poor in early adulthood than were children raised in nonpoor families." (p. 199)

They cite Sobolewski & Amato (2005) to state that "Poor parents have fewer resources to provide their children with books, computers, travel, and other goods and experiences that promote cognitive development and educational achievement" (p. 197).

They cite Duncan and Brooks-Gunn's (1997) work "Income Effects Across the Life Span: Integration and Intepretation"--from the same edited volume as Corcoran and Adams--to argue "that family income is a stronger predictor of ability and achievement outcomes than are measures of parental schooling or family structure."

I admit that this is only a cursory survey of the material as presented in a secondary resource, but it does provide a sample of the evidence out there presented in a basic sociology text.

 

The difference being when I state something I begin with "I think..." or "I believe...". You simply make comments with no indication that they are not based in fact, but your opinion.

In regards to the quoted text you provided, I'm certain I could find authors that believe there is little correlation between socio-economic status and success. I simply choose to clarify that I am posting my opinions so as not to have to search for text to support my argument. Simply posting the text from three academics doesn't make something a fact, it demonstrates that some academics agree with you. Congratulations! People agree with you! Guess what? Some people agree with me.

 

Saying "I think" or "I believe" is redundant in this case. It is obvious that your statement is your opinion. It is your opinion that this is fact. This is creating a distinction without a difference.

The thesis is not a fact because academics recognize it. It is a fact because it is true. I didn't cite academic literature in the beginning because this is such a basic sociological concept that I didn't think it warranted any further reference. However, you asked, you received, and then you discounted (as I predicted). I am well aware that academic citations are not infallible. However, they are valuable, and the combination of empirical evidence with the anecdotal experiences of many seem weighty to me.

In your case it almost seems a point of dogma that hard work trumps all. The evidence does not appear to bear this out.

 

In my defense, I only discounted it because they are wrong. When some of us face adversity we choose to start swinging, others lay down and then blame society because they can't get ahead. I know which camp I am in, your comments make me confident in assuming which one you belong to.
Again, we've gotten way off topic. This thread is supposed to be about the budget. I'll give you the last word if you'd like to reply.

 

First, you need to stop assuming about other people's motivations and desires. I am not blaming society for anyone. I'm fortunate. I purchased my own home at the age of 23 (for which I received no family assistance), have two degrees (both with 4.0 GPAs), and I am actively working on another one that will lead to my long-term career goals. I graduated from high school at 17. I finished my B.A. at 20. I worked hard enough to earn a scholarship that paid all of my tuition, fees, books, and room and board for my B.A.. Although I earned my first degree in a field that I am not pursuing at present, I own up to that fact, and I am taking proactive measures to achieve my goals. I have other things in progress, but I am unable to disclose them in a public forum until they are completed.

You, sir, should refrain from pretentious, self-aggrandizing comments made in assumption over things of which you have no knowledge.

My point has never been to excuse laziness or resignation. I have always encouraged individuals to work as hard as possible. However, I recognize that I was able to achieve what I achieved partly because of factors beyond my control. I grew up in a lower middle class home, and this provided me with some benefits that some of my classmates did not have. This did not mean that my classmates were incapable of making achievements; it just meant that they had to work harder to overcome disadvantages.

Things as simple as a personal computer can make a difference. I have been prepared to work in an office environment that is heavily dependent on technology because I received the appropriate training. Having a computer at home was very helpful because it made things easier. If someone doesn't have a computer, they can still make it, but they have to work harder to seek out a public library or to use someone else's computer. That doesn't make socioeconomic mobility impossible; it just makes it more difficult.

I could list numerous examples. For someone from an upper middle class background, some more advantages existed. I had classmates that worked summers for their parent's law offices or businesses. I could not get a job in those offices because they only hired family. I had to avail myself of other opportunities. Was this fair? No, but I realize that life isn't fair. Did it mean that I could pout because my parents couldn't give me a job? No, it meant that I had to work harder to find a job because I didn't have that particular advantage.

We are responsible to do the best we can with what we have. We don't start in equal places, so each person's challenges are different. Many of these challenges are linked with socioeconomic position.