A new kind of social political thinking

[Backroads]

I would say it would be more fair to only be taxed after a living income was deducted.

I like this notion (of course, if we could decide what a living income would be). That way those who are struggling before taxes could get a break.

[annewandering]

Good to go!

Edited November 19, 2011 by annewandering

[Dravin]

I like this notion (of course, if we could decide what a living income would be). That way those who are struggling before taxes could get a break.

It should be noted that with deductions, standard and others, that there is effectively a cut off before an individual has to pay federal income tax. Now I'm not claiming it's a very large amount, but in concept (a level of untaxed income) what you are talking about exists.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Dravin

[Elphaba]

This is a good point - for those who claim they "have no family" ... they also have no friends? do not know anyone in their church? ... what kind of a person completely isolates themselves from everyone else?

good incentive to change your behavior so that a few people will befriend you, then to stay stuck in your ways and expect an entitlement from the gov....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

on a side note, my grandparents are being taken care of by someone who is not related to us by blood right now... my "aunt" (who is not really my aunt) is paying $7,000/month for their assisted living care. Why? because during WW2, my grandparents took care of her (even though they did not have to)... my grandparents took a lot of people in, one of them ended up being rich... what comes around, goes around - God takes care of those who take care of others.

That is, without a doubt, the most ignorant and arrogant post I have ever read here.

What kind of person completely isolates themselves [sic] from everyone else? A person who is in so much physical pain that it’s excruciating to blink, much less get out of that bed, take a shower, put on clean clothes and walk out the door.

Or a person whose mental illness causes them to look at another person and “feel” a danger so profound it paralyzes him. Or a person who has been abused by people in the past so horrifically that she can no longer take the risk of allowing another person in. Or a person with a physical illness so debilitating that merely being in the presence of other people leaves them gasping with exhaustion, overwhelmed physically and emotionally.

Or, a person who ________________________________. There are numerous scenarios that fill in that blank.

The people that you so blithely dismiss as less than you, less than your grandparents, and less than normal, live all around you, and when they hear ignorant judgments like yours, they shrink even further into themselves, more isolated than ever.

So, what kind of person completely isolates him/herself from everyone else? Many of them are people in pain who have been around people like you.

Elphaba

[sister_in_faith]

Anne, I'm sorry, but you are going to have to send me a copy of your W2s so that I can see if you are a friend worth investing any more time in.

That goes for the rest of you too... I need to know who I should suck up to if something happens and I need some extra help.

(please no one take this post seriously. it is sarcasm. thank you. )

[annewandering]

you are welcome anytime, sister in faith.

Edited November 18, 2011 by annewandering

[Tyler90AZ]

on a side note, my grandparents are being taken care of by someone who is not related to us by blood right now... my "aunt" (who is not really my aunt) is paying $7,000/month for their assisted living care. Why? because during WW2, my grandparents took care of her (even though they did not have to)... my grandparents took a lot of people in, one of them ended up being rich... what comes around, goes around - God takes care of those who take care of others.

What a blessing, very inspiring!

[Traveler]

I am sorry but the poverty problem is only part of the problem. As I pointed out – all efforts to help the poor in the USA has had to opposite effect.

But for now I want to leave the problem of the poor and point out a serious problem with our business model in this country. I will point this out with another story.

I use to work for a company that was started up by some engineers and business men in Utah. They built a business that controlled 85% of the market for their industry. So they did the logical thing – they sold their company for many millions of dollars and retired wealthy. I guess they deserved it. The company that bought up the business had their own idea how to make money. Btw the prophet was about 100 million a year. Things were rosy – especially for those that owned stock – of which I was one of the lucky ones. I had been given stock options. My net worth with just my stock options was over $2 million. Nice. But there was a problem – to insure that I stayed with the company I could not exercise my stock options for 5 years. It was all part of the deal when the original company was sold. I was not the only one in this condition.

About 3 years into this deal 9/11 happened and there was a downturn in the economy. Within a few short months the company president had an “all hands” meeting. The company was going to have to declare a $680 million loss for the quarter and 30% of the engineers would have to be laid off to keep the company viable. In addition those remaining would have to take a 10% cut in pay to help preserve more jobs. Management would take a 25% cut – in salary.

But there was a problem – because of my position in the company, I knew that none of the projects in the last few years had ever lost money. We were a very profitable company. The reason for the debt was not caused by any of the engineers that were being laid off! What had happened is that upper management had borrowed many hundreds of millions to buy foreign companies; very risky companies with lots of debt. The house of cards was falling down and the extent of sacrifice for upper management was the 25% cut in their $250,000 annual salaries. But all the sacrifice was to keep their $5 to $10 Million bonuses intact. If you can believe it – they caused the failure in the company; they exploited their employees and leveraged their livelihood to play a game of international monopoly – but they lost. Only they did not lose – without batting an eye – for their error they took millions in bonuses. The market share fell to less than 10% and the stock fell from $62 a share to less than $5. Within 6 months my $2 million was worth 0. But I came out better than most. I was able to start my own company and take a small piece of that market share. Over half of my friends never recovered. One very good engineer became a bus driver. Some older engineers like me were forced into early retirement and lost their homes and much of their planned retirement. I would say that less than 10% survived. A few ended up with broken families and about half have ended up declaring bankruptcy.

One fellow engineer almost made it but a couple of his children finished college and could not find work but my friends had signed as seconds on their students loans – the bankruptcy was horrible because they lost most of their savings to the student loans.

Do the rich deserve their earned bonuses? They worked hard to keep the company solvent. They sure think they deserved every penny of their bonuses – but I don’t.

What I think – if a company has a layoff of over 10% all bonuses, perks and expense accounts for upper management should be forfeit for a minimum of 2 years and the time period should be extended as the layoff % increases. Also the CEO and CFO should be fired without severance and without retirement benefits.

And you know what – I do not think that taxing the wealthy under such circumstances will benefit anybody. But as I have implied – When there is suffering it should be shared by all – all must make sacrifice and if anyone should be tagged to suffer or sacrifice more – it ought to be those that screwed up the most.

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

I have learned a lot from this thread.

I have learned that the people on the left are no good, lazy thieves who want to start a class war.

I have learned that the people on the right are self-centered misers who would rather kick a homeless man than set up a fund to help them survive.

Now that we've established this, I have a question:

What are the consequences of having two groups of people that are each equally passionate about how wrong the other side is? Are those consequences what the people on this thread want? If not, what are they willing to compromise on to prevent it?

[annewandering]

Good afternoon missed this one earlier.

Edited November 19, 2011 by annewandering

[FunkyTown]

Great. So you're unable to compromise. I get that.

What about the other side? Are you guys willing to do all the compromising, then?

and there you have the exact problem. The top never lose no matter what they do but the people that made that company successful are the ones that get shafted. You all paid for their mistakes instead of them paying for it.

Funkytown of course we can compromise. Problem the poor and now the middle have is that we are just hanging on by our fingernails. Its tough to let go of one hand and pray we dont fall off. We do want to survive.

I have noticed an odd thing though. An example is that long time ago we were desperate with six kids to feed, last unemployment check, one quarter left, and living out of a camper. A man came up to the window while I was sitting in the driver seat thinking. He asked if we had any change we could spare. I just started laughing. He ended up helping us and continued to help us through that summer. He brought the kids juice and fruit and no he did not have money. He was living under a bridge and was a war vet that had lost his pain in the bottle. Him and his friends helped us, not just with juice but with information all summer long. I will never forget him. He had nothing but was still willing to help someone else. I have noticed that people who have little are the most willing to give aid to others. Its like being down in the trenches and all making sure each other survive to fight another day. Those not in the trenches dont even see the problem.

[annewandering]

and this one!

Edited November 19, 2011 by annewandering

[FunkyTown]

I didnt say any such thing. I would like to know what we can compromise on? I am one of the lucky ones. It took 50% of our income for 6 years but we have a small house so not homeless anymore. Should we give that up? Now when I say 50% I mean it left us with $400 to pay everything for our family and we had4 kids still at home. What do you want from me?

What are you willing to give up?

It sounds like you're unable to compromise on this. No shame in that. That's why I turned my attention to the other side.

[sister_in_faith]

What are you willing to give up?

It sounds like you're unable to compromise on this. No shame in that. That's why I turned my attention to the other side.

I'm confused.

It sounds like you want to reach some sort of agreement. You have devided them up into sides, and now what? You just want to know what each side is willing to 'give up'? And just because one person doesn't really have anything to give, then they are branded as unable to comprimise?

If there is a specific goal (something a little less broad than solving all of society's ills) then lets set that down in specific terms and then see how we can all work towards achieving it.

We as a society need to decide what is really important to us. Do we like democracy, or would we prefer socialism or communism. There are good points and bad points to all systems.

Do we want to provide social programs for those who are disabled? If not, then we should look into legalizing doctor assisted suicide, because it is inhumane (in my opinion) to just allow someone to wallow in their own filth until they starve to death if they cannot care for themselves. What are we, as a society, willing to 'give up' to take care of the disabled? We shouldn't be asking the disabled what they are willing to 'give up' to take care of themselves. That person probably doesn't have anything to give.

I think, all in all, we in America have a pretty good thing going. We have opportunity, access to health care, good food in our stores, social programs to catch most of those who need it. Does it need to be tweeked? For sure! But do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? I think not.

Honestly the whole discussion is a little funny to me, because when you look at the world, and all of the people on it, we are among the 'richest' on it. If you have food in your refidgerator, clothes on your back, a roof over your head, twenty dollars in your pocket, and a place to sleep you are richer than 75% of the people in the world, so so they say.

There are a lot of people in America today who advocate some sort of 'redistribution' of wealth. But boy I bet those people would be kicking and screaming if we decided to do that on a global level.

[Just_A_Guy]

and there you have the exact problem. The top never lose no matter what they do but the people that made that company successful are the ones that get shafted. You all paid for their mistakes instead of them paying for it.

One area where this evil, hobo-kicking (you really should try it, Funky; it's so much fun!) conservative could compromise would be in making it easier to launch shareholder derivative lawsuits and reform of the business judgment rule.

I didnt say any such thing. I would like to know what we can compromise on? I am one of the lucky ones. It took 50% of our income for 6 years but we have a small house so not homeless anymore. Should we give that up? Now when I say 50% I mean it left us with $400 to pay everything for our family and we had4 kids still at home. What do you want from me?

At one point I, too, will have a house. I suspect (due to my growing family) that it will be large enough that some may call it "ostentatious". My income at this point is about average and, due to my career path, hopefully will increase substantially within the next couple of years.

But what do you want from me? I'm routinely working ten hour days--and I pull at least one fifteen-hour-day per week, plus one or two Saturdays per month. I'm all for a basic safety net, but I'm not fond of the idea of having my sixty-hour workweek magically converted into a forty-hour paycheck. Many corporate types--even on Wall Street--have similar sentiments (though I acknowledge many of their salaries exceed mine by several orders of magnitude).

It isn't just the poor and middle classes who have fought and scrimped and saved to get where they are.

Of necessity, the rich must--and, in reality, do--contribute larger piece of the pie. Skip feeding the goose every now and again if you must; but don't kill it unless you have no use for golden eggs.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Jennarator]

Back to the beginning when everyone was talking about beggars:

It is our responsibility to take care of the poor. I am in no way rich, I have to live paycheck to paycheck, so I don't give away things often, however if I had the money to give to a beggar, I would. At that point it is in their hand and up to them how they use it. If they use it for bad things, they are accountable. I am not saying to just give out money blindly, however if you feel compelled or see a need, it is not your problem if they are lying about their needs. It is their problem and eventually, they will be held accountable.

[Dravin]

And just because one person doesn't really have anything to give, then they are branded as unable to comprimise?

Anne denied she was unable to compromise, which is why Funky asked her what it was she was able to compromise or give up. Funky suspects Anne actually isn't able to compromise but she, like you, is getting caught up in connotations of being unable to compromise. If Anne can not give up or compromise anything then by definition she's unable to compromise, it's straight forward use of the English language. I suppose moral judgement on her inability to compromise would be up to debate but Funky isn't making a moral judgement on her inability to compromise.

You have two scenarios:

1) Anne is able to give something up or compromise - In which case asking her what she's willing to give up or compromise is a valid question.

2) Anne is unable to give up or compromise - In which case saying she is unable to compromise is a valid statement.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Dravin

[Traveler]

I have learned a lot from this thread.

I have learned that the people on the left are no good, lazy thieves who want to start a class war.

I have learned that the people on the right are self-centered misers who would rather kick a homeless man than set up a fund to help them survive.

Now that we've established this, I have a question:

What are the consequences of having two groups of people that are each equally passionate about how wrong the other side is? Are those consequences what the people on this thread want? If not, what are they willing to compromise on to prevent it?

Are you paying attention to what have said in this thread?

I did not say the poor are no good, lazy thieves. What I have tried to say is that we make them no good, lazy thieves by attempting to rob from them their dignity that comes from suffering and sacrifice to accomplish anything worthwhile.

I did not say many of the rich would rather kick a homeless. Yes; some of the rich with the help of others will set up a fund to help the poor but when they see the fund growing they figure out a way to channel most of that fund into their own pockets. Sure they will pass some off to the poor and pronounce their homeless fund a success - but in reality it is not.

What we are currently doing and what is taking place is failing badly. How can anyone that really cares for anyone else continue to support failing programs?

I have not just made criticisms of the failures. I have suggested a attitude that I honestly believe will improve the situation. All I did was suggest that what ever program we try to help the poor - we should consider including the poor in the process by making them a part of what it takes to make the process successful - especially to them. Because I dare suggest such a thing; I am an uncaring bitter person that dislikes the poor?

I have also criticized top managers that think that the best way to solve a problem (that they caused) is to fire 30% of their workforce that made them successful. But be careful. I did not say that they should not have power to fire anyone from their workforce. What I said was that they should not have the power to fire the workforce to justify their bonus .

If top manage runs a company making plenty of money into a condition of bankruptcy or layoffs and sell-offs - taking a bonus should be considered as evil as starving hardworking slaves or robing your own children. It is the essence of unthinkable crudity.

But what shocks me more than anything is when people would rather do nothing in the face of problems rather than try new ideas that require a change in the thinking that got us to the problems in the first place.

The Traveler

[sister_in_faith]

So the idea that the gov shouldn't be the one helping the poor/disabled etc. has been thrown out there. Instead it should be based on friends/church. Okay, so let's just assume that there is going to be a large group of people who don't have the friends with the resources to help them. They HAVE to turn to a church. I do not think ANYONE should be forced to join/rely on/align with (whatever you want to call it) any church. Ever. It's immoral and unethical.

[Elphaba]

SOME people who isolate themselves are like this - but only SOME.

Actually, MILLIONS of people who isolate themselves are like this. MILLIONS.

There are many who are isolated because of their own character/personality/faults - there are many who are isolated because they refuse to repent, admit when they are wrong, change their ways etc. etc.

Oh, please. That is utter, and cruel, nonsense.

Some people may isolate themselves for the reasons you cite, but the vast majority of people with character flaws, who refuse to admit they are wrong, or refuse to change their ways, etc., don’t isolate themselves--they impose themselves.

The people who truly isolate themselves do so because, for a myriad of reasons, it is so physically and/or emotionally painful to be around other people, they have no choice but to go to a concerted effort to avoid social situations. Not because they are sinners. Not because they have character/personality/faults. Not because they enjoy being alone. Because it is painful.

In fact, people who isolate themselves are at as high a risk of dying of a heart attack as are people who smoke. Why? Because isolation is so painful it is as stressful to the body as smoking.

Isolation is a far more profound separateness than being alone. Many people enjoy being alone and are able to choose that state. Isolation, on the other hand, is not something these MILLIONS of people choose. In fact, isolation is so painful, people go to great lengths, often harmful ones, to avoid it. Thus, the MILLIONS of people who are forced into isolation because of their pain, far more than your ridiculous “SOME,“ live in agony over it.

Do you see a running theme here? Pain. Isolation is caused by pain. Not sinning. Not character defects. Not flaws. Not faults. Pain.

Do some of these people isolate themselves for the reasons you cited above? Of course they do, but that is shame, and shame is painful. Contrary to your ridiculous assertion above, these people feel shame precisely because they know they have character flaws, because they know they need to repent, because they admit they’ve done wrong. And people who isolate themselves out of shame deserve compassion, not condemnation, because not only is their shame, and thus pain, profound. Their isolation can, literally, inhibit their capacity to make things right.

Don't get me wrong, shame appropriate to the situation is a good thing. It motivates people to recognize when their actions have caused other people pain and to seek out ways to heal the damage. It motivates people to be better human beings. But many people who isolate themselves because of shame experience it to a degree beyond what is appropriate, and because the pain is debilitating rather than motivating. And I guarantee you, if such a person were aware of your presumptions about isolation, the pain your ignorance causes her may be what keeps her home rather than going to church. Would that be your fault? No. But it would be a factor.

Conversely, if she believed you understood how painful her shame, and thus her pain, was, she might very well take the risk of not isolating herself, and rather, choose to seek you out once she walks through the chapel doors.

But as it is, your ability to be so astonishingly cruel by dismissing the pain of not "SOME," but MILLIONS of people forced into isolation because of their pain, stuns me. I truly believe you simply do not comprehend the sheer numbers of people in so much pain, and that if you did your reaction would not be accusations of sin, but rather compassion. The alternative sucks the hope out of me.

Elphaba

Edited November 18, 2011 by Elphaba

[sister_in_faith]

All I did was suggest that what ever program we try to help the poor - we should consider including the poor in the process by making them a part of what it takes to make the process successful - especially to them.

Traveler, I agree that trying to 'custom fit' help to the people we are helping is a good idea (if that is what you are getting at... sorry if I am misreading you). Each situation is different, and just throwing money at it isn't always the best solution.

The problem is that getting a case worker for each person, and putting effort into following each client, is expensive. And even then, not always successful.

[Backroads]

So the idea that the gov shouldn't be the one helping the poor/disabled etc. has been thrown out there. Instead it should be based on friends/church. Okay, so let's just assume that there is going to be a large group of people who don't have the friends with the resources to help them. They HAVE to turn to a church. I do not think ANYONE should be forced to join/rely on/align with (whatever you want to call it) any church. Ever. It's immoral and unethical.

I agree it's unethical and immoral, but who is to say all churches will say "we will help you IF you join our congregation." Plenty of churches out there offer help without any expectation of new members of the flock.

I'm for some government help, ideally after family/friends/church/charities have not worked out, but it seems the current mindset puts government assistant first.

[sister_in_faith]

Changed,

I'm starting to think I must be misunderstanding you... Are you actually saying that people who isolate themselves are doing so because they won't repent from sin? And are you saying that people can just make a decision to change their behavior and it will change?

[annewandering]

This world has a long long ways to go to be millennial.

Edited November 18, 2011 by annewandering

[Elphaba]

I am going to quote from another about something that makes us alone:

from: Metanoia: Turn toward the light

Imagine you are standing in a circle of people.

In the center of the circle, there is a source of light.

But rather than facing the center and the light,

you are standing with your back to the light, facing outward.

When you stand this way, facing away from the light,

all you can see is your own shadow.

You cannot see the light.

You can only look into your shadow.

*** You cannot see the others in the circle with you.***

From what you can see, you are disconnected and alone in the dark.

Now imagine that you turn around to face the light that is in the center of the circle.

When you turn toward the light, you no longer see only darkness.

When you turn toward the light, your shadow is behind you.

When you turn toward the light,

you can now see the other people who are standing with you.

You can see that the light is shining on everyone

and that you are all connected in its radiance.

Making the decision to turn around, to turn away from shadow,

to face the light: this is metanoia.

so, for this therapy group, a suicide prevention group, what is the solution?

the solution is metanoia.

metanoia - translated in the english language - is repent.

we are all sinners, to refuse to admit that we are a sinner, is to look at your shadow, to look at and create a false reality, to refuse to see the entire picture, to cover everyone around you in a blanket of blame, thinking you are perfect and everyone else is evil/out to get you - leading to paranoia, and isolation.... what brakes this cycle? repentance. admitting that it's not all their fault, it's your own fault too - because when you can honestly clearly see your own faults, you empathize with those around you because you see that they are like you are too... until you can admit your own sin (which can be so hard and painful to do - so hard some would rather kill themselves than admit who they are), you will not be able to see others for who they really are... Jesus spent his entire mission teaching for the need of metanoi. meta = change (like metastable - state of flux) and noia is your perception of reality (paranoia). repentance changes your perception of reality - so that you can see what is really there, instead of seeing a paranoid version where you are a perfect victim and it is everyone else who is evil and out to get you.

Now you are just being obtuse.

The person you quote is not addressing the millions of people who isolate themselves due to innumerable forms of physical and/or mental pain. He is addressing a completely different group of people.

I have no doubt some of the people in each group overlap, and that his words could be very helpful to some of those in the group I am describing. But, to the vast majority of the millions of these people, insisting his words apply to them, insisting the reason they isolate themselves is because they sin, and insisting that if they only repent of their sins they will no longer isolate themselves, only guarantees to exacerbate, rather than alleviate, their isolation.

By the way, your ruse to dismiss what I am saying by accusing me of being paranoid and thinking you are out to get me is nonsense. This is not about me. It is about millions of people you wrongly, and cruelly, accuse of being sinners.

Millions. Not one. Millions.

Elphaba