i agree so much. I want to write something about the science behind human nature and how it is incongruent with the assumptions made about people in democratic philosophy. I'll probably wait until I have at least some letters after my name, but the baseline assumption of humans as rational, self-motivated, political and interested is, as far as I have seen, not true.
Originally posted by inimalist
i agree so much. I want to write something about the science behind human nature and how it is incongruent with the assumptions made about people in democratic philosophy. I'll probably wait until I have at least some letters after my name, but the baseline assumption of humans as rational, self-motivated, political and interested is, as far as I have seen, not true.
I don't have a degree or a TV show so my opinion doesn't matter on this, but I have to agree with that.
I'm going to school to become an English teacher because I believe that people are not "rational, self-motivated, political and interested" because they can not read. By this I mean they do not understand what they read.
If Bush says, "The entire civilized world is against Sadam" what did he just say? Rhetoric is important to understanding how to decipher through the bullshit. I also find, just in my experiences, that even college educated people have a difficult time articulating ideas. That's a huge problem. How can democracy work, the way it was intended, with uninterested, uninformed and unmotivated citizens?
When one can not read and understand what was read, one is a simple being that is lead strictly off base emotion. Piaget talked about this in four stages I believe but I forget how it works.
Originally posted by inimalist
I think people took the "middle class pays for everything" a little too literally.Does everyone agree that those who fall in the middle class, especially people making less than 100k a year, are more adversely effected by the percentage of their income which goes to the government than those who make, say, over 150k a year?
Nobody is saying raise the taxes for the rich, unless I read something wrong...
I am pretty sure many "liberals" think the taxes for the rich should be increased.
Anyways, denying that the middle class is likely the most affected would be stupid, fair enough if that's what you wanted to say.
Originally posted by Schecter
again you're subscribing the assumption that the top 20% equals upper class, as fact.hmmm ok, only i wasnt bashing the upper class. while i feel they get too much of a break these days i was simply pointing out that being in the top 20% does not render one 'upper class' or 'wealthy'. they are certainly comfortable, but to play upper and middle statistics between somepne who earns 80k and 110k, yet consider the gap between 100k and a few million as superficial is just insane.
noted and ignored apparently
its not a superficial play on percentages as you try to turn it into. the top 1-2% is generally regarded as the upper class in the u.s. again there is no final word. some consider a 100k+ household to be upper class. i choose to use the most widely accepted and practical definition which acknowledges rich people. you can assume its bashing all you wish but i never did say anything even derogatory.
All you said really has nothing to do with my point. I addressed your point about making the upper class smaller. Either way, they still pay a shitload.
My point never was that the middle class don't pay much or that they aren't affected, it was just that, if you see a rich person, you should probably go suck their dick cause they ****ing pay for your country.
Originally posted by Bardock42My point never was that the middle class don't pay much or that they aren't affected, it was just that, if you see a rich person, you should probably go suck their dick cause they ****ing pay for your country.
But they pay for it by taking from you... it's just pulling straws putting in that way.
Example (hypothetical): I pay for $150 jersey though I make $6.50 an hour. Guy with his name on back of jersey makes $ 10 million a year. Man who owns franchise on front of jersey gets most of the profit from jersey (after paying the sports league and small dividend to athlethe). Man who owns franchise also does not pay for the arena because the arena is paid for by taxpayers of the city even if they don't give a **** about sports (this is why Seattle just lost the NBA franchise Supersonics because they wouldn't pay for another arena; in fact, they just renovated the NBA arena and paid for a new NFL arena not long ago in Seattle).
This is just how capitialism works. If anything, he should go suck a bunch of dicks because he isn't shit without the cash flow of the middle class.
Originally posted by inimalist
which is unfortunateimagine how much lower EVERYONES taxes would be if instead of arguing over how much everyone should pay, people eliminated the redundancies and corruption in the bureaucracy that runs America.
A point that is painfully obvious but, unfortunately, it is still "lost" to many people/politicians. "Trim the fat", as Ron Paul put it.
Originally posted by chithappens
It's not lost. The top brass are greedy, appeal to the emotions of the masses, and then they keep on hustling.It's on some hip hop hustlin' shit (take the money of hundreds of millions with no repercussions) 'cept it's all legal homie.
I put "lost" in quotes for a reason...because it is obviously not lost to politicians and some people, but somehow, it isn't really covered or brought up too often...is it? 🙁
Ron Paul was viewed and treated as a quack..........but his message of "trimming the fat" has been long over-due for decades now. Those comfortable in their respective climes, feeding and benefiting off of their corrupt exploitations of loop holes and shifting of money are all too prominent and so intertwined in our government that it is nearly impossible for a nice trimming of the fat to take place.
I love my country so all I can do is vote and "write my representative" n'stuff.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am pretty sure many "liberals" think the taxes for the rich should be increased.Anyways, denying that the middle class is likely the most affected would be stupid, fair enough if that's what you wanted to say.
All you said really has nothing to do with my point. I addressed your point about making the upper class smaller. Either way, they still pay a shitload.
My point never was that the middle class don't pay much or that they aren't affected, it was just that, if you see a rich person, you should probably go suck their dick cause they ****ing pay for your country.
the mentallity of many is that everyone should pay the same percentage in taxes. i dont find it incredibly unfair to tax everyone the same percent out of their income. many do though. they see it as punishing the rich.
Originally posted by chithappens
I don't have a degree or a TV show so my opinion doesn't matter on this
lol, preaching at the choir
Originally posted by chithappens
I'm going to school to become an English teacher because I believe that people are not "rational, self-motivated, political and interested" because they can not read. By this I mean they do not understand what they read.
I couldn't agree with you more. I owe a lot of my intellectual freedom to some good teachers I had in highschool, it is such an important age to get kids thinking in new ways, for them to assert their independence.
But so much of that is gone in the "everyones a special winner" society. Nobody fails, nobody is marked wrong, no red pens on marked tests. LOL, I guess what I am saying is drive those kids hard!
Originally posted by chithappens
If Bush says, "The entire civilized world is against Sadam" what did he just say? Rhetoric is important to understanding how to decipher through the bullshit. I also find, just in my experiences, that even college educated people have a difficult time articulating ideas. That's a huge problem. How can democracy work, the way it was intended, with uninterested, uninformed and unmotivated citizens?
Most of the profs that I have talked to say that they see declining performance in students. I was told in an anthropology of india class that my work was too advanced, thus not following the assignment format, because I had done a decomposition of a subject rather than reading comprehension. 3rd year university.
That, and the smartest and most deserving people I know will probably never get the chance to go to university, whereas everyone I have met there (with some exceptions) has been unmotivated and uninterested in the very subject they decided to dedicate 4 years to, on their parents' dime (full disclosure, my parents do pay for my school too, but I wouldn't be uninterested).
Its all because lower level schools are so antithetical to real learning or self-motivated interests. Bored children are the most disruptive, especially boys during those years, and most people I know (who have very interesting science debates with me) found themselves constantly in trouble with the institution. This doesn't even include the curious intellectual who tries to ask a lot of questions, and stresses out the teacher because they are challenging their answers. Education as it exists does not try to train young minds to be strong independent citizens, but instead rewards passivity, loyalty, obedience, snitching and deference to authority. Also the whole "you are as good as a person as the grades you receive" thing.
ah, another wonderful rant.
Originally posted by chithappens
When one can not read and understand what was read, one is a simple being that is lead strictly off base emotion. Piaget talked about this in four stages I believe but I forget how it works.
not too familiar with Piaget, he is big in developmental, not so much in neuro. But I hear you. We need people to analyze everything that comes at them and trust none of it. Not just believe something because it makes us feel happy or because it scares the shit out of us.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am pretty sure many "liberals" think the taxes for the rich should be increased.
lol, my sig answers that 🙂
Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, denying that the middle class is likely the most affected would be stupid, fair enough if that's what you wanted to say.
excellent, i understand it might have been confusing though
who would have thought that by saying "the middle class pays for everything" I actually meant something different entirely.
thanks for not calling me on it
Well obviously the middle class are the most affected by taxes. But when someone in that top 2% be they the 98 percentile or the 100th percentile is already essentially paying for another 19 people, I don't know if it's entirely reasonable to ask them to pay even more - for services that they'll likely never use, considering they are the megarich and don't need them.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well obviously the middle class are the most affected by taxes. But when someone in that top 2% be they the 98 percentile or the 100th percentile is already essentially paying for another 19 people, I don't know if it's entirely reasonable to ask them to pay even more - for services that they'll likely never use, considering they are the megarich and don't need them.
It's essentially shifting money between hands. I don't feel like paying for some dumb ass who wouldn't quit smoking. I could think of a million of these.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well obviously the middle class are the most affected by taxes. But when someone in that top 2% be they the 98 percentile or the 100th percentile is already essentially paying for another 19 people, I don't know if it's entirely reasonable to ask them to pay even more - for services that they'll likely never use, considering they are the megarich and don't need them.
all taxes taken from people are immoral, as the government has no right to people's hard earned money. There is no inherent moral difference between taxing the rich and taxing the poor.
however, the harm done to the individual by taxation is much greater for those in the middle class and working class than for those in the upper class. It makes no sense that government should attack more people and affect them more adversely than cause inconvenience to a much smaller portion. This is without considering the pragmatic economic benefits of more wealth in more hands, and the economic security of more people being able to save and invest in pension.
blah... not ranting this time. Boo government!
"No Child Left Behind"
We all went to school and know about the Education part, as well.
I studied Arts (Music) Performance & Education. I took some graduate Education coursework in New Orleans & D.C. & Cleveland & went to some conservatories. Now, I am on a long, long sabbatical and will probably chose another field, but who knows.
---
I don't know if everyone likes the emphasis on standardized tests because it shows the failure of the teachers.
Bush has made a good statement with these things in the past 8 years. I think most of his plans are run-through.
I have a lot of hands-on experience with it.
---
What would you do as president? I've looked into childcare a lot last year. I'm now onto racial issues.
Originally posted by Schecter
the mentallity of many is that everyone should pay the same percentage in taxes. i dont find it incredibly unfair to tax everyone the same percent out of their income. many do though. they see it as punishing the rich.
So you rather go the other way and make the rich pay a shitload more taxes?
I think a flat tax would probably be one of the fairer standards...personaly I'd probably prefer an only VAT system, but the government is way too big as of now to be supported by that.
Originally posted by chithappens
But they pay for it by taking from you... it's just pulling straws putting in that way.Example (hypothetical): I pay for $150 jersey though I make $6.50 an hour. Guy with his name on back of jersey makes $ 10 million a year. Man who owns franchise on front of jersey gets most of the profit from jersey (after paying the sports league and small dividend to athlethe). Man who owns franchise also does not pay for the arena because the arena is paid for by taxpayers of the city even if they don't give a **** about sports (this is why Seattle just lost the NBA franchise Supersonics because they wouldn't pay for another arena; in fact, they just renovated the NBA arena and paid for a new NFL arena not long ago in Seattle).
This is just how capitialism works. If anything, he should go suck a bunch of dicks because he isn't shit without the cash flow of the middle class.
They didn't "take" it from you, they gave you something that you wanted to buy for the price you were willing to pay. The positive effects their business has on the economy as a whole is also not included.
As for the arena, I'm with you on that, ****ing bullshit, but, to be fair, again, it's the richer people that payed the biggest junk of that arena.
Originally posted by Bardock42I think a flat tax would probably be one of the fairer standards...personaly I'd probably prefer an only VAT system, but the government is way too big as of now to be supported by that.
What do you mean by "but the government is way too big as of now to be supported by that,"?
Not trying to be an ass, just want to make sure I understand.
Originally posted by Bardock42
They didn't "take" it from you, they gave you something that you wanted to buy for the price you were willing to pay. The positive effects their business has on the economy as a whole is also not included.As for the arena, I'm with you on that, ****ing bullshit, but, to be fair, again, it's the richer people that payed the biggest junk of that arena.
Well they didn't take it from me, no; however, in terms of entertainment there is a lot of bullshit everywhere.
The fact that people will pay $200 for a pair of sneakers is just crazy. I see people put rims on their cars (which brings more attention and chances of them getting robbed, etc.) but they live in the "ghetto." I worked as a waiter at a retirement community and this guy wore his $200 Jordan sneakers to work simply to show them off (also this same day he wore a Gucci set he claimed was around $500), but we are making $7.00 an hour. The point here is that you are right: people voluntairly spend the money, but would a rational, confident person do that if it were really outside their means (which I'm saying it an issue of being well informed and educated to understand what it is they are doing instead of blaming everything on bullshit)?
To address the arena issue again, I will mention what happened in Memphis, TN, where I live. The NBA franchise Grizzlies came to Memphis and played in an arena known as the Pyramid. It was getting old, but it was adequate enough to play games if renovated here and there. Instead, the Grizzlies proposed that the city of Memphis pay for most of it. Here's how the money came out:
Memphis: 20 year, $250 million lease.
Owners: $10 million...
Every year since 2000, they have cut MILLIONS AND MILLIONS from the Memphis City School budget (and the arena wasn't being built until 2004), for example. Taxes keep rising over and over, but it doesn't even make sense (To be fair, I should mention the main owner of the NBA franchise Washington Wizards put in $200 million of his own money to build that arena).
Now the rich probably pay just as much as the middle class in taxes, but what are they doing. One would be hard pressed to say the rich are doing "hard work". My mother is a labor and delivery nurse and she is helping brings lives into the world. Meanwhile, the board of directors are arguing what to name the next product. The more work you do, it seems the less you get paid.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So you rather go the other way and make the rich pay a shitload more taxes?I think a flat tax would probably be one of the fairer standards...personaly I'd probably prefer an only VAT system, but the government is way too big as of now to be supported by that.
as i said, i feel that we should all pay an equal percentage of our income. if that equals a "shitload" more, then so be it. it has nothing to do with class wars and everything to do with fairness. it will never really be equal since people with a massive income and high paying accountants will always be able to understate some income and find loopholes and deductions. so equality is indeed an impossible dream but i think it should at least be attempted.
Originally posted by inimalistI couldn't agree with you more. I owe a lot of my intellectual freedom to some good teachers I had in highschool, it is such an important age to get kids thinking in new ways, for them to assert their independence.
But so much of that is gone in the "everyones a special winner" society. Nobody fails, nobody is marked wrong, no red pens on marked tests. LOL, I guess what I am saying is drive those kids hard!
Ha, that reminds me that my girlfriend (she is a camp conselour) was talking about this little girl in the camp she works in: everyone was coloring and girl A was admiring the way my girlfriend was coloring her picture. Girl B hops up and screams, "I can color too! Look! I'm an artist!" but hardly any lines were colored in. It is good to encourage children, but it's another thing to continue that same mentality from pre-school on up to high school and then in college/"the real world" say, "Ok, now it's time to get real!"
I'm going to teach middle school. By that time they can read but I feel like it is around that age one begins to fine tune HOW they read and think which will begin to affect later in what ways they decide to make changes in their life to improves themselves. I feel like high school is not too late, but it is easier to impress the issue I'm trying to hit at middle school. Everyone is a smart ass in high school and I'm too young to start there.
Originally posted by inimalistMost of the profs that I have talked to say that they see declining performance in students. I was told in an anthropology of india class that my work was too advanced, thus not following the assignment format, because I had done a decomposition of a subject rather than reading comprehension. 3rd year university.
That, and the smartest and most deserving people I know will probably never get the chance to go to university, whereas everyone I have met there (with some exceptions) has been unmotivated and uninterested in the very subject they decided to dedicate 4 years to, on their parents' dime (full disclosure, my parents do pay for my school too, but I wouldn't be uninterested).
Its all because lower level schools are so antithetical to real learning or self-motivated interests. Bored children are the most disruptive, especially boys during those years, and most people I know (who have very interesting science debates with me) found themselves constantly in trouble with the institution. This doesn't even include the curious intellectual who tries to ask a lot of questions, and stresses out the teacher because they are challenging their answers. Education as it exists does not try to train young minds to be strong independent citizens, but instead rewards passivity, loyalty, obedience, snitching and deference to authority. Also the whole "you are as good as a person as the grades you receive" thing.
ah, another wonderful rant.
Ha, I don't what else I can add to that because I feel pretty much the same.
It's weird because I have a cousin who sells dope and I feel like he is smarter than me. I think that if we switched spots, he would succeed and go further than I have so far, and I would probably being doing what he was, if not worse. He came from schools that really don't give a damn and will just give you a grade so graduate (this includes help on standardized test they give here in the U.S.) so they won't have 20 year old seniors in high school and so they don't lose money because of those dumb ass test (which does make one question why you would take money from a failing school and then give high performing schools all the money a failing school would have gotten; **** No Child Left Behind, it happened before NCLB but still...)
Now I'm ranting 😆
Originally posted by inimalistnot too familiar with Piaget, he is big in developmental, not so much in neuro. But I hear you. We need people to analyze everything that comes at them and trust none of it. Not just believe something because it makes us feel happy or because it scares the shit out of us.
Regarding Piaget, when he discussed moral development, he says that most people never reach a stage where they can believe things outside of what their peers believe. They can not disagree and feel ok with it (I wish I could find a link that goes into detail on this, but they all seem cluttered with unnecessary jargon). All the links also focus on children only but he also states that adults act in this same manner. I hate I can't remember this.
People can't analyze because they don't know how to read. They assume everything is black and white when truthfully almost nothing is that simple. Even in wars, there is almost ALWAYS at least a third player involved. People want simple answers. They want to feel comfortable. They want to know why. Speak with confidence and strong diction and the people who agree with you will just agree with you more. It's sadly that simple to manipulate the masses which I why I agree with Piaget's understanding of moral development.