No Safety Net for the Poor

[bigmack]

"We won't create a safety net because they happen to look different from us" is a precious line.

Why does that seem like a fantastical statement?

[YT="The Rational World of MSNBC"]YhFae8r0_E8[/YT]

[thaskalos]

"Some of us go to Dairy Queen...and some of us start businesses."

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by bigmack

"We won't create a safety net because they happen to look different from us" is a precious line.

Now there are no safety nets in this country? Really?

Just like on the Internet, some people just love the sound of their own voice. And they think if they get loud enough, that somehow makes what they're saying more factual or more important.

"How many private jets do you need?"

That's a clown question bro.

But the answer is...as many as I want. It's my money. I earned it. I'll spend it.

It's as if these people will talk about every problem under the sun that they can blame REPUBLICANS and RICH (white) PEOPLE for, but will avoid anything to do with the failures of this Obama administration...namely...HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT and MASSIVE DEBT PILING ON.

[bigmack]

Part of my fascination in debate with 'the far left' is in their intellectual posturing, when oftentimes it's far from intellectual.

A cursory look at each of her statements boggle the mind.

" The data now shows that in our current moment "class mobility" is very low. "

Really? Where is that data?

How was class mobility in 1922? Or 1963? How 'bout 925AD?

I got one, 2010. A huge shift from middle class to poor.
----------------------

Two statements that are nonsensical. 10 more to go and I'd have 30 from every host from every show from every night on that nutjob cable outlet.

She talks like an hcap or Mostie graph looks.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

It's as if these people will talk about every problem under the sun that they can blame REPUBLICANS and RICH (white) PEOPLE for, but will avoid anything to do with the failures of this Obama administration...namely...HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT and MASSIVE DEBT PILING ON.

Yea, it's Obama's fault. He took over an 0-16 team and still hasn't had a .500 season yet. Maybe if he could have drafted the players he wanted, things might be different. But no, those idiots upstairs in the front office won't let him.

It's almost like they want the team to lose so the owners fire him.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

Yea, it's Obama's fault. He took over an 0-16 team and still hasn't had a .500 season yet. Maybe if he could have drafted the players he wanted, things might be different. But no, those idiots upstairs in the front office won't let him.

It's almost like they want the team to lose so the owners fire him.

That wasn't my point. The point was, talking heads talk about everything that can be blamed on Republicans and nothing that can be blamed on Obama.

If Bush were still president, we'd be reading and hearing nothing other than how horrible this economy is, how this is the slowest and worst "recovery" in the history of mankind, how OUR SERVICEMEN are dying every day in Afghanistan, how people are homeless and foreclosures are still a huge problem in America, how unemployment isn't getting any better even after four years, blah blah blah blah blah...

Instead, we hear nothing other than race relations, rich vs. poor, Obamacare, gun control, Occupy Wall Street (but even THEY can't play up that failed movement anymore), Romney's taxes....bleh...

I don't read the New York Times...maybe someone who does can tell me if they are regularly running front page articles critical of the President, the economic recovery, continuing high unemployment, massive debt, and soldiers dying overseas...complete with pictures of flag-draped coffins, because we were told not so long ago that it's IMPORTANT that the AMERICAN PEOPLE see the pictures of flag-draped coffins...

Or is it just another slice of hypocritical main stream media...those things only count as stories when Republicans are in the Oval Office?

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

That wasn't my point. The point was, talking heads talk about everything that can be blamed on Republicans and nothing that can be blamed on Obama.

If Bush were still president, we'd be reading and hearing nothing other than how horrible this economy is, how this is the slowest and worst "recovery" in the history of mankind, how OUR SERVICEMEN are dying every day in Afghanistan, how people are homeless and foreclosures are still a huge problem in America, how unemployment isn't getting any better even after four years, blah blah blah blah blah...

Instead, we hear nothing other than race relations, rich vs. poor, Obamacare, gun control, Occupy Wall Street (but even THEY can't play up that failed movement anymore), Romney's taxes....bleh...

I don't read the New York Times...maybe someone who does can tell me if they are regularly running front page articles critical of the President, the economic recovery, continuing high unemployment, massive debt, and soldiers dying overseas...complete with pictures of flag-draped coffins, because we were told not so long ago that it's IMPORTANT that the AMERICAN PEOPLE see the pictures of flag-draped coffins...

Or is it just another slice of hypocritical main stream media...those things only count as stories when Republicans are in the Oval Office?

You raise some fair points. Although I have to point out that the only way Obama loses this election is if he is blamed and the Republicans are no longer blamed.

Also, a minor point, the press can post pictures of flag-draped coffins now if the family is OK with it. The idea that it wasn't allowed was what upset people more than anything IMO.

[rastajenk]

Upset people? You mean as in, "Waaahhhh!! We can't take photo ops of solemn occasions and spin them as cheap propaganda!! Waaaaahhhh!

[acorn54]

i read the other day what i think alot of people think, the remark was "the republicans must think the public has total amnesia about what went on from 2000 to 2009, with failed wars and skyrocketing spending".

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by acorn54

i read the other day what i think alot of people think, the remark was "the republicans must think the public has total amnesia about what went on from 2000 to 2009, with failed wars and skyrocketing spending".

At least we KNOW the media has amnesia, not sure about the public.

Wars are still ongoing and spending has only INCREASED the last four years and yet they've basically stopped reporting on it (at least, they CERTAINLY don't report on it with as much frequency, fervor or sense of urgency).

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by bigmack

"We won't create a safety net because they happen to look different from us" is a precious line.

Why does that seem like a fantastical statement?

[YT="The Rational World of MSNBC"]YhFae8r0_E8[/YT]

We deal with a power distribution , and a good portion of the general population's power comes from money. Money is a man-made creation which mimics the power distribution.

By definition in that kind of system you get supernodes where the power concentrates at a few points while there will be a large group of people who have very little.

By definition the poor will have no safety nets. They are poor. How are they going to afford safety nets? Their little bit of money-power goes to basic needs.

By definition the poor will have low class mobility. For much of the same reasons. Money-power goes to basic needs. The costs are great to make life-changing, class-changing steps.

The "look different from us" line is true when applied to groups rather than individuals. But in reality one specific difference is meaningless. As part of the power dynamic, some feel the need to dehumanize others because of differences. It can be physical differences, political differences, even geographical differences. To win at the power game you have to be a sociopath. For some instead of just not having empathy for others, it's easier to find differences. Especially true in groups to create an us vs them dynamic. A whole group may not understand and embrace sociopathy, but they will love an us vs. them dynamic. Likewise, instead of embracing the natural power-like distribution of wealth, and the different size nodes that will occur in systems like this, it's easier to play an us vs. them game where it's the other side's "fault".

[ArlJim78]

I'm pretty sure that "Safety Net" is a racial code phrase according to the race monitors at msnbc.

[Robert Fischer]

What about what Monica Mehta says about Class Mobility?? (before Harris-Perry goes of in an outburst)

"[Class Mobility] is enabled by taking risks"

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I'm pretty sure that "Safety Net" is a racial code phrase according to the race monitors at msnbc.

I distinctly remember Kunta Kinte being captured in a net

[rastajenk]

And Charlton Heston