Class warfare is failed recycled politics

[birdog1960]

 

 

Just in this thread alone, we have found that three of the conservatives of PPP have achieved this and I'm sure there are a few others as well. So according to Birdog's logic, this represents either a statistical virtually impossible anomaly or that the conservatives on PPP are some of the luckiest men in the world.

 

 

you've omitted the most likely possibility: a sampling error. how likely is it that someone who has tried and failed is going to join the thread and write about it? conversly, it's quite likely that those who have succeeded will.

 

just one more example of the dualist thinking so in evidence on this site. in medicine, we formulate differential diagnoses. if you are only able to produce one or two possibilities to explain your findings, you are likely not very good. i think this can be extrapolated to life in general.

[Magox]

you've omitted the most likely possibility: a sampling error. how likely is it that someone who has tried and failed is going to join the thread and write about it? conversly, it's quite likely that those who have succeeded will.

 

just one more example of the dualist thinking so in evidence on this site. in medicine, we formulate differential diagnoses. if you are only able to produce one or two possibilities to explain your findings, you are likely not very good. i think this can be extrapolated to life in general.

No, you equated the possibility of this achievement (if you would even call it that)to winning a lottery ticket. Now of course I understand this was a bit of hyperbole on your part, but even considering the sampling size argument you just used, there MAY be 20 conservatives who are on PPP, we are now talking about at least 15% of us have achieved this, and I'm pretty certain there are at least a couple others.

 

Let's use a bigger sampling size...

 

 

As recently as 1996, when Bill Clinton won reelection, exit polls indicated that voters making more than $100,000 annually made up just 9 percent of the electorate and tilted strongly Republican. They backed losing Republican Bob Dole over Clinton by 54 percent to 38 percent.

 

Just a dozen years later, in 2008, by contrast, voters making more than $100,000 represented 26 percent of the electorate — and many of these affluent voters were Obama backers. For the first time, a Democratic presidential nominee tied the Republican for support among the $100K-and-up crowd. In 2010, Democrats lost this group by 18 percentage points — 58 to 40.

 

The stumbling performance by Democrats during the lame-duck session as they tried to hold the line against Republicans came as no surprise to one pollster — scorned by many liberals — who has long counseled Democrats against any strategy that sounds like class warfare. (See: Anger of House Democrats boils over)

 

“When you ask the public, do you want to extend the tax cuts only for the middle class or do you want to extend them to everybody, they say yes to both,” said Mark J. Penn, the pollster for both Bill Clinton in the 1990s and Hillary Clinton’s losing 2008 campaign.

 

No Democrat on Capitol Hill proposed reversing the Bush tax cuts down to the $100,000 level. The problem, as Penn sees it, is that many people making $100,000 or a little more quite plausibly envision themselves making more than $250,000 in due course — enough to qualify as “rich” in Democratic rhetoric.

 

What’s more, unlike the high-income earners of previous generations — dominated by Republican-leaning executives, small-business owners and physicians — this generation’s affluent voters include lots of people such as software engineers or other “creative class” professionals, and are generally sympathetic to Democrats. (See: Tax cuts in black and white)

 

 

“They consider themselves upwardly mobile, and they consider themselves greater beneficiaries of tax cuts than government programs,” Penn said.

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46113.html#ixzz17jQjGUDf

 

It appears that many people who are truly aspiring to reach this top 5% feel the same way we do. That is the key word Birdog, aspiring.

 

ASPIRING

 

Why, because they want to vote for the idealogy that provides incentives for those who aspire to for more.

 

How's that for a sampling size?

[Rob's House]

yup. the hart, shafner and marx sportcoat i'm wearing this week just screams "old hippie".

Ouch!! It sounds like you've got an identity crisis to address. Or perhaps rather than an aging liberal hippie douche you're just an arrogant aging liberal yuppie douche. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The former live in an idealistic fantasy land in the clouds they stumbled upon after some good acid and decided to hang around, which although annoying is kind of endearing. The latter are just repellent shitbags who could know better but have their heads jammed so far up their own asses they can't see past the end of their noses. To their credit, they do tend to be more familiar with soap.

 

And on a side note, nothing breeds success like a mindset that the chips are stacked against you and you're bound to fail, which is all I ever hear people like you telling the poor and minority kids you claim to care about. Maybe THAT is why so many give up.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Rob's House

[birdog1960]

Ouch!! It sounds like you've got an identity crisis to address. Or perhaps rather than an aging liberal hippie douche you're just an arrogant aging liberal yuppie douche. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The former live in an idealistic fantasy land in the clouds they stumbled upon after some good acid and decided to hang around, which although annoying is kind of endearing. The latter are just repellent shitbags who could know better but have their heads jammed so far up their own asses they can't see past the end of their noses. To their credit, they do tend to be more familiar with soap.

 

And on a side note, nothing breeds success like a mindset that the chips are stacked against you and you're bound to fail, which is all I ever hear people like you telling the poor and minority kids you claim to care about. Maybe THAT is why so many give up.

and all that from my brand of sportcoat...very insightful. maybe that's why you dislike obama so much. i hear he likes hart suits.

[Chef Jim]

and then live in a gated community watching vigilantly for people who never came up with an idea that still want what you have.

 

how bout this instead? produce things people really do need (wholesome foods, shelter, health care) at a fair, affordable price and have a little less in excess for yourself?

 

"The world needs ditch diggers too Danny."

 

Grab a shovel dog.

[DC Tom]

And on a side note, nothing breeds success like a mindset that the chips are stacked against you and you're bound to fail, which is all I ever hear people like you telling the poor and minority kids you claim to care about. Maybe THAT is why so many give up.

 

Don't forget, you're living in a culture that considers it heroic to be a victim.

[X. Benedict]

Liberal and Conservative are meaningless labels that exploit you lemmings.

 

 

Liberals and Conservatives believe in 99% of the same stuff. It's the proportions they differ on.

 

Just think about it. You can't really talk about Liberality or Conservation without portions and proportions.

 

If it makes you feel special to be a Conservative. That's swell.

 

If it makes you feel special to be a Liberal. That's swell to.

 

You still agree on most of the stuff. It is the portions that bother you.

[DC Tom]

Liberal and Conservative are meaningless labels that exploit you lemmings.

 

 

Liberals and Conservatives believe in 99% of the same stuff. It's the proportions they differ on.

 

Just think about it. You can't really talk about Liberality or Conservation without portions and proportions.

 

If it makes you feel special to be a Conservative. That's swell.

 

If it makes you feel special to be a Liberal. That's swell to.

 

You still agree on most of the stuff. It is the portions that bother you.

 

I disagree.

 

Or I would, if I could figure out what's so "conservative" about American Conservatism. Seeems to me to be little more than a code word for people who believe in religion and jingoism.

[X. Benedict]

I disagree.

 

Or I would, if I could figure out what's so "conservative" about American Conservatism. Seeems to me to be little more than a code word for people who believe in religion and jingoism.

 

[TPS]

you've omitted the most likely possibility: a sampling error. how likely is it that someone who has tried and failed is going to join the thread and write about it? conversly, it's quite likely that those who have succeeded will.

 

just one more example of the dualist thinking so in evidence on this site. in medicine, we formulate differential diagnoses. if you are only able to produce one or two possibilities to explain your findings, you are likely not very good. i think this can be extrapolated to life in general.

You are correct sir, the dual philosophy at PPP: "I'm right, you're wrong." Only superceded by the mono-philosophical phrase used here: "You're an idiot." Enjoy your stay.

[GG]

you've omitted the most likely possibility: a sampling error. how likely is it that someone who has tried and failed is going to join the thread and write about it? conversly, it's quite likely that those who have succeeded will.

 

just one more example of the dualist thinking so in evidence on this site. in medicine, we formulate differential diagnoses. if you are only able to produce one or two possibilities to explain your findings, you are likely not very good. i think this can be extrapolated to life in general.

 

Did they fail because their plan or execution was flawed, or did they fail because of a lack of opportunity? I think that's the point the other side from you is driving - the opportunity is there. It's up to the individual to take advantage of it.

 

As the monkey and others have often remarked on these pages - that equality of opportunity does not equal equality of result.

[Nanker]

yup. the hart, shafner and marx sportcoat i'm wearing this week just screams "old hippie".

 

Really feeling the liberal guilt trip aren't we, Dr. Schweitzer.

So let me get this straight. Your advice for others is: don't try to be extremely successful, because the odds are stacked incredibly against you. Don't even think it's possible, because it's not.

Good for you your daddy's sperm followed their biological imperative and not your sorry-ass advice.

[ieatcrayonz]

yup. the hart, shafner and marx sportcoat i'm wearing this week just screams "old hippie".

Geez. Even your clothes are made by commies.

[birdog1960]

 

So let me get this straight. Your advice for others is: don't try to be extremely successful, because the odds are stacked incredibly against you. Don't even think it's possible, because it's not.

 

no. what i'm saying is that class warfare is real and not some contrived political tactic. i would never discourage anyone from trying to better themselves and improve the "quintile" in which they land. my point is that it is illogical for people of middle and lower socioeconomic status to vote for candidates who will protect the wealthy because they believe they may one day benefit from these policies . one way to explain this thinking is an overestimate on the part of the public on the chances for upward mobility. i think this is the case.

[birdog1960]

Geez. Even your clothes are made by commies.

i thought it was groucho that branched out into the garment biz.

[Nanker]

no. what i'm saying is that class warfare is real and not some contrived political tactic. i would never discourage anyone from trying to better themselves and improve the "quintile" in which they land. my point is that it is illogical for people of middle and lower socioeconomic status to vote for candidates who will protect the wealthy because they believe they may one day benefit from these policies . one way to explain this thinking is an overestimate on the part of the public on the chances for upward mobility. i think this is the case.

 

Not at all. By that line of thinking - people in lower socioeconomic brackets need jobs more than dreams of getting wealthy.

Well, guess what? The people with the dreams of getting wealthy are the ones that are providing the jobs. So they should support a system that supports them both, and allows workers to earn a decent living and not to lose self-respect by allowing themselves to adopt a victim mentality and believe lies about their individual worth and their inability to succeed in life.

[Rob's House]

no. what i'm saying is that class warfare is real and not some contrived political tactic. i would never discourage anyone from trying to better themselves and improve the "quintile" in which they land. my point is that it is illogical for people of middle and lower socioeconomic status to vote for candidates who will protect the wealthy because they believe they may one day benefit from these policies . one way to explain this thinking is an overestimate on the part of the public on the chances for upward mobility. i think this is the case.

Class warfare is what the economically illiterate use to gain support for their flawed theory of wealth distribution.

 

If you assume people in lower "quintiles" support tax policy that benefits the top quintile (or top 5%) is because they are concerned with having to pay those taxes once they get there, you clearly have no understanding of the people of whom you speak.

 

Some people have the capacity to understand that taking capital away from employers and filtering it through an inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy ultimately less wealth and less opportunity for people at all socioeconomic levels. The middle class is always the group that suffers most when economic interventionism backfires.

[birdog1960]

The people with the dreams of getting wealthy are the ones that are providing the jobs. So they should support a system that supports them both,

and allows workers to earn a decent living and not to lose self-respect by allowing themselves to adopt a victim mentality and believe lies about their individual worth and their inability to succeed in life.

what evidence do you have for the first statment? i would argue that many, if not most employers, especially of good paying jobs, would themselves be top decile earners. weve already established that it's relatively uncommon for those of lower economic status to attain that threshold.

 

as far as the second statement, the chance at a "decent living" enabling greater self respect would be most likely accomplished by voting in a party that supports a living wage level for the minimum wage. this has consistently not been the policy of the party that embraces the wealthy's causes so rabidly.

[birdog1960]

Class warfare is what the economically illiterate use to gain support for their flawed theory of wealth distribution.

 

If you assume people in lower "quintiles" support tax policy that benefits the top quintile (or top 5%) is because they are concerned with having to pay those taxes once they get there, you clearly have no understanding of the people of whom you speak.

 

Some people have the capacity to understand that taking capital away from employers and filtering it through an inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy ultimately less wealth and less opportunity for people at all socioeconomic levels. The middle class is always the group that suffers most when economic interventionism backfires.

can you point out to me all the benefits that the middle class have seen from the bush tax cuts for the wealthy? are there any economists that really still believe in trickle down economics?

[Rob's House]

as far as the second statement, the chance at a "decent living" enabling greater self respect would be most likely accomplished by voting in a party that supports a living wage level for the minimum wage. this has consistently not been the policy of the party that embraces the wealthy's causes so rabidly.

The "living wage" argument is really scraping the bottom of the lib barrel of ridiculous ideas. Why not make the minimum wage $25/hr. Or $35/hr. How are you going to prevent inflation from correcting the disparity in value. Money is just barter and prices reflect the value that society has placed on various goods and services through the individual transactions of millions of people independently pursuing their own interests. Prices are essentially the point where supply meets demand. If you push a wage artificially beyond it's actual worth all you do is inflate the currency. It may give a short term benefit to the few people working for minimum wage, but since wages of all those making more than the minimum (i.e. middle class) will not rise as quickly as the spurred inflation rates, they would have less purchasing power.

 

But hoity toity libs in the top quintile (or living off their trust fund) can sit around rubbing their genitals and enjoying the smell of their own farts while wallowing in their own pompous, self-aggrandizing fantasy starring themselves as the altruistic champions of the poor inferior slobs who have them to thank for their station in life.

 

can you point out to me all the benefits that the middle class have seen from the bush tax cuts for the wealthy? are there any economists that really still believe in trickle down economics?

I changed my mind, I will answer. People like my brother in law who have no skills and need employment get jobs working for small privately owned businesses that, due to lower taxes, have more capital with which to purchase labor. He is now employed and will soon move out of my guest room. So we both benefited, and I am middle class, and he is soon to be as well. And what exactly is your argument against trickle down economics?

Edited December 12, 2010 by Rob's House