In regards to your own judgements about trashy girls, I think you're being a little too hard on yourself. Empathy, compassion, and self respect do not require financial stability to be taught, nor do they require loving parents to be learned.

Middle and Upper class women have .8 more children than women living in poverty

Is that have as in "give birth to", or have as in "are raising"? As you note at the end, infant mortality is significantly higher among the poor. If it means the latter, then that statistic is probably skewed significantly by infant and child mortality. If it means the former, then I admit I am completely surprised and very curious how that could be in light of so much anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I don't mean the stereotype of "welfare mothers", but the historic tendency for people to have more babies when they live in a community with low child survival rates.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You have nothing to worry about, unless you're part of the one-third of the populace paying for the other two-thirds who take more than they give.


Oh, come off it QM.

In 2009 the top 5% of households received 20.7% of National Income.

20.7% of 14.5 TRILLION dollars.

That's more money that the bottom 40% of households earned COMBINED.

3.9% + 9.4% = 13.3% of 14.5 Trillion dollars.

[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/f02AR.xls]

~~~
So go ahead, pretend like the Upper Class is being victimized by other lazy selfish citizens too dumb to have been born into wealthy families.

Plus, i mean.. do you even make $250,000+ a year? No? Then WHY THE FUCK are you such a willfully ignorant brown-noser for anything labeled "conservatism"?!

I swear to god you're just some pervy troll who get boners from sadomasochistic politics.

"Yes, Master Plutocracy. May I have another?"
~~~

p.s. - cognitive dissonance. it powers your fuel cells.

Liberal media control... both sides have their propaganda, just watch Fox News.

Banning what you eat? I've never seen this as a talking point for liberals

How about banning important research for curing diseases because it uses stem cells?
How does that preserve our freedom. Yet it's a common conservative talking point.
Or banning violent video games sales to kids, (parents should decide imo) conservatives did try to do that today right?

I'm still in college right now so I'm not paying taxes. I however will have no problem paying taxes, even high taxes if I feel it is helping support government programs that help our country. The idea that the upper class having lower taxes will help our economy is flawed in my opinion. By lowering taxes for the upper class you are throwing away the largest potential tax income for the country.

I understand the trickle down effect, and it is a highly debated economic theory. I however think that when you have people with hundreds of millions of dollars getting huge tax breaks it hurts the country as a whole. I just think that their taxed income would help our society more in government programs, than in a bank.

My tax code is probably not as crazy as you think if you care to look it up, income tax on money earned over 400,000 used to be over 90% In the 1960's, I also venture that our country was a lot better off back then, when the super-rich had a sense American Pride, and were not just trying to get people elected so they can pile their money up higher, while creating an illusion of everyone being better off from lower taxes. Americans should be ashamed to amass $90 billion for their families (Waltons). Greed is not good.

>> ^Mashiki:

Well lets see we can start with various forms of entertainment control. And the various flappy headed talks of control on 'violent media'. Then we can go on the 'we're going to/want to ban what you eat' mode.
You should be supporting lower taxes. Raising them doesn't do you any good, but since your tax code is a mess I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. High taxation leads to people shoveling their money elsewhere, and buying only the basics. Prosperity comes from having disposable income.

The tea-party started out as a decent movement. Then all of the private interests saw a way to pay less in taxes. I live in Wisconsin, and I'm terrified that my favorite senator Feingold (who earned my lifetime vote when he alone had the sense to vote against the patriot act) is trailing in the polls to a tea-party business owner who is backed by the Catholic church. The ironic thing to me is that this guy might win on the premise of cutting taxes, and appealing to the religious voters. I relate more to democrats, but don't vote the line. I was disillusioned with Obama after he made it clear he lied about raising the tax on incomes over 250k (most of the reason he had my support, and yes I'm slightly socialist). However I will be truly crushed if a politician who is actually credible loses to a guy because people vote on their religious beliefs, and false promises of tax breaks for the middle class. When really I think it will be aimed more at the upper class. Oh and this video is mostly bullshit. Either party would have probably done just as bad a job in most of these situations. Vote for people not parties.

America should go back to the old system of taxing income of over 2-3 million at 50-80%. That is the only realistic way of recovering the insane amount of money we've spent. If we cut services to do it instead there would be even more problems.

Ah, excellent information all around. Much obliged, gents.

That said, I'd like to offer my perspective on the subject, based on experience solely with public schools. I hope you don't mind if I exaggerate here and there to make my points.

Kids schooled at home - just like at private schools - might very well receive better education than in public schools, particularly if the local school system is (perceived to be) of questionable quality, to say the least. Yes, those kids will most likely do better in life if the education is properly done - which I assume to be the case, just for the sake of argument. Let's also ignore the ideological danger posed by parents as well as the social aspect of mandatory interaction with people from other cultures and social backgrounds.

Here's my problem with it: what about the rest? What about the kids whose parents can't afford private school, who are too uneducated themselves to teach their kids, who are too fucked up or uninterested to take care of their kids' education? Public schools over here used to be the most important institution of integration and equality. Same quality of education, independant of a child's background.

No doubt, if schools are in piss-poor shape, everyone's going to suffer. All the more reason to improve the system and not just drop it for your own good. If people can take their kids out of public schools, they become less inclined to pay for them - understandably so, since they are of no use to them anymore. That's the way shit's been going on over here since private schools are popping up everywhere. Upper class says goodbye while the rest remains in now underfinanced schools.

The overview in the initial post speaks of "(money) the American taxpayers do not have to spend". Fuck that, I gladly pay for public schools and I'd be more than glad to fork over another 5% simply for the socializing and integrative effect properly working schools have.

I'm all for homeschooling as an addition to normal school education. But as a replacement? Nope, doesn't work with my understanding of a working society. Unfortunatly, they've been reluctant to fix our damaged school system for quite a while now. As a result, I have to teach math to my youngest sister and her friends as well as my godchild and her friends on weekends. I love to, but I shouldn't have to.

There you have it, lots of exaggeration, lots of socialist bias - just like I promised.

Once again, the perfect example of two dumb asses doing exactly what the upper class wants them to do: focus on each other and nothing else.

Perhaps you would prefer these workers in India to have no jobs at all? We both know why they're being paid less, and why if they weren't able to be paid less, there wouldn't be a fraction of the economic and employment opportunities in India. Over time, these workers are able to send their children to get an education that earns them higher paying jobs, and so on, raising their incomes over time. The reason we don't see a Marxist alternative that lifts people out of poverty faster is because there isn't one.

http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/03/emerging-focus-rising-middle-class-in-emerging-markets.html

I'm not talking about some kind of extreme application of capitalism, I'm talking about the one applied by countries around the world. Even then, capitalism does not imply no regulation or oversight, read the bit that's labelled "Role of government", note the bit on competition laws, and standards of service in industries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

I would argue there were two reasons Australia got through the GFC mostly unscathed. Firstly, our Four Pillars policy which stopped the big 4 banks from merging and prevented the kind of excessive competitive pressure that arguably forced many banks in the US into risky securitised mortgages in the US in the first place. Secondly, because of a surplus of investment opportunities and a deficit of savings domestically, banks weren't put into a position where they had to invest funds abroad, such as disastrously how Iceland's banks did. The second was arguably luck, but the first is the kind of policy that fits squarely under the government's role in even a literal interpretation of capitalism.
>> ^Asmo:

>> ^RedSky:
You're confusing capitalism with a failure of regulation and general bad policy.
Yes, a large number of developed countries have seen middle class income stagnate, but many emerging economies with balanced policies have seen millions of people rise out of poverty into the middle class.
Capitalism doesn't force anyone to spend beyond beyond their means, bad policy which encourages easy credit and an overconsumption culture does. An imbalance in wage growth between the middle and upper class obviously also plays into this and can be addressed with effective policy changes.
I'm not going to even get into how hawkish foreign policy is far removed from anything we're talking about here.
I did look at the GFC, and I addressed it as a failure of regulation. Again, as I said to TheFreak, if you want to dispute that, instead of asking rhetorical questions, argue against my view that effectively regulation could have prevented the GFC.

re: emerging economies, which ones? India where US companies send US jobs that only cost them cents on the dollar?
You blame a culture of over consumption but that is exactly what capitalism creates and encourages. More consumption = more profits. You blame lack of oversight, but oversight is a socialist notion. Regulation is an inherently socialist policy. You regulate to protect those that cannot protect themselves, for the greater good. A failure of regulation is a capitalist victory.
edit: that is not to say that socialism is superior but there needs to be a tempered road between economic ideologies. Australia has a stronger regulation system on it's banking sector and we managed to ride out the GFC significantly better because we didn't have to bail our banks out (rather, our 'bailouts' were economic stimulus directly back to the people in the form of a one of cash payment and a number of infrastructure projects). Banks still make money, investors still get returns, far less average joes get screwed over.

>> ^RedSky:

You're confusing capitalism with a failure of regulation and general bad policy.
Yes, a large number of developed countries have seen middle class income stagnate, but many emerging economies with balanced policies have seen millions of people rise out of poverty into the middle class.
Capitalism doesn't force anyone to spend beyond beyond their means, bad policy which encourages easy credit and an overconsumption culture does. An imbalance in wage growth between the middle and upper class obviously also plays into this and can be addressed with effective policy changes.
I'm not going to even get into how hawkish foreign policy is far removed from anything we're talking about here.
I did look at the GFC, and I addressed it as a failure of regulation. Again, as I said to TheFreak, if you want to dispute that, instead of asking rhetorical questions, argue against my view that effectively regulation could have prevented the GFC.


re: emerging economies, which ones? India where US companies send US jobs that only cost them cents on the dollar?

You blame a culture of over consumption but that is exactly what capitalism creates and encourages. More consumption = more profits. You blame lack of oversight, but oversight is a socialist notion. Regulation is an inherently socialist policy. You regulate to protect those that cannot protect themselves, for the greater good. A failure of regulation is a capitalist victory.

edit: that is not to say that socialism is superior but there needs to be a tempered road between economic ideologies. Australia has a stronger regulation system on it's banking sector and we managed to ride out the GFC significantly better because we didn't have to bail our banks out (rather, our 'bailouts' were economic stimulus directly back to the people in the form of a one of cash payment and a number of infrastructure projects). Banks still make money, investors still get returns, far less average joes get screwed over.

You're confusing capitalism with a failure of regulation and general bad policy.

Yes, a large number of developed countries have seen middle class income stagnate, but many emerging economies with balanced policies have seen millions of people rise out of poverty into the middle class.

Capitalism doesn't force anyone to spend beyond beyond their means, bad policy which encourages easy credit and an overconsumption culture does. An imbalance in wage growth between the middle and upper class obviously also plays into this and can be addressed with effective policy changes.

I'm not going to even get into how hawkish foreign policy is far removed from anything we're talking about here.

I did look at the GFC, and I addressed it as a failure of regulation. Again, as I said to TheFreak, if you want to dispute that, instead of asking rhetorical questions, argue against my view that effectively regulation could have prevented the GFC.>> ^Asmo:

He's saying what everyone, even if they won't admit it to themselves, knows to be true.
Go around the US atm and ask factory workers what they think of Wall St and big business. Or disposessed house owners. Or the waitress that has been getting the same level of pay for the last 10 years.
Capitalism creates a product for the masses to consume. When there is no more money left in the masses pockets, there is no consumption ergo capitalism falls in a screaming heap.
Look at the trends of our disposable lifestyle. It is unsustainable and yet business understands that if their product only lasts half as long, they'll sell twice as much. Look at the US wars in the Middle East where the cost in resources and US soldiers far outweighs the negligible returns in a secure source of oil (so a few cents can be saved at the bowsers) and apparent safety from terrorists. Look at the Gulf where corner cutting to save what probably amounts to tens of thousands of dollars is costing a corporation billions (and they don't seem to be that fazed) and a country potentially far more. Look at the GFC and ask yourself "Who was responsible and were they punished?"
In the mad dash to make a buck, how many disasters have occurred? Not having a clear solution is not a good reason not to go looking for one.

Me too. But don't forget that the cops are not part of the elite class structure. They are pretty low on the totem pole and as such, if we focus on the police in issues like this, we make the divide and conquer strategy pay off even bigger for the upper class.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
I have a problem with bureaucracies, the power elite and apologists that justify that abuse of power.

Law enforce is part of that.

In reply to this comment by Ryjkyj:
Genji, it sounds to me like you just have a problem with all cops in general.

The oil companies didn't want it, the car manufacturors didn't want it, the booming electronics and computer industry didn't want it. Those in charge of foreign policy relationships didn't want it.

And although people like the idea, it requires a period of pain and sacrifice - the people buying the increasingly power hungry and wasting consumer goods didn't actually want it. It hurts the low income masses and it's unattractive to the middle and upper class. It hurts the economy, it hurts the ability for the country to compete internationally.

Not to mention, research and development takes time. It was a dream that wasn't technologically viable. It's only recently with new nano-tech that we've started to get close to the materials we need for solar / electric / storage. And it's only recently that the consumer market has been willing to consider alternatives to the ego pleasing suv.

Nobody really wanted to give up the nice things for 'independance from foreign energy'. It's only now that caring about climate change is socially fashionable that 'green' is a status symbol to replace 'big and expensive'

>> ^Raaagh:
Face punching is a legitimate physical recourse to pacify a 17 year old girl?
Fuck you.


>> ^ToKeyMonsTeR:
sorry for all the fucks, this shit bugs me and it bugs me that the majority are ok with it.


Precisely, all of you defending the cop like he has the right to be a dick because he has a title "officer of the law making an arrest" don't care about the larger social context of: You shouldn't be a prick toward other humans?

Think about it. If it were a citizens arrest or rent-a-cop at a school.
Would it be okay for the average person to punch your 17 year old daughter [aka a child] in the face?

His actions aren't protecting or serving anyone.
It's a misdemeanor charge that should have been handled with a verbal warning like our sensible @swedishfriend mentioned.

We already know that power corrupts and bureaucracies make rules for the sake of rule making.
We already know that police precincts nation wide are pressured to meet quotas & falsify crime stats.
We already know that swat teams can & will bust into your house and kill both of your dogs for no reason.

If you support this officers actions you're only supporting a broken "justice" system where white collar criminals [upper class] get away with ruining the economy and normal common class citizens get hassled.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^rougy:
^ Not following that, Chilaxe.
Real wages have fallen significantly for the working class since 1973.

1. It doesn't seem intellectually honest for public intellectuals to not speak of compensation, and instead speak only of the part of compensation that shows what we wanted to hear.

Although wages have fallen behind inflation for over a generation now, other nonwage components of worker compensation, particularly health care benefits, have grown more quickly than inflation. The graph below shows that in fact total compensation shows a steady long-term upward trend relative to inflation that has if anything accelerated in recent years. [Total compensation is up around 50% since 1974.] http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html

I'll take a 50% raise any day, even if I prefer to spend that money mostly on better medical treatment.
2. It doesn't seem intellectually honest for public intellectuals to NOT calculate the changes for the working class since 1973; we're instead making calculations that are significantly about imported low-wage workers. Society deciding to give folks from abroad opportunities is great, and their standard of living has increased relative to THEIR country of origin in 1973, but to keep our minds as adapted to reality as we can get, we need to be committed to statistical honesty .

Not only have wages fallen in "real" terms, but compensation--such as health care, vacation time, average expected raises, employment security, and retirement benefits--have all been cut across the board, slashed as if by a psychopath.
By no significant measure have things gotten better for the working class in the past forty years.
But things have gotten significantly, and measurably, much better for the upper class.
"The average compensation of a CEO in 1980 was about 40 times that of the average worker in his company. Today it is more than 500 times! If your pay had kept up with his, you would be making more than $200,000 this year."
(source)


Thank you for the discussion, but I don't understand what you mean. Compensation appears to be up 50%.

...Nonwage components of worker compensation, particularly health care benefits, have grown more quickly than inflation. The graph below shows that in fact total compensation shows a steady long-term upward trend relative to inflation that has if anything accelerated in recent years. [Total compensation is up around 50% since 1974.] http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^rougy:
^ Not following that, Chilaxe.
Real wages have fallen significantly for the working class since 1973.

1. It doesn't seem intellectually honest for public intellectuals to not speak of compensation, and instead speak only of the part of compensation that shows what we wanted to hear.

Although wages have fallen behind inflation for over a generation now, other nonwage components of worker compensation, particularly health care benefits, have grown more quickly than inflation. The graph below shows that in fact total compensation shows a steady long-term upward trend relative to inflation that has if anything accelerated in recent years. [Total compensation is up around 50% since 1974.] http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html

I'll take a 50% raise any day, even if I prefer to spend that money mostly on better medical treatment.
2. It doesn't seem intellectually honest for public intellectuals to NOT calculate the changes for the working class since 1973; we're instead making calculations that are significantly about imported low-wage workers. Society deciding to give folks from abroad opportunities is great, and their standard of living has increased relative to THEIR country of origin in 1973, but to keep our minds as adapted to reality as we can get, we need to be committed to statistical honesty .


Not only have wages fallen in "real" terms, but compensation--such as health care, vacation time, average expected raises, employment security, and retirement benefits--have all been cut across the board, slashed as if by a psychopath.

By no significant measure have things gotten better for the working class in the past forty years.

But things have gotten significantly, and measurably, much better for the upper class.

"The average compensation of a CEO in 1980 was about 40 times that of the average worker in his company. Today it is more than 500 times! If your pay had kept up with his, you would be making more than $200,000 this year."
(source)

>> ^MaxWilder:
1. Is that new healthcare coverage, or covering the cost of healthcare inflation under our current crapstorm of a system? "Good work this year Johnson! We're increasing your compensation! No not a raise, healthcare premiums went up, and we're going to cover half of the cost. See you next year!"
3. I don't see how this applies. "Good work this year Johnson! We're increasing your compensation! No, not a raise. You will now have the opportunity to buy a Nexus One and the H1N1 vaccine. See you next year!"
I have nothing snarky to say about number 2. Let me think on it.


1. Healthcare inflation is occurring in even the most socialist of countries, and in government funded healthcare in the US. That's what happens when we vastly increase medical knowledge, technology, and treatments. Bottom line: if scientists stopped all that pesky research, healthcare costs wouldn't be increasing faster than inflation.

The new miracle treatment, for example, that was developed in the events portrayed in the new Harrison Ford / Brendan Fraser movie, costs $300,000 every year for the rest of the patient's life.

3. The point is that, even if our employer didn't give us as large a raise as we wanted relative to 1973 compensation, the goal posts have been moved in our favor. We're all shifted toward being upper class, because we can take for granted things that the upper class couldn't dream of affording in 1973.


"I have nothing snarky to say about number 2. Let me think on it." Much appreciated