are y'all better off than you were 4 years ago ?

[KristyHall]

Those same educational opportunities are available to every American who wants them; some of us choose to take advantage of them, some don't. Of course, no one has ever done anything in isolation; there has to be an educational system in place for the opportunities to exist, and there has to be taxpayers to fill the federal coffers; it's the only source of income the feds have. So, the aid you and I received for school didn't come from the government, but from the hard working American people from whom they collected the taxes in the first place. Fortunately, the government was magnanimous enough to loan some of that money to you and I, so that we could further our educations. However, although the government aid was some my own tax dollars to begin with, I gave it all back when I paid off my student loans ... with interest.

When I heard opportunity knock, I, alone, opened the door, did all the hard work, spent long nights studying, and made sacrifices to get my degrees. No one did it for me. So, I'M taking ALL the credit for being responsible for advancing my future. If that's arrogant, so be it, but I refuse to be so naive as to believe that I couldn't have done it without Uncle Sam's help.

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" (Dosteovsky's Grand Inquisitor.)

So you have never had a federally protected loan (from a bank) never ate trichinosis free pork (thank you FDA, yes i know FDA has its problems) never saw a commercial and trusted the product wouldn't make your eyes pop out (protection from false advertising, to an extent) , never went to the park, never drove a car knowing it won't explode on you, never went to public school, drove on a public road, used electricity at reasonable prices, gotten a fair wage, exercised your right to access courts, gotten a pale grant, taken advantage of a tax credit, gotten a government student loan, called a police officer or fireman, experienced free dome because of the military, nothing like that? All of those are government aids, payed for tax funded government. Has it ever occurred to you that ensuring the health and safety of its populace it governs is the point of a government? That is the purpose of a government.

To say you NEVER Got help from the government is a false hood. Even the Amish benefit form the government and its programs. BTW, the Quote from the Gran Inquisitor is often used against many things, including religion, any political organization, or parroting political pundants.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

Originally posted by ChickensRDinos

The automatic assumption that she was not is really the biggest problem.


Originally Posted by ChickensRDinos


This sounds nice in theory but is not actually true.


Originally posted by Jettgirl24

ChickensRDinos is right. The very nature of capitalism necessitates the existence of an under class. Not everyone can be rich, powerful, and successful in a capitalist system as there would be no one there to grease the gears so to speak. Every person who finds success has inevitably done so on the backs of other people - whether it's people in this country or people participating in the global economy. I am not saying we should look down upon those who are successful, but if we find success we need to be aware of how we got there and appreciate the privileges we have received. We have every right to be proud of the hard work we've put in and give ourselves part of the credit. However if we want to be good citizens we also need to give credit those who have helped us achieve our goals AND we have a responsibility to contribute to the lives of those who make our success possible... Those in the lower rungs of the economic machine who are picking the vegetables that fill your dinner plate, cleaning your office when you go home at night, and working in factories soldering the microchips that allow you to get your work done. Without them the gears would come to a grinding halt and none of us would be successful.

Excellent posts. Not understanding that others are constantly effecting us within a society is far more dangerous than simple arrogance to me...as our views and actions in turn effect others.

 

[Cheeky Chick]

Not better off, and looks like it's going to get even worse.

This country is done for. May as well learn chinese.

 

[KristyHall]

Excellent posts. Not understanding that others are constantly effecting us within a society is far more dangerous than simple arrogance to me...as our views and actions in turn effect others.

I completely agree. So many people enjoy blaming the working poor for not working hard enough, But just because one person worked hard to the top, doesn't mean everyone will. It means all those people that is under the one on the top are still under them. Did they not work as hard as that person? Or is it that perhaps that person was more talented, or had been at the right place at the right time or... as so many people forget to mention this, the people who promoted the person to the top likes him/her or has something in common with him/her.

Here is a really interesting article on how social mobility in the us is NOT as frequent as a person thinks. It is that way in many countries as well. Economic historian Gregory Clark of the University of California, through years of careful research and collecting surnames, found that you are far more likely to be affected by where and what family you were born into than some would like.






Movin' On Up? That May Depend On Your Last Name

Getty Images​

New research suggests that success in life may be determined by ancestors from hundreds of years ago. The research finds that your chance of making it into the elite is the same in the United States as it is in South America, no matter when you were born.
Published: October 16, 2012
by Dustin Dwyer
Here is a question that social scientists have been pondering for years: How much of your success in life is tied to your parents, and how much do you control?
The academic term used for this is "social mobility." And a striking new finding from economic historian Gregory Clark of the University of California, Davis claims your success in life may actually be determined by ancestors who lived hundreds of years ago. That means improving opportunities across generations might be a lot harder than anyone imagined.
Clark did not set out to study social mobility; he was trying to study how the British elite formed in the lead-up to the Industrial Revolution. Someone suggested he trace surnames, because there is a long record of elite names in British society.
"For example, in England, we know the names of most people who went to Oxford or Cambridge from about 1200 right up until the present," Clark says.
But he didn't believe these names would tell him much about the status of families over time. A surname is just one branch in a vast family tree. And all the previous work on social mobility suggests that the status of a name would change in three or four generations. That's what social mobility means — families move up, families move down.
But it turns out that surnames told Clark a whole lot.
"If I just know that you share a rare surname with someone who was wealthy in 1800, I can predict now that you're nine times more likely to attend Oxford or Cambridge. You're going to live two years longer than an average person in England. You're going to have more wealth. You're more likely to be a doctor. You're more likely to be an attorney," Clark says.
This finding was a big surprise.
So Clark and some fellow researchers checked results in other countries. They looked at records of elite status — top colleges, listings of doctors and lawyers. They checked how often certain names showed up in these places compared with how common they were in the general population. Then they checked how that comparison changed over time to see how names were moving in and out of elite positions.
They checked in England, Sweden, the United States, India, China, Japan and Chile.
"And astonishingly, there's no more mobility in Sweden on these measures than there is in South America," says Clark. "And that America looks just like England, looks just like Sweden."
And, even more astonishingly, the numbers were the same in the Middle Ages as they are today.
It's worth pointing out that Clark is talking about relative social position, not overall living conditions or income. Still, what he's claiming is huge: That is, if you come from a common background, your chance of making it into the elite is the same in the United States as it is in South America, no matter when you were born.
"It is shocking that the number is as constant as it is," says Joseph Ferrie, an economic historian at Northwestern University. Ferrie has been following Clark's work on surnames almost from the beginning, and he says it's been fascinating.
"It's hard to find any holes in the argument that he makes suggesting that this really is something that does look the same in a variety of places and times," Ferrie says.
Clark's method is unique among people who study social mobility. Ferrie and most other researchers look at individual families, not just family names. But both approaches have been transformed in the past few years as more information from censuses and household surveys have become searchable online.
Until now, nearly all the research into social mobility has only covered two generations. Now it's finally becoming possible to look at many generations, and when you do that, it looks like there's a lot less mobility than we thought.
If Clark is right, we can actually put a number on it regardless of where or when you were born.
"We can't predict the individual aspects of where you'll end up, but if we want to rank you overall in society, maybe as much as 60 percent of the outcome is determined at the time of conception," Clark says.
And if Clark is right, that number is almost impervious to change. The Industrial Revolution didn't change it. Neither did the communist revolution in China, World Wars I or II, or even social policies like the GI Bill. Clark says he's still working on exactly how to interpret that information.
But it's clear he has growing doubts about whether public policy can really help people move up the social ladder.
"And it really is conveying this message that families are where the action is at in terms of the outcomes and performance for people," Clark says.
And the good news, according to Clark, is that families do move up the social ladder. It just might take a few hundred years to get there. [Copyright 2012 Michigan Radio]
TRANSCRIPT:

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
For years, scientists have pondered social mobility and this fundamental question: How much of your success is tied to your parents and how much do you control? Well, Dustin Dwyer of Michigan Radio reports now on some striking new research. It suggests that your success in life may be determined ancestors hundreds and hundreds of years ago and that helping people move up the ladder across generations is far harder than anyone imagined.
DUSTIN DWYER, BYLINE: Gregory Clark did not set out to study social mobility. He's an economic historian at the University of California at Davis. He was trying to study how the British elite formed in the lead-up to the Industrial Revolution. So someone suggested he trace last names, surnames. There's a really long record of elite names in British society.
GREGORY CLARK: For example, in England, we know the names of most people who went to Oxford or Cambridge from about 1200 right up until the present.
DWYER: But Clark didn't believe these names would tell him much about the status of families over time. A surname is just one branch in a vast family tree. And all the previous work on social mobility suggests that the status of a name would change in three or four generations. That's what social mobility means, families move up, families move down. But it turns out surnames told Clark a whole lot.
CLARK: If I just know that you share a rare surname with someone who was wealthy in 1800, I can predict now that you're nine times more likely to attend Oxford or Cambridge. You're going to live two years longer than an average person in England. You're going to have more wealth. You're more likely to be a doctor. You're more likely to be an attorney.
DWYER: This finding was a big surprise. So Clark and some fellow researchers checked results in other countries. They looked at records of elite status: top colleges, listings of doctors and lawyers. They checked how often certain names showed up in these places compared to how common they were in the general population. Then they checked how that comparison changed over time to see how names were moving in and out of elite positions. They checked in the United States, Sweden, South America, Japan.
CLARK: And astonishingly, there's no more mobility in Sweden on these measures than there is in South America. And that America looks just like England, looks just like Sweden.
DWYER: And even more astonishingly, the numbers were the same in the Middle Ages as they are today. It's worth pointing out that Clark is talking about relative social position, not overall living conditions or income. Still, what he's claiming is huge, that is if you come from a common background, your chance of making it into the elite is the same in the United States as it is in South America, no matter when you were born.
JOSEPH FERRIE: It is shocking that the number is as constant as it is.
DWYER: Joseph Ferrie is an economic historian at Northwestern University. He's been following Clark's work on surnames almost from the beginning, and he says it's been fascinating.
FERRIE: It's hard to find any holes in the argument that he makes suggesting that this really is something that does look the same in a variety of places and times.
DWYER: Clark's method is unique among people who study social mobility. Ferrie and most other researchers look at individual families, not just family names. But both approaches have been transformed in the past few years as more information from censuses and household surveys have become searchable online. Until now, nearly all the research into social mobility has only covered two generations. Now, it's finally becoming possible to look at many generations, and when you do that, it looks like there's a lot less mobility than what we thought. If Clark is right, we can actually put a number on it regardless of where or when you were born.
CLARK: We can't predict the individual aspects of where you'll end up. But if we want to rank you overall in society, maybe as much as 60 percent of the outcome is determined at the time of conception.
DWYER: And if Clark is right, that number is almost impervious to change. The Industrial Revolution didn't change it, neither did the Communist revolution in China, World Wars I or II or even social policies like the GI Bill. Clark says he's still working on exactly how to interpret that information. But it's clear he has growing doubts about whether public policy can really help people move up the social ladder.
CLARK: And it really is conveying this message that families are where the action is at in terms of the outcomes and performance for people.
DWYER: And the good news, according to Clark, is that families do move up the social ladder. It just might take a few hundred years to get there. For NPR News, I'm Dustin Dwyer in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright National Public Radio.

 

[mom'sfolly]

People, the world doesn't end because your guy did or did not get into office. The country is not "done for" or "gone to Hell" or anything like that. Our political system has checks and balances, and no one person is that powerful. Unfortunately, corporations may be that powerful, but that is another story.

What you need to look at is why certain people won and others did not, and thinking that people who voted for the other guy are idiots isn't the answer. When you figure out why something worked or not, you then need to look at what your priorities are, and how to make those things get into the world. If your guy lost, wonder why, and then work to change what went wrong; do the same if your guy won, and look to what made him win. Easy answer aren't going to get you there. There are very real reasons why one party won and one party did not. As Bill O'Rielly said, demographics have changed; meaning that a broad appeal is necessary.

Don't whine, moan, gnash your teeth, gloat, or say "I told you so" for more than 45 seconds. It just makes people annoyed. Put on your big kid panties and move on. Work for those issues and people that are important to you. Get involved. Don't whine, its unappealing in a 4-year-old and completely annoying in an adult.

 

[RHRanch]

Those same educational opportunities are available to every American who wants them; some of us choose to take advantage of them, some don't. Of course, no one has ever done anything in isolation; there has to be an educational system in place for the opportunities to exist, and there has to be taxpayers to fill the federal coffers; it's the only source of income the feds have. So, the aid you and I received for school didn't come from the government, but from the hard working American people from whom they collected the taxes in the first place. Fortunately, the government was magnanimous enough to loan some of that money to you and I, so that we could further our educations. However, although the government aid was some my own tax dollars to begin with, I gave it all back when I paid off my student loans ... with interest.

When I heard opportunity knock, I, alone, opened the door, did all the hard work, spent long nights studying, and made sacrifices to get my degrees. No one did it for me. So, I'M taking ALL the credit for being responsible for advancing my future. If that's arrogant, so be it, but I refuse to be so naive as to believe that I couldn't have done it without Uncle Sam's help.

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" (Dosteovsky's Grand Inquisitor.)

Actually it is well documented that our public education system is unequal and therefore starts people off with different levels of academic preparedness for obtaining a further education. (this of course, helps to provide an underclass base of low wage workers). It is disingenuous to say that all people have equal opportunities when in fact, there are many obstacles to access, starting with an unequal public education system. Life circumstances (and the structural and societal factors that cause them) cannot be ignored if you want to have a genuine discourse on how and why people are not all able to achieve equally in our society. It is tempting to blame people's personal "defects" for their lack of success or to praise those who are successful by assuming that they have "more drive, better morals, etc". I can understand why people feel more comfortable with that view, it makes them feel better about themselves, gives them someone to look down on and makes them believe that they have more control over their circumstances than they probably have.

 

[KristyHall]

People, the world doesn't end because your guy did or did not get into office. The country is not "done for" or "gone to Hell" or anything like that. Our political system has checks and balances, and no one person is that powerful. Unfortunately, corporations may be that powerful, but that is another story.

What you need to look at is why certain people won and others did not, and thinking that people who voted for the other guy are idiots isn't the answer. When you figure out why something worked or not, you then need to look at what your priorities are, and how to make those things get into the world. If your guy lost, wonder why, and then work to change what went wrong; do the same if your guy won, and look to what made him win. Easy answer aren't going to get you there. There are very real reasons why one party won and one party did not. As Bill O'Rielly said, demographics have changed; meaning that a broad appeal is necessary.

Don't whine, moan, gnash your teeth, gloat, or say "I told you so" for more than 45 seconds. It just makes people annoyed. Put on your big kid panties and move on. Work for those issues and people that are important to you. Get involved. Don't whine, its unappealing in a 4-year-old and completely annoying in an adult.

Here here.

 

[kuntrygirl]

People, the world doesn't end because your guy did or did not get into office.  The country is not "done for" or "gone to Hell" or anything like that.  Our political system has checks and balances, and no one person is that powerful.  Unfortunately, corporations may be that powerful, but that is another story.

What you need to look at is why certain people won and others did not, and thinking that people who voted for the other guy are idiots isn't the answer.  When you figure out why something worked or not, you then need to look at what your priorities are, and how to make those things get into the world.  If your guy lost, wonder why, and then work to change what went wrong; do the same if your guy won, and look to what made him win.  Easy answer aren't going to get you there.  There are very real reasons why one party won and one party did not.  As Bill O'Rielly said, demographics have changed; meaning that a broad appeal is necessary. 

Don't whine, moan, gnash your teeth, gloat, or say "I told you so" for more than 45 seconds.  It just makes people annoyed.  Put on your big kid panties and move on.   Work for those issues and people that are important to you.  Get involved.  Don't whine, its unappealing in a 4-year-old and completely annoying in an adult.

VERY well said!

 

[MamaRoo]

Not better off, and looks like it's going to get even worse.

This country is done for. May as well learn chinese.

Fortunately the country you live in gives you the freedom to leave, if you so choose.

 

[MamaRoo]

Gabbard was not elected because she is female, Hindu or Asian. She was elected because she is qualified and pretty amazing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm relieved to hear that. Until now, the only thing that has been mentioned is gender, race, and religion. My point is that these should NOT be factors; should not even be mentioned as part of a person's vital statistics. Experience and qualifications should be the only considerations. Until they are, discrimination is alive and well.

Because we are celebrating the recognition of their qualifications DESPITE their gender, race and religion. Not being a white male makes it a whole lot harder for this to be true.