Why America Is Becoming More Divided

Well, we have some common ground here. All of those who receive welfare and give nothing to society in return should be expected to work. A government provided job would be better than what we do now. Of course, this wouldn't be a "make work" job where nothing is accomplished. It would need to provide value to the system. And if anyone doesn't take the job seriously then they get terminated and their benefits are cut off too. Are you agreeable?

This already happens, I doubt there are many in the United States who don't know that excessive sugar leads to ill health. It is simply that people disregard the information and live for the short term with no thought given to the long term. But freedom allows this, and freedom is better than an authoritarian government controlling people's lives.

I want ill health? No, I want freedom - freedom to make one's own decisions and then the responsibility that person to live with the consequences of those decisions.

I want war? How so? Please explain. Word of God? Please explain.

The "God" thing again? Why do you keep bringing up deities?

There is plenty of information out there - enough that a reasonable person can be informed and make good long-term life decisions. Those who fail to do that receive no sympathy from me.

It isn't wrong. In a free system where liberty reigns, each individual has the right to determine their direction, what they value, and what they spend their money on. Whether or not a musician or poet creates "value" is determined by society through consumption. That is how it should be. The people don't need a central planning authority determining which musicians or poets are creating value.

So a question for you: In your ideal world, who would determine what things have "value" and what things don't?

 

You seem to think that your agenda validates your imposition on freedom of others.

Reminds me of a quote. "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."

It is not your responsibility to resolve the issues people freely find themselves in. People have the freedom to either be successful or not. Utilizing the strong arm of government to impose your version of success mandates loss of freedoms you desire to help.

 

I did, and you want to change the subject. I don't deal with hypothetical solutions to the world's problems. I deal with reality, and the reality is, the most divisive issue in America today is the impeachment of the President. You are doing everything you can to avoid that issue.

Impeachment of the President is a diversion???

And, of course, you have help. Others want to avoid the elephant in the room, too.

But, that is okay. I can understand why some wish to avoid Trump's impending impeachment and why.

 

No need to apologise; apparently the issues are complex.

Now, given the reality of entrenched poverty (and "neighourhoods like war zones": Trump) and hence the reality of poor parental role models, within the ghetto environments noted above (drugs, crime, unemployment) - given all this, straightaway your conclusion that "opportunity is always there" seems entirely inadequate as a description of what different individuals face in order to negotiate their own participation in the economy.

So I will pause right there - so you can respond to the points raised so far, since I consider that the statement "opportunity is always there", while technically correct, is NOT equivalent to the concept of "equality of opportunity" in a complex economy. in which individuals make rational or irrational choices, AND which is subject to external (macroeconomic) circumstances beyond the control of individuals.

I will deal with the rest of your long post, if we can come to an agreement, or if you can sensibly refute the issues I have raised, re this basic concept of "equality of opportunity".

Then we have to tackle tackle "equality of outcome"...

(So, unlike roo, I'm not ready to vote you for prez yet....)

 

People don't "freely find themselves" in the environment and society in which they are born ....I'll let you think about that for a while (though such thinking will test the limits of your ideology....

 

OK, I will agree with you: the most topical subject at the minute is Trump's impeachment.

But I would rather the Left could actually win, hold office, and deliver, by inspiring at least 75% the electorate.

My real concern, as a Left progressive is, eg as in 2016, the party machine's negation of Sanders' grass roots support by the party machine. The same is happening now. The real progresives, eg AOC in domestic policy, Gabbard in foreign policy, and less so Sanders, won't get a look in.....and under Biden nothing will change in America - guaranteed.

Just recently, even Obama cautioned the party against moving "too far Left"; in Australia, the Left followed a similar line (fiscal conservatism within the neoliberal monetarist system*) and lost the election anyway.

*the current economic orthodoxy that will ensure the Left remains ineffective around the globe. Poor old Corbyn couldn't answer the question from the BBC of "how will you pay for it". He's toast, because the general public thinks government is like households, and has to borrow (or tax} before it can spend.

That's the same reason why Bernie still can't gain majority support in the electorate, ie though apparently 75% of Americans like most of his policies, 75% of Americans don't like paying higher taxes....

 

Yes, provided by work you include the people and environment-caring/maintenance industries (according to local needs) . (Elderly people receiving assistance will soon let the (council) employer know if the work is not being done...)

But watch the private sector howl if a program is instituted in primary schools to inform the kids....so much for the freedom of the educational authorities to educate...same for comparative religious studies...

By now you should be beginning to understand the limits of "freedom"... the private sector will do all it can to deny the rights of citizens to education, when it doesn't suit the private sector's interests. The example of big tobacco wanting to take governments to court for "interference of free trade" is another disgusting example.

Explained in my next paragraph. Give religious schools the "freedom" to teach scripture as unconditional truth; and you end up with terrorism.

Actually : God/Reality, the understanding of which (a never ending task for humans) has considerable significance for relationships between individuals and nations of different creeds

Wrong;: and private interests sometimes work like hell to deny free spreading of information , when it is against their own self interest, whether profit or ideology-based, as noted above.

Disputed above. liberty doesn't reign, while prejudice exists.

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe." HG Wells.

ie education...free from particular ideological biases.

It would be good if all could "consume" the art, by being free to spend on it.

Hinted at above. ie, where everyone participates in the economy at above poverty level (via a Job Guarantee) then the people can determine what has value.

 

I don't recall endorsing "equality of opportunity". That would imply that opportunity has a static condition and was the same everywhere for everyone. I said opportunity is everywhere, and open to everyone. I also said that opportunities may be different, and they will be in different places and times. They may be harder or easier to take advantage of, depending on situation and person. Opportunity is not labeled and obvious- it must be perceived; for example recognizing a problem or need and realizing you have a solution. Recognizing a shortage and figuring out a way to solve it. Realizing that given no assets of any kind, you can still bring something to the marketplace that few others do- great attitude. That is something everybody can have, it does not take money or education or position. It does take a fundamental change of mindset for most- but is is within the power of any person alive. It is also something that no one can force you to use.

I had a man working for me in the 70's who was an excellent installer- not always dependable about showing up, but skilled and productive. One morning Dave asked if I would hire his brother, who was having no luck getting work. I didn't hire inter-family, but told him that his brother needed to change his approach, because jobs were everywhere, and easy to find. Now this is particularly relevant, because for the people you describe as in poverty- a job is indeed an opportunity to change their situation. Dave proceeded to tell me I knew nothing of his world, because I owned my own business and wasn't in the position to know his. This led to a challenge. I bet him $100 that I could find a job before the end of the day. That I would not use any qualification or record of experience to apply for it. No agreement as to salary- but it would be a job, and with some one who does not know me at all. Then I added- and I will do that without leaving my office. Dave was mentally counting his money- but Dave lost. By the end of the day, I had TWO jobs, and many more people who wanted me to come in and apply. How? I got out a phone book, yellow pages. Went down the list of businesses, in particular looking for smaller companies where I could talk to the owner, because he would not be hampered by the procedures that an HR or other person enabled to hire might be. Strictly on the basis of positive attitude, I applied for work. Two of them were impressed enough to say you have a job now, when can you come in and start? This happens because the right attitude is something rare in the labor market, and every employer is looking for it. I knew this, because I was an employer, and I knew that regardless of skill level, I was better off with an eager learner then someone skilled but having a bad attitude. I simply presented, over the phone, that particular quality that I knew most employers saw as gold. I'm 78 now- but I could do the same thing today, and I think it would be easier. Now anybody with access to a phone could do that. The most important thing about seeing opportunity is the way you look at things, and what your own limits control what you see. My business today markets products that I have invented, on machinery that I have designed. Everyday, I see things that give me ideas for new products, ways to solve problems or make products better. Those are opportunities too- but at my age I won't pursue them, so they lie in wait for someone else. Millions of them.
Opportunity is rarely a get-rich quick deal. Usually it starts with opening a door which leads to better and better things- and there again, your attitude controls the outcome. IF you can't see opportunity all around you.... you have a vision problem. Not in your eyes, but in your mind- not being able to see beyond the limits you impose on yourself, and they can be terrible. IF you think you can't... you can't. If you think you can, there is a very good chance you will. And if not the first or second try, then the third- but it will happen. You have to believe in yourself, believe you can, in order to genuinely try.

Now if we could pass a law granting that to everyone, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

 

So, now you want to take this globally?

I was under the understanding this conversation was regarding Americans.

 

In the Senate trial, if the House impeaches, I have no idea how Trump's lawyers will be able to defend Trump. Will they call witnesses in Trump's White House to support him? I doubt it. They will only incriminate Trump more.

I think Trump's lawyers will just bring up the same old B.S. and rely on Republican Senators not removing a Republican President even though everyone will know Trump is guilty of the impeachment charges, asking for foreign interference in our Presidential election and attempting to use bribery.

 

In answer to Texas Republican's contention that:

"Republicans believe in equality of opportunity, Democrats believe in equality of result......"

you replied (in your post to him):

"Well said. This condition has brought out a great many positions that are supposed to resolve perceived problems- and only create even larger problems"......

"Well said".....????

So, while he was merely spouting R/W ideology (the first part of which I debunked), you were content to give him a pass, AND thereby confuse me as to YOUR understanding of the concept.

So, I will restate my original objections to the concept of 'equality of opportunity' as defined by the R/W (of which Texas Republican is certainly a representative), while noting YOUR objections (apparently) to the very concept of 'equality of opportunity'.

Here is what I wrote:

Now, given the reality of entrenched poverty (and "neighourhoods like war zones": Trump) and hence the reality of poor parental role models, within the ghetto environments noted above (drugs, crime, unemployment) - given all this, straightaway your conclusion that "opportunity is always there" seems entirely inadequate as a description of what different individuals face in order to negotiate their own participation in the economy.

No it would not.

While opportunity, eg, in the inner-city ghettos* Trump referred to in his notorious campaign speech is indeed affected by a type of "a static condition" (see my comment in blue above re poor parental role models), not all are born into those conditions, obviously.
*ghettos like a festering sore in an otherwise prosperous nation,

So you need to explain the persistence of the inner-city ghettos, and the existence of poverty itself, if, as you assert "opportunity is always there".

References to your own experience in life, though interesting, are hardly satisfactory as a basis for drawing conclusions on how others with very different backgrounds and experiences will choose to deal with their OWN situation.
And while I agree with you about the need for vision and persistence in the lives of individuals, obviously the very capacity to pursue those goals is related to, and affected by external factors as noted above.

Hence the need for positive behaviour models, especially for those for whom they are lacking, for all citizens, via public education.

The next topic - jobs - needs an examination of the current neoliberal monetarist dogma, which actually posits - believe it or not - a 'natural' rate of unemployment consistent with low inflation.....pure self-serving delusion designed to keep wages low and channel ever more of the economy's profits from workers to capital (hence the spiralling inequality we are witnessing today).

 

People don't "freely find themselves" in ghettos, whether in the US, or other nations.

 

Possible, but the elephant in the room says Democrats have been trying to overturn an election before Trump was even sworn in.

 

So in your imagination, equal opportunity would be like a government agency that would insure that everybody would get something at least of equal value to every one else? Like a guarantee of the job of your choosing at the wage or your preference? Perhaps a guarantee that all prospectors would find at least a certain amount of gold, no matter where they looked or lived?

Why don't you tell us what you think "equal opportunity" means. I'll be looking for that in your response- and while you are putting that down, be sure and explain who is going to take the responsibility and pay the bill for it- and how that fits into "equal".

Funny how my own experience is "interesting" but apparently irrelevant in your opinion. Fact is that everybody's experience is different, and they are all relevant because they compose the scope of reality, the variety of ways things happen and of conditions that exist. To a great extent we try to learn by emulating others who are successful. The best of us prove that it can be done- and the brightest will step up and ask, "Will you show me how you did that?" Because they want to learn for themselves, and they haven't decided that it was owed to them and they must have been cheated out of success because it hasn't been delivered.

We don't all start in the same place or with the same assets- and that applies to wealth, ambition, size, beauty and brains. Because we are different, our options- And our opportunities- must be different. I spent 10 years trying to learn to play guitar, and finally accepted that I just don't have the talent. Have I been cheated? On the other hand I spent a couple years teaching myself to invest- and I'm very, very good at that.
Everybody has something that can make them successful. But they have to find out what it is, and make the most of it.

The attitude of many progressives is that we shall just order other people to do what we think is right and they should do, for their own good- and the good of society; or- we just provide for them so they don't have to try. The ideology is fatally flawed, because disregards and denies the basic need of every person to find value in themselves, see accomplishment that is earned and won and owned- not owed for or gifted. No man is happy until he can feel proud of who he is, of his accomplishments. If you give that person things to make up for what they lack- you remove the motivation to ever gain them. You would create a population of dull, drone like people lacking imagination, purpose, or a reason for living. We have a lot of those right now. You find them sleeping on the streets, stoned out in the drug houses, dead in the morgues.

It's obvious that you neither understand what I have said or care about looking at these issues from another viewpoint. That is YOUR limit. One of those people who know how to fix the world, if everybody would just do what you tell them to do. Don't waste time reading my posts, you are never going to like what you see.

 

It will be war. I am pretty sure about that.

 

Were you under the understanding that an equality of outcomes, or even an equality of starting points exist? They don't.

I know people born very wealthy into an abusive family. Everybody has their own hurdles. What is guaranteed in this country is equal opportunity. It is impossible for you, the government, or anybody else to guarantee equal starting points. MMT or otherwise. What you will do by going down this road, is subjugate the system that has been proven to work for decades in search of an unattainable utopia.

Lastly. Our individual wealth is a component of generational wealth. This makes sense. I work as hard as I do not for me, but for my kids. I want them to have it a little better than I did. If you remove the opportunity to work for my childrens benefit, I just simply won't work so hard. I am not going to bust my ass for you. My priorities are family, friends, community, and lastly everybody else. You can't force me to prioritize otherwise.

Lastly, lastly. We have a generation dependence issue in this country. We quite literally have people immigrate to this country with nothing but the clothes on their back, and a few generations later (if that) they are considered wealthy in comparison to the third-world countries they came from. While simultaneously, we have people living in the ghetto for generations. It isn't a problem with the system, its a problem with the people.

 

Bring it.

I would rather be dead than slave to their agenda.

I owe the collectivists nothing. They will be seen as tyrants.

 

Ya nailed it!

 

USA Today reports, "House Republicans drafted a report to counter Democratic arguments for the impeachment of President Donald Trump for his dealings with Ukraine.

"Republicans wrote in a 123-page draft report that the evidence doesn’t support accusations of pressure or that Trump tried to cover up his conversation with Zelensky. Trump released a summary of the July 25 call on Sept. 25 and has argued that he was justified in encouraging an investigation because of widespread corruption in Ukraine."

The only problem with that is that in his April 21 phone call and his July 25 phone call, Trump never mentioned general corruption in Ukraine, only the possible, unexplained corruption of Hunter Biden, his main rival's son. https://apnews.com/92fd8a4743e8447a8f8a7ec301ebe993

The GOP report largely claims there is no evidence of Trump's crimes. “The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,” said the draft report from Republican Reps. Devin Nunes of California on the Intelligence Committee, Jim Jordan of Ohio on the Oversight and Reform Committee and Michael McCaul of Texas on the Foreign Affairs Committee. "The fundamental disagreement apparent in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is a difference of world views and a discomfort with President Trump’s policy decisions."

The last is a crock. The House Intelligence Committee has been very specific in its charges against Trump, and none of it has to do with Trump's policies.

Also, Trump incriminated himself when he held up the military aid approved by Congress days before the July 25 call. Then, when Zelensky expressed interest in buying Javelins, Trump immediately replied, "I would like you to do us a favor, though."

The GOP defense is ridiculous, although I agree with them in one instance. Trump did not say, "President Zelensky, I am going to ask your government to interfere in our Presidential election for my personal benefit, then I will bribe you to provide incentive."

The report said there was nothing wrong with this request.

"None of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.” That is a lie. Several witnesses corroborated the extortion, but they didn't have to. Trump's chief of staff admitted that the money was held up to get Zelensky to investigate what Trump wanted investigated. The he told the nation, "Get over it." The GOP report made no mention of Mulvaney.

USA Today continues, "The report noted that Trump has a right to block witnesses and documents from being provided because the inquiry has been “an unfair, abusive, and partisan process, and does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry.'"

Republicans say this a lot. There is only one problem. They never say why the impeachment inquiry "does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry." Neither does this report. Trump Republicans just say it, and we are supposed to believe it on their say so alone.

This is a perfunctory defense of Trump because Nunes, Jordan, and McCall all know Trump is guilty as charged, and they are relying on Trump's flunkies in the Senate to exonerate him. Trump isn't even sending his lawyers to the hearings to defend him. Why bother? He is guilty.

 

Nobody wants to be homeless if there was a choice to live in the Clampett mansion. It's not about "free", but rather doing the best you can to accomplish what you can. If a tent on a sidewalk in the tenderloin is all you can accomplish, then okay.

You've accomplished all you can accomplish. Just accept that this is what is possible and deal with the fact that the sidewalk on one side of the sidewalk is just as hard as the other side.

 

You can't sit on the fence having a beer with your unlike-minded neighbor, discuss these things, and make it all go away.

 

Liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz says that Democrats have NO CASE. He says the "Democrat position is an abomination to the Constitution" and he is, let us say, more of a legal scholar than you. He is Professor of Law at Harvard University.
Then too Ken Starr, attorney and Special Counsel, says precisely the same thing, but of course facts and logic have no impact on the hateful Left, the bitter, angry Left. WHY is the Left so angry, so bitter? That's another subject and of course you would refute every point made there as well. You're angry about everything.

From another source here on PF:

We are divided because the left and the media keeps reminding us of a person's skin color. We are divided because the left and the media wants to take money from the financially well-off and give it to the losers. We are divided because the left and the media wants to change the natural roles of the genders. We are divided because the left and the media want special consideration for gays and lesbians. We are divided because the left and the media has more compassion for criminals than victims. We are divided because the left and the media wants more benefits for illegal aliens than our tax paying citizens. We are divided because the left and the media keeps up the propaganda to convince us that white people and the financially well-off people are the cause of all our problems.

 

Girlie-Men (like Barack Obama, John Kerry, Bill Clinton), transgenders, homosexuals, are so scary to us ex-military millions, and hunters who have weapons and know how to use them. What will you Democrats use, your binkies and Play Doh? Ask us to make everything outcome equal? War doesn't work like your little pansy protest marches, holding up signs and repeating chants.

 

Division is freedom's last stand.

 

No; let's look closer at this.

Equal opportunity requires
1. a minimum access to certain ideas/values via public education that increase the likelihood of an individual making rational choices eg stay away from the drug trade, etc etc. despite possible negative influences from the local environment in which one was raised. Such ideas can only be inculcated via public education, obviously (since they may not be available in the home environment).

[Note what's happening in Mexico, where poverty forges a link between profit seeking and violence; same in the US inner cities to which Trump referred ("your schools and hospitals are broken...").

2. Public support when job opportunities disappear due to macroeconomic events not the fault of individuals (but indeed the fault of neoliberal monetarist dogma: the US has access to sufficient real resources to guarantee work for anyone who wants a job).
(Public transport may need to be part of a Job Guarantee, to avoid excess demand on real resources such as roads, gasoline etc. ).

Now, is this like (in your words):

Nevertheless, moving on:

No to both questions.
A Job Guarantee (in MMT) is a base, above poverty wage that is offered to anyone not able to find employment in the private sector.
(Private sector employment offering below poverty wages needs to disappear..... I know this is difficult for you to get your head around at present, since it seems you are not aware of MMT, the basic premise of which is the wealth of a nation depends only on development of available real resources, not on financial engineering.

BTW, I do think it is important to understand MMT; a good place to start is professor Harvey's refutation of Krugman, Summers, and Rogoff.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2019/03/05/mmt-sense-or-nonsense/#4abe42fc5852

[A detour for the moment on MMT:
MMT disabuses us of neoliberal monetarist dogma that believes the public sector is dependent on the private sector to raise funds; in fact the currency issuing capacity of the national government can be utilised to complement money creation in the private sector which is subject to business downturns.

[Consider this: in 2007, businesses all around the globe were humming nicely, lots of houses being built in US and Europe, low inflation, low interest rates, near full employment, utilising available resources...and then....the GFC ...did all those real resources (labour, materials) being utilised in 2007 suddenly disappear in 2008? No, it was a financially engineered monetarist disaster).

Largely answered above.

And the rest of us? Like the people forced out of their homes in the GFC, life's savings lost, sleeping in cars, apart from those who have lived in ghettos their entire lives.

Well their life's savings were owed to them, but ended up in the pockets of fancy derivatives traders, a crime on a vast scale that not one of the financial industry casino banksters went to jail for.

Talk about equal opportunity......

All true (but I hope my anti-bankster tirade doesn't apply to you...)

Agree again. And a Job Guarantee pairs the abilities of people currently not in private sector employment (for whatever reason) with local needs as determined by the local community). Hence there are infinite possibilities to maintain full employment regardless of the state of the private sector, with this 'buffer employment pool' of workers.

Offering an above poverty job (but with lower than private sector wages) to anyone who wants to work, is NOT equivalent to "ordering other people to do what we think is right". I TRUST YOU CAN SPOT THE DIFFERENCE...

as with a UBI...I agree that is a flawed concept, especially because the people putting it forward think it can be paid for by taxing the private sector (which it can't).

By now, I hope I have supplied enough information above to be able to say: I completely agree with that paragraph....so we have yet to isolate the real cause of the dispute here...

I understand perfectly what you have said; certainly aspects of it I disagree with.
Note: Our discussion started awkwardly because you agreed whole heartedly with Texas Republican's crass representation of equality of opportunity cf equality of outcome - depending on political stance - which others here are also content to agree with.

Are YOU bailing out? After supposedly looking forward to discussing the issues?