Originally Posted by annla899

This. I was born white and female and to a family who have been land-owners since before the Revolutionary War. My success rests in part on the shoulders of my ancestors who sent their sons to college in the early 1800s and even educated their daughters. I know this and frankly was raised to think that since I was given advantages that I had a responsibility to give back. My ancestors were of the upper class. I am in the social register. There were some serious capitalists in my family. And I benefited from that in more ways that I probably recognize. I had f*cking advantages that weren't all tied to money, since my parents didn't have that much, but those benefits definitely were and are tied to class and race and being upper-middle class white in the US. That female thing is a bit of a hiccup. But it would behoove all of us to think of all the people, the constructs that helped us on our way. For me, to an extent, it was my class and my place in this society only by virtue of my birth. I speak "right." I act "right." I know the drill. For my BIL it was his brilliance in math and all those people who saw it and who taught him and encouraged him. And that includes the US government--the the DEA. But he thinks he did it alone. He doesn't think of the gov't grants that made his Ph.D possible. For others, it may have been scholarships--provided by who? Maybe the gov't, a mentor, a social group, a benefactor of some kind. None us ever does it by ourselves. Maybe it's mummy or daddy's money. Maybe it's our talent that gets recognized by a mentor who then helps us get funding, private or public. But there is someone helping our way. Maybe it's the guy who taught us how to do something. Then it's our responsibility to pass it on. It's always our responsibility to pass it on. For whatever mondo (old term but works here) capitalists ancestors I had, that is one thing that has come through. You have to pass it on. You got lucky. You've got advantages that other people don't. Don't fncking feel sorry for yourself. You're fortunate. And your good fortune should be spread to others. You give back in whatever way you can. I learned that from my Lost (Nomad) grandparents and grand-uncles and -aunts. I am not convinced that the current Nomads understand this.

This is the best post I ever saw.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

In a free market economy, it wasn't "given" to them, they earned it. They could have gotten it selling sea shells by the sea shore. Who cares?

Do you choose to use your brain at all?

Yeah, they "earned it" all right:

The Rothschilds made their fortune the old fashioned way---from war, by financing the British military effort during the Napoleonic War. They then enlarged their fortune the new fashioned way, by stock market manipulation. After the Battle of Waterloo, Rothschild put his early knowledge of the British victory to use by selling a few shares in order to convince other investors that Napolean had won. When a mad selling spree erupted, he got bargains---and ripped off a lot of other investors in the process.

http://napoleon.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/11/09/the-ro...

J.P. Morgan also made his fortune from war. In his case, he bought a bunch of worthless rifles cheap and then turned around and sold them to the Union Army. Not only were the rifles worthless as combat weapons, they also shot off the thumbs of soldiers who tried to use them. Morgan went to court to ensure that he would get paid for his treason.

http://iulzzang.hubpages.com/hub/johnpmorgan

John D. Rockefeller Jr. literally committed murder for the sake of profit in Ludlow, Colorado, when the state militia was used to suppress a mine strike. After months of violence directed at the strikers, the company finally decided to clear out all the workers and their families. They did this by enlisting the aid of the Colorado National Guard, which machine gunned the workers and set fire to their tent camp, suffocating women and children.

http://libcom.org/history/1914-the-ludlow-massacre

Henry Ford helped finance Adolph Hitler. He also made a bundle from the Nazi German division of his company. Prior to 1938, he made passenger cars for Hitler. After 1938, he made trucks and other vehicles for the German war effort. Profits were enormous, because Ford used slave labor supplied by the Nazis.

http://www.bulldognews.net/issues_ford_slave_labor.html

Cap. James Brown. Never heard of him? Maybe you have heard of Brown University. Brown made his money the really old fashioned way---as a slave merchant, dragging Africans from their native countries to the Americas to be sold as laborers.

http://www.eblackstudies.org/intro/chapter3.htm

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

That's because they have most of the income. also, I don't think your statistic includes payroll taxes.

Wonkette,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...Taxes_2000.JPG

Those in the top 10% pay about 25% of their total yearly income in taxes, the fourth quintile pay about 20%, the thrid quintile pay about 17%, but the average is about 21%.

The lowest quintile pay about 5% of their income in taxes, which is less than the FICA payroll taxes I pay, I think (7%?).

Originally Posted by playwrite

Debate???

If you recall, you had turned Odin's statement on the limits to charity around to assert that govt has the same limitations -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...307#post393307

I responded with this -


Your responses since then have been -


Implying that you have engaged in battle when you have not clearly confirms your primary characteristic.

It is tough to hid cowardice when the battlefield is in writing.

Ok, I'm a coward.

Odin failed to prove his point. This country did weel before the modern welfare state.

As for your contribution,

Gimme that MMT religion!
Gimme that MMT religion!
Gimme that MMT religion!

It's good enough for thee!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course there is not now, nor has there been in Western History (at least) such a genuinely free, unencumbered economy. We are born into a pre-existing context, and that context has always featured unearned, uneven initial conditions of purely wealth (that is, money or property, as opposed to talent, character, or whatever).

You do yourself no favors in trying to pretend that no class of people possess what they possess except thanks to their own virtues. It simply isn't so.

True, but that's the fault of an unfree and encumbered society, not the free market, which seems to be the concern of the busybody who wnats to know who sold sea shells by the sea shore.

As for teh practical issue of who exactly got what what as a result of free unencumbered effort and who took advantage of taxpayers or governement regulations, I guess you give people the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. Otherwise, it gets silly. We'd need to form the Federal Bureau of Ancestor Exploitiation.

"hey! your ancestor enslaved my ancestor in 476BC!

"Yeah? well your ancestor's country conquered my ancestor's country in 1763!"

"Oh yeah? well you ancestor stole my ancestor's cow in 1888!"

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here's a good presentation of the data you want - from the Tax Policy Center

Although progressivity is marginal at best, I should note that the high income earners fall into two classes:

• "I work for my money" - These are typically very highly paid people like star athletes and movie stars, who are paid for the work they do. Earners pay at Earned Income rates, so these folks really are paying their way.
• "My money works for me" - Typically, these are the ones Warren Buffett meant. These people make Unearned Income, which gets preferential treatment. Hedge fund managers, who take their multi-millions to Billions in the form of carried interest, capital gains and dividends, pay a measly 15% in Federal income taxes.

Your link didn't work. But postd something I found above.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Sacrifice more so that the rich can wax richer! Suffer for their avarice! Then they will lavish upon you bounties that will far exceed your sacrifices!

Look at the reality:

We now have a problem of productivity outstripping demand. Maybe we don't need to work 40 hours a week just to survive as was the reality of the late 1930s -- when the 40-hour workweek was a huge and daring reform. We see more concentration of economic power in the hands of fewer people and entities. Giant firms are crushing their competitors, and giant corporations have been paring their workforces steadily since the 1980s. Manufacturing companies are becoming importers instead of manufacturers.

People are going to minimum-wage jobs as the better-paying jobs that they used to have disappear. It's not that incompetent people are being cast off and forced to start over, which always was so. "Cut back on the beer intake?" People are already cutting back on the beer intake. Beer, which used to be recession-proof, is no longer so. Cut back on cable TV? People are already doing so by trimming away high-priced subscription TV services. To be sure, the content on Turner Classic Movies and FoX Movie Channel is richer than what is on the subscription movie channels.

I know the solution that you ersatz aristocrats offer the expendable person: suffer on behalf of us, but take vicarious delight in our ostentatious indulgence. That's how things were in Russia a century ago, and look at how that turned out.

Lenin made the mistake of trying to create socialism before establishing political competition, representative government, objective justice, and checks and balances; American socialists recognize that what the Founding Fathers did right must be preserved.

What's next? Eat less? Sure, there are people obese on fast foods and convenience foods, but there is much nervous eating. Sell off the car and take the bus? For most people, waiting 30 minutes for the bus both days is a waste of life.

We do not need to go back to the norms of 120 years ago when the industrial worker, miner, or farm laborer could expect to work 70 hours a week from childhood, remain destitute all his life, and die broken at age 40 or so. Sure, it is possible -- only at the risk of a Marxist-Leninist revolution.

Oh -- Jean-Paul Sartre was a leftist!

Most of your post is too long and boring.

Yes. Sarte was a communist. Ironic, no?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Buh-bye -- I have enough yapping puppies in my neighborhood....

If this is a battlefield, then I guess she just deserted Playwrite.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Wallace-Glick: Does any one get the sense that there is something more connected here than just the occassional (usually flattery) throw-away?

Yeah. I want to be just klike him when I grow up. Just like I want to be like you.

Originally Posted by annla899

This. I was born white and female and to a family who have been land-owners since before the Revolutionary War. My success rests in part on the shoulders of my ancestors who sent their sons to college in the early 1800s and even educated their daughters. I know this and frankly was raised to think that since I was given advantages that I had a responsibility to give back. My ancestors were of the upper class. I am in the social register. There were some serious capitalists in my family. And I benefited from that in more ways that I probably recognize. I had f*cking advantages that weren't all tied to money, since my parents didn't have that much, but those benefits definitely were and are tied to class and race and being upper-middle class white in the US. That female thing is a bit of a hiccup. But it would behoove all of us to think of all the people, the constructs that helped us on our way. For me, to an extent, it was my class and my place in this society only by virtue of my birth. I speak "right." I act "right." I know the drill.

For my BIL it was his brilliance in math and all those people who saw it and who taught him and encouraged him. And that includes the US government--the the DEA. But he thinks he did it alone. He doesn't think of the gov't grants that made his Ph.D possible.

For others, it may have been scholarships--provided by who? Maybe the gov't, a mentor, a social group, a benefactor of some kind. None us ever does it by ourselves. Maybe it's mummy or daddy's money. Maybe it's our talent that gets recognized by a mentor who then helps us get funding, private or public. But there is someone helping our way. Maybe it's the guy who taught us how to do something. Then it's our responsibility to pass it on. It's always our responsibility to pass it on. For whatever mondo (old term but works here) capitalists ancestors I had, that is one thing that has come through. You have to pass it on. You got lucky. You've got advantages that other people don't. Don't fncking feel sorry for yourself. You're fortunate. And your good fortune should be spread to others. You give back in whatever way you can.

I learned that from my Lost (Nomad) grandparents and grand-uncles and -aunts. I am not convinced that the current Nomads understand this.

I pointed out the practical probelem of trying to use the govt to untangle that to that to Justin.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yeah, they "earned it" all right:

The Rothschilds made their fortune the old fashioned way---from war, by financing the British military effort during the Napoleonic War. They then enlarged their fortune the new fashioned way, by stock market manipulation. After the Battle of Waterloo, Rothschild put his early knowledge of the British victory to use by selling a few shares in order to convince other investors that Napolean had won. When a mad selling spree erupted, he got bargains---and ripped off a lot of other investors in the process.

http://napoleon.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/11/09/the-ro...

J.P. Morgan also made his fortune from war. In his case, he bought a bunch of worthless rifles cheap and then turned around and sold them to the Union Army. Not only were the rifles worthless as combat weapons, they also shot off the thumbs of soldiers who tried to use them. Morgan went to court to ensure that he would get paid for his treason.

http://iulzzang.hubpages.com/hub/johnpmorgan

John D. Rockefeller Jr. literally committed murder for the sake of profit in Ludlow, Colorado, when the state militia was used to suppress a mine strike. After months of violence directed at the strikers, the company finally decided to clear out all the workers and their families. They did this by enlisting the aid of the Colorado National Guard, which machine gunned the workers and set fire to their tent camp, suffocating women and children.

http://libcom.org/history/1914-the-ludlow-massacre

Henry Ford helped finance Adolph Hitler. He also made a bundle from the Nazi German division of his company. Prior to 1938, he made passenger cars for Hitler. After 1938, he made trucks and other vehicles for the German war effort. Profits were enormous, because Ford used slave labor supplied by the Nazis.

http://www.bulldognews.net/issues_ford_slave_labor.html

Cap. James Brown. Never heard of him? Maybe you have heard of Brown University. Brown made his money the really old fashioned way---as a slave merchant, dragging Africans from their native countries to the Americas to be sold as laborers.

http://www.eblackstudies.org/intro/chapter3.htm

Uh, you didn't seem to notice that all of this happened after the already had quite a bit of money. And the Rothschild's and Morgan and Rockefeller and Ford did a lot more to earn and keep their wealth than that.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yes, that's exactly it.

I thought it was obvious. Some people had trouble, though.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Uh, you didn't seem to notice that all of this happened after the already had quite a bit of money. And the Rothschild's and Morgan and Rockefeller and Ford did a lot more to earn and keep their wealth than that.

behind every great fortune is a great crime. Nobody became a billionaire by being a good and decent person because you can't become a billionaire by being a good and decent person.

This is probably against my better judgement to post again but thought this information was crucial to this thread and those who care about the issue of health care for all.

Peace to all,
Deb C

The Commonwealth Fund
September 23, 2011
Variations in Amenable Mortality ? Trends in 16 High-Income Nations
By Ellen Nolte, Ph.D., and Martin McKee, M.D., D.Sc.

Synopsis

The rate of "mortality amenable to health care" ? that is, deaths that are
considered preventable with timely and effective health care ? declined for
people under age 75 across 16 high-income nations between 1997?1998 and
2006?2007. While all countries showed improvement, the United States
improved the least.

Key Findings

In 2006?2007, amenable mortality accounted for 24 percent of deaths under
age 75 in the 16 countries studied.

The highest levels were in the United States, with 95.5 deaths per 100,000
people.

Addressing the Problem

Although amenable mortality fell consistently in all countries, the scale
and pace of improvement varied. The United States's poor performance and
relatively slow improvement compared with other nations may be attributable
to "the lack of universal coverage and high costs of care," the authors
conclude.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publ...spx?omnicid=20


Comment: So, the United States has "the best health care system in the
world," except for all the others. Our amenable mortality - deaths that are
preventable with timely and effective health care - is the worst amongst the
16 high-income nations studied.

The authors suggest that our poor result may be attributable to the lack of
universal coverage and the high costs of care. Unfortunately the Affordable
Care Act (ACA) will provide neither universal coverage nor adequate measures
to control health care spending.

The policy community certainly understands that we could cover everyone and
control excessive spending by enacting a single payer national health
program - an improved Medicare for all. So why have they disappeared behind
closed doors to work on ACA - a model that won't get us there?

Please, policy wonks, come out of the closet!

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yes, that's exactly it.

I thought it was obvious. Some people had trouble, though.

Nobody had trouble. The meme that it did was a strawman argument used to settle old scores, throw viscous personal attacks and engage bored dick wavers who had nothing better to do than find meaningless areas of contention to stroke their egos. The original exercise (question) was meant to expand areas of thought so that the idea of "positive contribution" could become more liberating. But the aforementioned side effects made that goal next to impossible. So the discussion was closed (stated before). Cheers.

Originally Posted by Odin

behind every great fortune is a great crime. Nobody became a billionaire by being a good and decent person because you can't become a billionaire by being a good and decent person.

That's a pretty sweeping generalization. Not to mention circular reasoning.

Originally Posted by Odin

behind every great fortune is a great crime. Nobody became a billionaire by being a good and decent person because you can't become a billionaire by being a good and decent person.

Which, ipso facto, makes you a good and decent person.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

That's a pretty sweeping generalization. Not to mention circular reasoning.

Well there are always a handful exceptions, but generally, it's true.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Nobody had trouble. The meme that it did was a strawman argument used to settle old scores, throw viscous personal attacks and engage bored dick wavers who had nothing better to do than find meaningless areas of contention to stroke their egos. The original exercise (question) was meant to expand areas of thought so that the idea of "positive contribution" could become more liberating. But the aforementioned side effects made that goal next to impossible. So the discussion was closed (stated before). Cheers.

I think the idea is to liberate yourself, not have others tell you how.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

That's a pretty sweeping generalization. Not to mention circular reasoning.

Yeah. That too.

Originally Posted by Odin

Well there are always a handful exceptions, but generally, it's true.

So, if billionares get their money from great crimes, it must be true that you get your money from little crimes, right?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Yeah. I want to be just klike him when I grow up. Just like I want to be like you.

You will never be like me; remember, you are a coward.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Ok, I'm a coward.

If you're not willing to defend your assertions, why should anyone pay attention to you?

At first, you seem to offer something - I think that's why people engaged with you.

Now, it;s pretty obvious that you are a bore as well as a coward with nothing to offer to this forum except perhaps insights on how a late adolescent trolls.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You will never be like me; remember, you are a coward.



If you're not willing to defend your assertions, why should anyone pay attention to you?

At first, you seem to offer something - I think that's why people engaged with you.

Now, it;s pretty obvious that you are a bore as well as a coward with nothing to offer to this forum except perhaps insights on how a late adolescent trolls.

So why are posting?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Nobody had trouble. The meme that it did was a strawman argument used to settle old scores, throw viscous personal attacks and engage bored dick wavers who had nothing better to do than find meaningless areas of contention to stroke their egos. The original exercise (question) was meant to expand areas of thought so that the idea of "positive contribution" could become more liberating. But the aforementioned side effects made that goal next to impossible. So the discussion was closed (stated before). Cheers.

I think the idea is to liberate yourself, not have others tell you how.

Cheers.

And that is completely in accord with what I just said. Best...

Originally Posted by playwrite

You will never be like me; remember, you are a coward.



If you're not willing to defend your assertions, why should anyone pay attention to you?

At first, you seem to offer something - I think that's why people engaged with you.

Now, it;s pretty obvious that you are a bore as well as a coward with nothing to offer to this forum except perhaps insights on how a late adolescent trolls.

A late adolescent who has probably just read Atlas Shrugged and feels "enlightened", ROFL.