The Upward Mobility Myth

EricCartman · Jun 9, 2005

Some people can make lemonade out of lemons and some people are given a fortune and they **** it all way. Studies are bogus because they fail to account for the mystery of human behaviors. Just remember that our last President was born poor, to an alcoholic abusive father and eventually raised by a single mother. He only went to college by being the best and getting a scholarship, he latter became a road scholar, attorney general, governor of his state and then President. It all depends on the person, what God gave you on the inside counts more than who your parents were.

Vylo · Jun 9, 2005

Some people can make lemonade out of lemons and some people are given a fortune and they **** it all way.

Yep. The problem is that republicans like to kick em while they are down, while the dems like to keep them in their pocket for election purposes.

I hope the poor votes republican. I really do. It will wake up the dems to the fact they can't use them anymore, and that they actually have to DO something other then give handouts and lip service.

EricCartman · Jun 9, 2005

See this is the thing, Im a republican, I give to charity, I just don't feel its the governments place to do it, its the community's place. Me giving money is charity, some holier than thou politician sanctimoniously taking my money and giving it to the poor or whoever is extortion. This isn't Europe, we are a very giving country, by percentage of our income more than any other country, lets encourage that spirit and stop picking peoples pockets. It just isnt necessary in this country. And you know, I'm only a college student now because I spent five years in the army before, so now I can afford it. My dad has worked at a fast-food restaurant his whole life and were Mexican Americans, were not all the monopoly guy.

Vylo · Jun 9, 2005

See this is the thing, Im a republican, I give to charity, I just don't feel its the governments place to do it, its the community's place.

The government is in place to ensure the welfare of the community, that is one of their jobs. Charity is nice, but falls drastically short of providing the welfare of communities around the nation.

The thing is that dems have made the welfare system a system of handouts instead of something to address the situation. The system should be attempting to give them the tools they need to stand on their own 2 feet, not just propping them up. Job training, bringing people into connections that could provide employment, or literally hiring the poor for government jobs that will assist them in gaining the skills they need to get ahead should be the function of welfare, not cutting them a check and sending them back to their lives of dismal resignation.

But why would dems put effort into something that might shift a base of their voters? Funny how the benevolence of either party fades quickly when it comes to votes.

EricCartman · Jun 9, 2005

I just disagree, provide for the common welfare and the common defense, means schools, jails, water, electricity, sanitation and military to me. Im not a socialist.

Im not saying we cant do things like for example grants for school, if you go to college, you will be come a tax payer and pay probably 10 times more in taxes then you would have if you hadnt gone to college. That makes since, but democrats complaining because only people that paid taxes received a tax cut is dumb.

billwald · Jun 9, 2005

The last 50 years in the USofA was the best times that the working class has seen since Adam got kicked out of the Garden. Anyone who couldn't "make it" in these years would be a loser in any other time and place.

Even in this year a person with a 95 IQ should be able to provide shelter, food, and clothing for himself if willing to spend 40 hours a week doing what he is told to do by the boss.

Spawn · Jun 9, 2005

Vylo said:
Yep. The problem is that republicans like to kick em while they are down, while the dems like to keep them in their pocket for election purposes.

I hope the poor votes republican. I really do. It will wake up the dems to the fact they can't use them anymore, and that they actually have to DO something other then give handouts and lip service.

no ones kicking anyone while they are down. Republics just don't feel that handouts are the solution or that the government should be in the charity business. Charity belongs in the church and in the private sector.

Spawn · Jun 9, 2005

EricCartman said:
I just disagree, provide for the common welfare and the common defense, means schools, jails, water, electricity, sanitation and military to me. Im not a socialist.

Im not saying we cant do things like for example grants for school, if you go to college, you will be come a tax payer and pay probably 10 times more in taxes then you would have if you hadnt gone to college. That makes since, but democrats complaining because only people that paid taxes received a tax cut is dumb.

um - PROMOTE the general welfare and provide for the common defense.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/ ( great website BTW)

Nikos100 · Jun 10, 2005

Spawn said:
You mean I couldn't have possibly moved from the dregs of poverty to the safety of the middle class? No of course not. Not without the dems holding my hands the whole way.

What point are you trying to prove, that there is no underclass in a pure free market? Hate to break it to you but the Middle-Class has been diminishing under Bush and will continue to do so. Thats the price of privatization. I remember an old saying once, "Only in America is privatization viewed as a step forward for democracy".

HouseApe · Jun 10, 2005

Spawn said:
That's easy. My dad lives in the whims and pleasures of the NOW. He has zero self control and just cannot put off his own pleasure.

Yeah, I know a few people like that. For the most part, they are good-hearted, but lack impulse control. I tend to think that poor folks fall into one of 3 categories: the impulse control challenged folks, the mentally and physically challenged, and the socially challenged.

I think resolving the issues of all three require completely different mechanisms, but I think they are solvable (for the vast majority, not all). What I am interested in is do people think it is worth the effort to do so, or just leave these people to their own minimal devices, in poverty.

HouseApe · Jun 10, 2005

EricCartman said:
See this is the thing, Im a republican, I give to charity, I just don't feel its the governments place to do it, its the community's place. Me giving money is charity, some holier than thou politician sanctimoniously taking my money and giving it to the poor or whoever is extortion. This isn't Europe, we are a very giving country, by percentage of our income more than any other country, lets encourage that spirit and stop picking peoples pockets. It just isnt necessary in this country. And you know, I'm only a college student now because I spent five years in the army before, so now I can afford it. My dad has worked at a fast-food restaurant his whole life and were Mexican Americans, were not all the monopoly guy.

So what is stopping people? If communities, churches, whatever was making sure people didn't live in poverty, the government wouldn't be in the business of doing this. The U.S. has been a country for 230 years now, and not one community has ever done this. Why do you think this is?

Fineous_Reese · Jun 10, 2005

ZaraDurden said:
Borealis said:

Worry about yourself, not about what other people are doing.

Click to expand...

And it is this line that is the main problem in America is the past 30+ years. When everyone only worries about him/herself, that is what leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poor, increased class division and the shrinking middle class all of which we see happening today.

If you do love America, and you believe that people should be 'equal', some sense of economic equality, quite by necessity, is a part of that.

almost makes coveting seem like a virtue...

not picking on ZaraDurden here, the thoughts just follow after reading the thread:

some folks argue that when Jesus said "the poor will always be with you" that He didn't mean forever, just for the lifespan of the folks He was talking to. i reckon that's not the case since the poor are indeed still around.

some folks argue that mentiong that "the poor will always be with you" means that the mentioner wants to ignore the poor and use them as stepping stools to get higher up the ladder.

the truth is more along the lines that we live in a fallen world and in this current state God uses all manner of things we'd consider 'bad' to build character and improve us (including having us help those in need.) we fallen humans however put more value on aquiring more material items when having more is nowhere near the meaning of 'success'. Ecclesiastes should be required reading for everyone (it could be argued that Solomon wasn't upwardly mobile because there was nowhere higher to go)

EricCartman · Jun 10, 2005

The community would like they use to prior to the new deal. I know i my town,there are a number of charities that could probably do the job.

HouseApe · Jun 10, 2005

EricCartman said:
The community would like they use to prior to the new deal. I know i my town,there are a number of charities that could probably do the job.

Well, I don't just mean feeding the hungry and providing a temporary shelter for the homeless. I mean an organization (or set of them) that the poor can turn to, or even ones that seek out the poor, and provide them with the tools they need to become fully self-sustaining, productive and upwardly mobile members of society.

The feds don't do it now, nor, to my knowledge, have any charitable organizations attempted it on a large enough scale to be effective.

Milla · Jun 10, 2005

Hm. Interesting related reading...this turn of the century report on the "Wisconsin Idea". I never really thought of Wisconsin as a hotbed of progressivism (although the more I read about it, the more I think I should go there), but this is pretty neat...although I have to admit I find that illustrative examples charmingly simple. Ah, to have studied sociology back in 1912!

http://www.library.wisc.edu/etext/wireader/Graphics/WER1650-5.gif

arnegrim · Jun 10, 2005

HouseApe said:
Well, I don't just mean feeding the hungry and providing a temporary shelter for the homeless. I mean an organization (or set of them) that the poor can turn to, or even ones that seek out the poor, and provide them with the tools they need to become fully self-sustaining, productive and upwardly mobile members of society.

The feds don't do it now, nor, to my knowledge, have any charitable organizations attempted it on a large enough scale to be effective.

And why are these charitable organizations unable to be effective enough on a larger scale?

Part of the problem is that the Democrats keep wanting to remove private charities from the equation and make it a federal job... and the federal government will NEVER be able to do it right.

arnegrim · Jun 10, 2005

Milla said:
Hm. Interesting related reading...this turn of the century report on the "Wisconsin Idea". I never really thought of Wisconsin as a hotbed of progressivism (although the more I read about it, the more I think I should go there), but this is pretty neat...although I have to admit I find that illustrative examples charmingly simple. Ah, to have studied sociology back in 1912!

Why are there no numbers to correspond with the categories?

HouseApe · Jun 10, 2005

arnegrim said:
And why are these charitable organizations unable to be effective enough on a larger scale?

Part of the problem is that the Democrats keep wanting to remove private charities from the equation and make it a federal job... and the federal government will NEVER be able to do it right.

But didn't private organizations have about 150 years to do it prior to Roosevelt's presidency? I would argue that prior to that, if they had stepped up, the democrats would never have been able to make it a federal job.

arnegrim · Jun 10, 2005

And what were the numbers of homeless or starving prior to Roosevelt? Have those numbers gone up or down since the federal govt stepped in?

Milla · Jun 10, 2005

arnegrim said:
Why are there no numbers to correspond with the categories?

Because it's a psuedo-scientific theoretical analysis written by a librarian in 1912?

The Upward Mobility Myth

Well-Known Member

Stick with the King!

Well-Known Member

Stick with the King!

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Don’t hate me for being right. I’m too beautiful!

Don’t hate me for being right. I’m too beautiful!

Colourless Green ideas sleep furiously

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Senior Veteran

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency