Romney Fundraiser - Secret Taping

[Stoked]

PearlWatson:

You don't expect anyone to take you or your views seriously, right? I'm just trying to get a grasp on your reality, and it keeps coming back to that of a puerile fool, but that commonly lends itself to a lack of seriousness or an attempt at yucks. So I just want to know which it is.

I do not think Peralwatson really stands by her "beliefs" either.

 

[NAOS]

I just can't agree. No one, no matter the country of privilege, is enititled to housing, food, and healthcare. I am ONLY referring to lazy, self-entitled people here (no one leave this part out, thank you). No one is entitled to any of this simply because of where they were born. Look at the opposite.. if you're born in a very poor country, should you, because of geography, have to be artificially held back?

I hate the word entitled, with a passion.
Replace it with compassion for, charitable giving, etc.. but I'm just not buying the entitlement thing.

I'm sure most people would be a lot less lazy and indigent if they weren't so undernourished, dehydrated, and lacking sleep. My closest friend does anthropology with the perpetually homeless population in Boston (and a little in LA). You'd be ****ing shocked at how physically taxed -- i.e. worked -- these supposedly lazy bodies are. I think what Jimmy Eat Jazz was saying is that we live in a time when we should be imagining what it would mean to take care of basic needs instead of financing the bombing of southeast Asia, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., etc. (By the way, it's not an exaggeration to say those bombs cost more than the basic necessities of a homeless population that has full of people that have had it rougher than you and me from day 1).

 

[Dr. Jones]

I'm sure most people would be a lot less lazy and indigent if they weren't so undernourished, dehydrated, and lacking sleep. My closest friend does anthropology with the perpetually homeless population in Boston (and a little in LA). You'd be ****ing shocked at how physically taxed -- i.e. worked -- these supposedly lazy bodies are. I think what Jimmy Eat Jazz was saying is that we live in a time when we should be imagining what it would mean to take care of basic needs instead of financing the bombing of southeast Asia, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., etc. (By the way, it's not an exaggeration to say those bombs cost more than the basic necessities of a homeless population that has full of people that have had it rougher than you and me from day 1).

If that is what he meant then I agree. If someone is working they should have their basic needs. I am only referring to those that walk to the mailbox for a living. Yes, I know some of those.

 

[NAOS]

If that is what he meant then I agree. If someone is working they should have their basic needs. I am only referring to those that walk to the mailbox for a living. Yes, I know some of those.

Can you name one instance when a capitalist economy was able to employ 100% of its workforce? Are you aware of the fact that historically the highest rates of employment (and when cash is easiest to get) are in times of war (i.e. when we are literally ripping the basic necessities away from others... their lives)? It sounds like you are starting from a utopian vision and then speaking woe at the conditions that shouldn't be.

 

[franklin]

What about the idea (and fact) that there is a finite amount of money, and that not everyone can be rich? Or the idea that mechanisms in play for several decades clearly demonstrate rich getting richer with the middle-class getting gutted and the poor getting poorer? Understanding these things, how can a society (and government is a function of society, at least theoretically) be led to any other conclusion than that the gap needs to be closed and that means must be explored?

See post 135. Am I coming across as disagreeing with this or something?

 

[NAOS]

What about the idea (and fact) that there is a finite amount of money, and that not everyone can be rich?

You are right in practice, but half-wrong in theory. The idea that money is limited typically leans on the materialist assumption that money is derived from a substance that itself has value. The British Empire operated under this assumption, and we inherited it in some form up until 1971. There have been periods in monetary history where money wasn't tied (in practice or in theory) to a substance with value in-itself; it was a valueless medium for exchange. I only bring this up because we live in a time where it's actually TRUE that money isn't tied to metal and yet we just went through a process where certain people's money was determined to be 'real' and thus worthy of being bailed out/re-compensated/re-conjured (Wall Street) and other people's money wasn't real enough (the tax payer). So, not only is money a finite thing, but today it's LITERALLY LESS FINITE FOR SOME.

Or the idea that mechanisms in play for several decades clearly demonstrate rich getting richer with the middle-class getting gutted and the poor getting poorer? Understanding these things, how can a society (and government is a function of society, at least theoretically) be led to any other conclusion than that the gap needs to be closed and that means must be explored?

I think my message above speaks to your gap in disturbing ways...... because we seem to be going the opposite direction you are pointing toward in your line of questioning.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Can you name one instance when a capitalist economy was able to employ 100% of its workforce? Are you aware of the fact that historically the highest rates of employment (and when cash is easiest to get) are in times of war (i.e. when we are literally ripping the basic necessities away from others... their lives)? It sounds like you are starting from a utopian vision and then speaking woe at the conditions that shouldn't be.

Sigh..

I am talking ONLY about the takers. Not the unfortunate that cannot do it on their own. This started from Jimmy's post about people in such a rich country are entitled..

Maybe I'm picking on the word too much and you are missing my point because of it. Let me restate my whole position in one sentence;

I cannot stand those that are able, yet do not try, and feel they are owed.

 

[Dr. Jones]

 

[NAOS]

Sigh..

I am talking ONLY about the takers. Not the unfortunate that cannot do it on their own. This started from Jimmy's post about people in such a rich country are entitled..

Maybe I'm picking on the word too much and you are missing my point because of it. Let me restate my whole position in one sentence;

I cannot stand those that are able, yet do not try, and feel they are owed.

I know who you are talking about and who you aren't. And, for the most part, I like where your heart is.

But, you are still digging your heels in.... it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for every able-bodied person to be fully covered/cared-for in a capitalist economy. What do you do with them?

 

[margodydek]

What about the idea (and fact) that there is a finite amount of money, and that not everyone can be rich? Or the idea that mechanisms in play for several decades clearly demonstrate rich getting richer with the middle-class getting gutted and the poor getting poorer? Understanding these things, how can a society (and government is a function of society, at least theoretically) be led to any other conclusion than that the gap needs to be closed and that means must be explored?

There maybe a finite amount of currency, but there is not a finite amount of wealth. You can't just up and create more dollar bills, but you can just up and create wealth. This goes back to Naos' and Franklin's discussion earlier. There's dumb work (digging ditches), and then there's smart work (creating something that has demand).

 

[Dr. Jones]

I know who you are talking about and who you aren't. And, for the most part, I like where your heart is.

But, you are still digging your heels in.... it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for every able-bodied person to be fully covered/cared-for in a capitalist economy. What do you do with them?

Take care of them. I've said that all along. What's impossible to police is whether a person is doing all they can to care for themselves.

 

[margodydek]

Margo's political views: I will continue to believe our country/society is going down the tube until we get leaders who start to lead. We've become a society that will elect leaders because we believe perhaps they have our specific demographic's best interest at heart and thus will do something for us. We've become such a bunch of p****** that we would never elect someone who would put us in our place, because let's be honest we're all smarter and work harder than any political figure, so how dare they tell me I should do something different so as to better my life and our society. I honestly believe I belong to the worst generation this county has ever seen, but I do think if we were lead, rather than pandered to, we could be something special.