Originally Posted by herbal tee

Obama healthcare speech drinking game

The Rules: Select the adult beverage of your choice. Each point assinged is worth one drink. Drinks are defined as follows:
Liquor=1 point/ 1 shot

Beer and wine=1 point/ one swig or sip.

Words with point values:

Bipartisan=1 point
Compromise=1 point
"The good work of Congress/committees"=1 point

Public option=2 points (double shot)

Single Payer=3 points (triple shot)

Bottoms up!!!! : ;:

Throw in 3-pointer single-malt scotch and you're on!

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Throw in 3-pointer single-malt scotch and you're on!

For the record, I counted 19 points durting the speech. The reason why I was able to get so well, high, is because Obama essentially said "public option" 5 times, which was good for 10 points.


On the matter of Congressman Addison Graves (Joe) Wilson, it seems that this Congressman should have more empathy for the poor within the state.

Originally Posted by CQPolitics

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., is heavily leveraged and his debts may even exceed his assets, according to a personal financial disclosure form that was amended just before Congress left for its August recess.

Wilson made headlines Wednesday night for yelling "Lie. You lie," at President Obama during an address to a joint session of Congress...

...Wilson now reports that his assets at year's end (not counting his residence) fall somewhere between $952,000 and $2,030,000.

Much of that was tied up in property owned by the Moseley Wilson Partnership.

His debts, in the form of personal loans and mortgages, fall somewhere between $880,012 to $1,930,000.

And, Wikipedia has also locked his bio. page because someone edited it to call him a "douchebag."

Meanwhile, back in Columbia, the scuttlebutt is that the legislature will impeach Governor Sanford when it begins its 2010 session in January.

Traditionalist political cultures, such as SC's, tend to give more deference to leaders than other cultures. After all, if "God" didn't want them in power, they wouldn't be there.
We will see how much this absurdity strains the >300 year old system.

I only wish that the general elections were this November, not next. :

Health Reform in a box(es) -




Better downloads here -

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/s...lly_looks_like

See that little box at the bottom right in another box inside the bigger box? That's what all the fuss is about.

More H. Care in a box (with trapozoids!) -



Notice the roll of Public Option?

clearer graphic here -

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...4d0ed1f_o.html

Here is a good article about why the insurance rent seekers should be cut out of the healthcare system.

Originally Posted by TPM

Here are some numbers to bear in mind, and inscribe on signs, and pass out on flyers, and send to your friends, doctors, uncertains, Blue Dogs, Black Cats, whatever, during this fall's home stretch:

Total expenditure by private insurance companies, 2007: $680 billion*
Total expenditure on administrative costs + profits, 2007: $95 billion

Percentage of total expenditure spent on administrative costs + profits = 14%.

In other words, one in seven dollars Americans pay insurance companies stays with them.

By contrast, here are 2007 figures for Social Security and Medicare administrative costs:

Social Security = 0.9%

Medicare = 3%*

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=amOkhvv8xttA

Obama has his work cut out for him if he wants to convince the public that government can create efficiencies in health care. One of capitalism’s underlying premises is that incentives -- specifically the profit motive -- encourage companies to compete with one another to produce the goods and services consumers want at prices they’re willing to pay. If not, the business is history. Not so with government.

Paglia:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/

(Who is naive enough to believe that Obama's plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?)



By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis.

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Obama should really make clear (in a State of the Union address?) the goal of making a divided society work. I recall my post about people hoarding ammunition when he was elected.

What will be required is considerable decentralization.

I can imagine Boomers, however, insisting on one-size-fits-all policies across the board. If so, younger people may need "to pull a Gilded."

The Authors of Millennial Makeover (Winograd + Hais), which discusses the expectation of a Millennial generation driven political realignment (ie Obama's election, they wrote it before Iowa), discuss in their videos the expectation of significant decentralization. For instance they see required community service becoming a part of American society but with guidelines only at the federal level and the details left up to many organizations to allow fulfillment of the service requirement within those guidelines.

I think to some extend Obama's vision of an insurance exchange fits this. Set guidelines we all agree on (ie no preexisting condition exemptions, no plan maximums, reasonable copays etc) and then allow plans of different types (for profit,non-profit and government run) to compete within this. I also think that his support of cap and trade over direct taxation or direct regulation of polluters fits into this idea. This allows the market and innovators determine the best ways to minimize emissions rather than attempting to legislate specifics.

re pulling a gilded...

The millies have already essentially elected their own President.. I think we are both past the point where the boomers can drag us down and past the point that a gilded style blocking would make sense. I don't think all the screaming and yelling and "debate" is really having much of an effect on anything. We just watched the President reassert the plan he has had since prior to the Iowa caucus with the addition of Clinton's mandates and McCain's stop gap policy for those with pre-existing conditions. The poll results so far indicate that the people loved it!

Originally Posted by scotths

The poll results so far indicate that the people loved it!

As cliche as it sounds, I believe that there is a "silent majority" of Americans who just want the debate to be over with most of the major health care problems fixed and don't care how it's packaged or who supports it. It's only the minority fringes on both sides of the aisle that are refusing to compromise.
Of course this would've gone a whole smoother if the Dems were more unified on the issue.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Obama has his work cut out for him if he wants to convince the public that government can create efficiencies in health care. One of capitalism’s underlying premises is that incentives -- specifically the profit motive -- encourage companies to compete with one another to produce the goods and services consumers want at prices they’re willing to pay. If not, the business is history. Not so with government.

This is as clear a statement of the myths left over from the 3T as Ray-gun's "government is the problem," and is exactly what needs to be corrected in this 4T.

It this was simply an efficency issue, the government would win hands down with Medicare's adminstrative costs at 2% whereas the private insurers have an administrative costs of 17%. The guy who runs Medicare makes around $175,000 while the CEOs of the 5 biggest insures each make several million per year (one makes $25 million per year); then there's all that advertisement and lobbying costs - the insurers alone pay about $100 million a year in lobbying; the pharm boys a lot more!

Also, if one has any experience in hospital admission, one knows that the admin person only needs to verify if a person is on Medicare to know what is covered; any one else, there is a litny of questions followed by phone calls and computer searches to find out what MAY be covered by that person's particular private insurance. Intuitively, anyone should be able to see why there is such a difference in the 'carrying charges' between public and private coverage on the ground.

This borne out by comparing the 2% administrative costs of the traditional 'public' part of Medicare with the approximately 11 percent of spending for administative costs by private plans under Medicare Advantage. As noted earlier by me, one-third of the health reform's Medicare savings would come from doing away with the government footing this differential in administrative costs - the insurance industry claimed that they could provide medicare coverage for cheaper than the government, they failed big time, and its time to cut them off.

The bottom line is that for the same buck, the government can deliever health insurance cheaper (this doesn't even include the ability of a larger pool being able to dictate heatlh care costs - like Medicare does or like even Wal-Mart does with drug prices). While this is a FACT, it is going up against a nearly 30 year old meme, and, well, a lot of stupid people that still buy into these memes even at their own health and finacial detriment.

Who is naive enough to believe that Obama's plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?) [/COLOR][COLOR=#ff0000] By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis. ---

Sounds like comparing the 9/12 DC march of the teabaggers/birthers/deathers/screamer/keep-the-kids-home crankies to the crowd showing up for Obama's inauguration -- i.e. wishful thinking.

http://themoderatevoice.com/46112/ab...illion-people/

Physicians get it -

http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/qua...t.jsp?id=48408

A RWJF survey summarized in the September 14, 2009 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine shows that 62.9 percent of physicians nationwide support proposals to expand health care coverage that include both public and private insurance options—where people under the age of 65 would have the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans. The survey shows that just 27.3 percent of physicians support a new program that does not include a public option and instead provides subsidies for low-income people to purchase private insurance. Only 9.6 percent of doctors nationwide support a system where a Medicare-like public program is created in lieu of any private insurance. A majority of physicians (58%) also support expanding Medicare eligibility to those between the ages of 55 and 64.

In every region of the country, a majority of physicians supported a combination of public and private options, as did physicians who identified themselves as primary care providers, surgeons, or other medical subspecialists. Among those who identified themselves as members of the American Medical Association, 62.2 percent favored both the public and private options.

More on Medicare Advantage - as in the advantage of cutting this crazy Bush program -

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=2917

One of the key cost-saving provisions Congress is considering as part of health reform legislation would eliminate the large overpayments Medicare makes to the private “Medicare Advantage” health plans that serve some Medicare beneficiaries. While private plans ostensibly were brought into Medicare to reduce costs, they actually increase Medicare spending because it costs substantially more, on average, to cover a Medicare beneficiary through a private plan than through traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Eliminating the overpayments would lower the premiums that people in traditional Medicare pay and shore up Medicare’s finances, while helping pay both for needed Medicare improvements and for health reform legislation that seeks to achieve near-universal coverage.

Originally Posted by playwrite

It this was simply an efficency issue, the government would win hands down with Medicare's adminstrative costs at 2% whereas the private insurers have an administrative costs of 17%...

-Tsk, tsk.

The same thing is true of the US Post Office vs. private companies. Which one is always in the hole? Which one sucks?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091202347.html

...One approach the president endorsed Wednesday night was to tax insurance companies that offer excessively generous plans...

-Uh, so let me get this straight; if a private insurance company does an excellent job, it will be punished...

In which universe does that make sense?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/business/economy/13econ.html?ref=business


---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-Tsk, tsk.

The same thing is true of the US Post Office vs. private companies. Which one is always in the hole? Which one sucks?

What right wingnuts always fail to mention is that there is no way that any private sector firm could deliver what the US Post Office delivers at anywhere near the price, and that includes any and all subsidies. Ben Franklin put the notion of the US Post Offie in place; it is unlikely that the US would have grown and prospered without it.

A good strong country and society requires more than just profit motive, pinhead.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-One approach the president endorsed Wednesday night was to tax insurance companies that offer excessively generous plans...

-Uh, so let me get this straight; if a private insurance company does an excellent job, it will be punished...

In which universe does that make sense

"excessively generous plans" has nothing to do with the efficency of the private insurance company. These are highly expensive plans that most people cannot afford and make big profits for the insurance companies because of their high overhead and unlikely full use of the benefits provided. Their appeal is to individuals or institutions that can take big tax write-offs for them or substitute them as non-taxable benefits instead of taxable salaries.

I'm convinced that much more of the Progressive agenda would sail through if more people on the Right would just get educated on reality instead of doing the knee-jerk ' gov't bad, private sector good' stupidity of the last 40 years.
- Nearly every one of your posts confirms that.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Ben Franklin put the notion of the US Post Offie in place; it is unlikely that the US would have grown and prospered without it...

-Government post was for mostly for government entities. Ben Farnklin's theory was that since the rider or coach was going anyway (and the bag wasn't full), you might as well carry private stuff for a fee.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What right wingnuts always fail to mention is that there is no way that any private sector firm could deliver what the US Post Office delivers at anywhere near the price, and that includes any and all subsidies...

-False. They can do it, they're simply not allowed to. In the 1970s, there were several attempts to set up private 1st Class mail delivery. They were efficeient and profitable. The USPS noticed this, and sued to maintain it's government-mandated monopoly, and said companies were put out of business. It's amazing how easy it is to beat the competition when you simply outlaw it.

Of course, we would have to find a different place to hang up the "Wanted" posters no one looks at. Oh, what a minute, there's "America's Most Wanted".

Whcih also makes money.

An internet search finds this:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa047.html

Originally Posted by playwrite

...These are highly expensive plans that most people cannot afford and make big profits for the insurance companies because of their high overhead and unlikely full use of the benefits provided. Their appeal is to individuals or institutions that can take big tax write-offs for them or substitute them as non-taxable benefits instead of taxable salaries...

-If people didn't think it was worth it, then the plan would have gone belly up, but apparently people do like them, AND the company manages to make a profit; therefore, they must be punished. Go Figure.

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

..apparently people do like them, AND the company manages to make a profit; therefore, they must be punished. Go Figure.

I don't see it any more a punishment than taxing a CEO who makes millions at a higher rate than what the govt taxes some guy hanging out in a trailer park --particularly if that poor guy in the t-park isn't already on the govt teat and needs some health care.

... If you want to lick the boots of the rich, I'll send you some shoes.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I don't see it any more a punishment than taxing a CEO who makes millions at a higher rate than what the govt taxes some guy hanging out in a trailer park --particularly if that poor guy in the t-park isn't already on the govt teat and needs some health care...

-Is this another slight on a military retiree? The guys who signed a contract to do what guys like Playwrite was either too stupid, too lazy, or too cowardly to do himself. I think this quote belongs here:

Originally Posted by radind

...Your ‘analysis totally ignores the role of past contributors (e.g. the soldiers who died for our freedoms)...

...reminding everyone that we commerate the fallen, but that, by & large, it's the survivors who kept us free.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... If you want to lick the boots of the rich, I'll send you some shoes...

-More nastiness from Playwrite, the Limousine Liberal who hates the wealthy, because he never had to create any wealth by himself.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-Is this another slight on a military retiree?

Not at all. I'm happy that you are set for life craddled in the bosom of our federal government and suckling away.

Just wish you could spare a little more empathy for other poor Americans.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Not at all. I'm happy that you are set for life craddled in the bosom of our federal government and suckling away.

Just wish you could spare a little more empathy for other poor Americans.

1) Being "craddled" or "suckling away" implies that one did nothing to earn it except being born. I signed a contract to defend this country, and I did it for 23 years (and pretty well), and part of the terms of that contract say that I might still have to do it in the future. It's only now, in a case of delayed gratification, that I'm recieving that part of my compensation;

2) I reserve my empathy for those who would accept their condition without resorting to theft, or who try to honestly get out of povery. Most Americans do get themselves out of poverty:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/25/the_great_escape_98015.html

Studies which follow the same individuals over time show that the vast majority of working people who are in the bottom 20 percent of income earners at a given time end up rising out of that bracket...

3) PW, the Limousine Liberal, whining about "empathy" for people he despises when he thinks no one is paying attention, and who has lived his whole life in the bosom of mummy and daddy's wealth, and has been suckling there ever since. What he feels isn't "empathy", it's guilt, or perhaps inadequacy, since he fears that if he had to earn his own way, that he'd never be able to get by (as the vast majority of Americans manage to do- see above).

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

And while some here are castigating those who they despise because of their political views, I find it very interesting that they can hold two opposite beliefs as a way of justifying both their financial existence and their political views

1) The government sucks and people who work for the government suck even more sucking money from the rest of us for doing next to nothing but sucking.
2) I worked for the government but it was good and beneficial and I deserve all I get and probably more and make no apologies for it.

Perhaps the adage about people living in glass houses should be offered. I say perhaps because sanctimonious hypocrites never admit their own failings but are more than willing to point the finger at others who are but human.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

And while some here are castigating those who they despise because of their political views, I find it very interesting that they can hold two opposite beliefs as a way of justifying both their financial existence and their political views...

-Right back at you!

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

1) The government sucks and people who work for the government suck even more sucking money from the rest of us for doing next to nothing but sucking.
2) I worked for the government but it was good and beneficial and I deserve all I get and probably more and make no apologies for it.

Perhaps the adage about people living in glass houses should be offered. I say perhaps because sanctimonious hypocrites never admit their own failings but are more than willing to point the finger at others who are but human.

1) The military is a legitimate function of government, welfare is not:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-I imagine that this is supposed to be a comment on the imagined "efficiency" of socialism, which doesn't seem to be appear in any other realm.

You might want to take note of the key phrase "for it's purpose"; that purpose (when deterence fails) is to use violence to kill and capture people and break their stuff. To a lesser extent, the same purpose applies to law enforcement/criminal justice (in the case of the law, "the enemy" are criminals); regimentation is helpful when you have a group of people trying to do something to other people which they'd just as soon not have done to them. This is why government has a role to play in the violent professions (assuming you're not an Anarchist, in which case you defend yourself, your friends, and family on a strictly voluntary basis).

Most other enterprises (e.g. farming) involve the creation and trade of goods and services, where regimentation is counter-productive. Much of what passed for economics in the 20th Century was the mis-application of miliary principles to non-military pursuits.

2) If Haymarket had bother to serve his country, instead of lying about being a Conscientious Objector, and having the Forgotten Draftee take his place (from his own words, for those who ask!), he might have discovered that military benefits aren't everything that the ignorant imagine them to be; if you're not dedicated to it, it, it's hard to say it's worth it just for the benefits;

3) Why do people always use the word "human" to denote weakness, instead of something positive?

4) I thought Haymarket had me on ignore...

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Glick
you were suspended from this forum for bringing up your paranoid delusions about somebody you do not even know and attempting to characterize events that you were not party to in a negative light.

Care for another?

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

1) The military is a legitimate function of government, welfare is not

Typical reactionary, it's OK for the state to kill people and enrich The M-I Complex in the process but helping ordinary people is not.

You have proven why I think your side's beliefs are evil.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

1) Being "craddled" or "suckling away" implies that one did nothing to earn it except being born. I signed a contract to defend this country, and I did it for 23 years (and pretty well), and part of the terms of that contract say that I might still have to do it in the future. It's only now, in a case of delayed gratification, that I'm recieving that part of my compensation;

There's the old story of Churchill asking if a woman would sleep with him. When turned down, he ask if she would do it for a million pounds. She laugh and said, why sure, knowing the young Churchill was far from the means. Churchill (he actually was a little bit of a nasty bugger) then explained that now that they had established what she was, it was only a matter of determining an acceptable price.

We have confirmed your current status of federal coddling and suckling away. You paid a certain price for it, but now expect everyone else to pay the same. Others, however, who have lost a limb or some other capacity, or perhaps a loved one, might consider your payment far, far too small - in their eyes, you are freeloader, an undeserved, but coddled, suckling. But that would be far too judgmental, if not outright demigods, on their part, no? But if so, where does that leave you with your obvious so much lessor standard?

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

2) I reserve my empathy for those who would accept their condition without resorting to theft, or who try to honestly get out of povery. Most Americans do get themselves out of poverty:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/25/the_great_escape_98015.html

Studies which follow the same individuals over time show that the vast majority of working people who are in the bottom 20 percent of income earners at a given time end up rising out of that bracket...

Actually, no. This is actually a sub-myth of the big myth outlined here -
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...58&postcount=3

Specifically, taking the same data and expanding it with more studies what is found is the following -

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Econ...fare/myth4.pdf

Overall, an American has one chance in five (20 percent) of ending up in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. But as Figure 1 shows, those odds change a lot depending on what sort of a family you were born into:

− If your father was in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, you have about one chance in fourteen of ending up in the top 20 percent, roughly a third of the overall chance.1
− If your father was in the top 20 percent, the chance that you will also end up there is about two in five, roughly double the overall chance.
− A child born to a father in the top 20 percent of the income distribution is about five times as likely to end up in the top 20 percent as the child of a father in the bottom 20 percent.

In fact, recent research for the U.S. population shows that the exact opposite of Glenn Hubbard’s claim is true: while a child’s income might deviate from that of his family for a few years, the longer one compares economic outcomes, the more the experience of the children reproduce that of their fathers.
Studies of economic mobility typically predict the son’s or daughter’s income on the basis of father’s income, correcting only for the age of parent and child.2 As recently as 1988, economists thought that a father’s earnings were only weakly correlated with his children’s income. Recently, however, new data sources have permitted studies that look at ten times as many father-children pairs (3000 versus 300) for periods as long as sixteen years.3 These studies show that the longer the period over which income is averaged, the higher the correlation between the incomes of fathers and children. That is to say, there is indeed a lot of year-to-year income variation over a worker’s lifetime. But averaged over many years, the income of the father is a very strong predictor of the income of the son or daughter. The correlation is even higher for families with low wealth (the poor) than for the wealthy; it is also higher for black families than for white.4
Recent analysis suggests that lifetime earnings of fathers and their children are highly correlated, three times as highly correlated as earlier research had suggested.5 Far from disappearing in three generations, as earlier work had optimistically suggested, the new results imply that income differences based on family background are likely to persist for many generations.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

3) PW, the Limousine Liberal, whining about "empathy" for people he despises when he thinks no one is paying attention, and who has lived his whole life in the bosom of mummy and daddy's wealth, and has been suckling there ever since. What he feels isn't "empathy", it's guilt, or perhaps inadequacy, since he fears that if he had to earn his own way, that he'd never be able to get by (as the vast majority of Americans manage to do- see above).

Not really very imaginative there, Glick, old boy. Pretty worn right wingnut memes pre-dating FDR if not Wilson. I thought you're ability to write non-fiction was pretty poor, but your fiction really is tripe. I would suggest a few lower division Creative English classes.

from Playwrite to james Glick

I would suggest a few lower division Creative English classes.

I respectfully suggest that the very last thing this board needs is MORE creativity in the writings of Mr. Glick.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

.... In the 1970s, there were several attempts to set up private 1st Class mail delivery. They were efficient and profitable. The USPS noticed this, and sued to maintain it's government-mandated monopoly, and said companies were put out of business. It's amazing how easy it is to beat the competition when you simply outlaw it.

Yes, there were several companies that wanted to deliver first class mail, but only in high population areas. It's called cherry picking. Insurance companies live and die on it. What company wouldn't want to provide mandatory flood insurance where floods never occur?