Do limits on EBT of where and what "humiliate the poor"?

[Thrasymachus]

There are many people of all races and cultures who work their way out of poverty.

That is a total myth, if you are born poor you will statistically stay poor. But before I expose that I must say that I support any legislation or measure that reduces consumer consumption of animals no matter what. That is I would support any limit of the poor, rich or anyone else to consume meat or milk products, since I don't believe in negative consumer freedoms.

I think what we see in this thread is baby boomer mentality. Most the wealth if you look at the age groups, is held predominately by baby boomers and each successive generation has only ended up poorer than the one before it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 115517.htm

In a groundbreaking study, Johns Hopkins University researchers followed nearly 800 Baltimore school children for a quarter of a century and discovered that their fates were substantially determined by the family they were born into.

"A family's resources and the doors they open cast a long shadow over children's life trajectories," Johns Hopkins sociologist Karl Alexander says in a forthcoming book, The Long Shadow: Family Background, Disadvantaged Urban Youth and the Transition to Adulthood. "This view is at odds with the popular ethos that we are makers of our own fortune."

Alexander, who joined Johns Hopkins in 1972 and retires this summer, spent nearly his entire career on the study, along with fellow researchers and co-authors Doris Entwisle and Linda Olson. Together they tracked 790 Baltimore children from 1982, the year they entered first grade, until they turned 28 or 29 years old, focusing in particular on those who started the journey in the most disadvantaged settings.

...

At nearly 30 years old, almost half the sample found themselves at the same socio-economic status as their parents. The poor stayed poor; those better off remained better off.

Only 33 children moved from birth families in the low-income bracket to the high-income bracket as young adults; if family had no bearing on children's mobility prospects, almost 70 would be expected. And of those who started out well off, only 19 dropped to the low-income bracket, a fourth of the number expected.

"The implication is where you start in life is where you end up in life," Alexander said. "It's very sobering to see how this all unfolds."

Among the most striking findings:

Almost none of the children from low-income families made it through college. Of the children from low-income families, only 4 percent had a college degree at age 28, compared to 45 percent of the children from higher-income backgrounds. "That's a shocking tenfold difference across social lines," Alexander said.

Among those who did not attend college, white men from low-income backgrounds found the best-paying jobs. Though they had the lowest rate of college attendance and completion, white men from low-income backgrounds found high-paying jobs in what remained of Baltimore's industrial economy. At age 28, 45 percent of them were working in construction trades and industrial crafts, compared with 15 percent of black men from similar backgrounds and virtually no women. In those trades, whites earned, on average, more than twice what blacks made.

Those well-paying blue collar jobs are not as abundant as during the years after World War II, but they still exist, and a large issue today is who gets them: among high school drop-outs, at age 22, 89 percent of white dropouts were working compared with 40 percent of black drop-outs.

White women from low-income backgrounds benefit financially from marriage and stable live-in partnerships. Though both white and black women who grew up in lower-income households earned less than white men, when you consider household income, white women reached parity with white men -- because they were married to them. Black women not only had low earnings, they were less likely than whites to be in stable family unions and so were less likely to benefit from a spouse's earnings.

White and black women from low-income households also had similar teen birth rates but white women more often had a spouse or partner, which helped to mitigate the challenges.

"It is access to good paying work that perpetuates the privilege of working class white men over working class black men," Alexander said. "By partnering with these men, white working class women share in that privilege."

Most likely to abuse drugs -- better-off white men. Though young black men get the bad rap when it comes to drugs, The Long Shadow found better-off white men had the highest self-reported rates of drug use, binge-drinking and chronic smoking, followed in each instance by white men of disadvantaged families. These men also reported high levels of arrest. But blacks, Alexander said, don't have the social networks whites do to help them find jobs despite these roadblocks. At age 28, 49 percent of black men from low-income backgrounds had a criminal conviction. Of white men from the same background, 41 percent had convictions, but the white employment rate was much higher.

Information on the book can be found at: https://www.russellsage.org/publications/long-shadow

[zumacraig]

"As you think, so shall you become" This is a truth stated by many wise men and wise books down through the ages. You think there is no hope, and there is none. You think you can't win, and you'll lose. You think the system is fixed against you, and it will work out that way.

I can't even respond to such sophistry. It's not a matter of wishing the system was better. It is fixed against you, me and the poor. We need to change it. Wisdom has nothing to do with it.

[zumacraig]

There are many people of all races and cultures who work their way out of poverty.

That is a total myth, if you are born poor you will statistically stay poor. But before I expose that I must say that I support any legislation or measure that reduces consumer consumption of animals no matter what. That is I would support any limit of the poor, rich or anyone else to consume meat or milk products, since I don't believe in negative consumer freedoms.

I think what we see in this thread is baby boomer mentality. Most the wealth if you look at the age groups, is held predominately by baby boomers and each successive generation has only ended up poorer than the one before it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 115517.htm

In a groundbreaking study, Johns Hopkins University researchers followed nearly 800 Baltimore school children for a quarter of a century and discovered that their fates were substantially determined by the family they were born into.

"A family's resources and the doors they open cast a long shadow over children's life trajectories," Johns Hopkins sociologist Karl Alexander says in a forthcoming book, The Long Shadow: Family Background, Disadvantaged Urban Youth and the Transition to Adulthood. "This view is at odds with the popular ethos that we are makers of our own fortune."

Alexander, who joined Johns Hopkins in 1972 and retires this summer, spent nearly his entire career on the study, along with fellow researchers and co-authors Doris Entwisle and Linda Olson. Together they tracked 790 Baltimore children from 1982, the year they entered first grade, until they turned 28 or 29 years old, focusing in particular on those who started the journey in the most disadvantaged settings.

...

At nearly 30 years old, almost half the sample found themselves at the same socio-economic status as their parents. The poor stayed poor; those better off remained better off.

Only 33 children moved from birth families in the low-income bracket to the high-income bracket as young adults; if family had no bearing on children's mobility prospects, almost 70 would be expected. And of those who started out well off, only 19 dropped to the low-income bracket, a fourth of the number expected.

"The implication is where you start in life is where you end up in life," Alexander said. "It's very sobering to see how this all unfolds."

Among the most striking findings:

Almost none of the children from low-income families made it through college. Of the children from low-income families, only 4 percent had a college degree at age 28, compared to 45 percent of the children from higher-income backgrounds. "That's a shocking tenfold difference across social lines," Alexander said.

Among those who did not attend college, white men from low-income backgrounds found the best-paying jobs. Though they had the lowest rate of college attendance and completion, white men from low-income backgrounds found high-paying jobs in what remained of Baltimore's industrial economy. At age 28, 45 percent of them were working in construction trades and industrial crafts, compared with 15 percent of black men from similar backgrounds and virtually no women. In those trades, whites earned, on average, more than twice what blacks made.

Those well-paying blue collar jobs are not as abundant as during the years after World War II, but they still exist, and a large issue today is who gets them: among high school drop-outs, at age 22, 89 percent of white dropouts were working compared with 40 percent of black drop-outs.

White women from low-income backgrounds benefit financially from marriage and stable live-in partnerships. Though both white and black women who grew up in lower-income households earned less than white men, when you consider household income, white women reached parity with white men -- because they were married to them. Black women not only had low earnings, they were less likely than whites to be in stable family unions and so were less likely to benefit from a spouse's earnings.

White and black women from low-income households also had similar teen birth rates but white women more often had a spouse or partner, which helped to mitigate the challenges.

"It is access to good paying work that perpetuates the privilege of working class white men over working class black men," Alexander said. "By partnering with these men, white working class women share in that privilege."

Most likely to abuse drugs -- better-off white men. Though young black men get the bad rap when it comes to drugs, The Long Shadow found better-off white men had the highest self-reported rates of drug use, binge-drinking and chronic smoking, followed in each instance by white men of disadvantaged families. These men also reported high levels of arrest. But blacks, Alexander said, don't have the social networks whites do to help them find jobs despite these roadblocks. At age 28, 49 percent of black men from low-income backgrounds had a criminal conviction. Of white men from the same background, 41 percent had convictions, but the white employment rate was much higher.

Information on the book can be found at: https://www.russellsage.org/publications/long-shadow

Fascinating study. I'll never understand how the majority of white men FAIL upward in this society.

[nayasmom]

There are many people of all races and cultures who work their way out of poverty. The problem is wanting everything RIGHT NOW. Few are willing to put aside immediate gratification for future security. Take the many Asians, and Middle East people who come to this country with nothing. They can't even speak the language. But, through hard work and savings they come up with enough to start a business and work 100 hours a week each and every week putting whatever profits they make back into the business. It might take a decade, but the time comes when they hire others and start making money from other people's labor. That's what it's about, you either make money on other people's labor or other people's money. The alternate is simply to get a trade or profession and make a fair wage from your own labor. But, that won't get you rich and you'll be subject to that dread layoff. The big advantage you have in this country is the freedom to do whatever you want. That's why millions are still dying to come to this country because they know there aren't many place in this world that offer that freedom.

Life is 'better' in this country because we would not stand for the abysmal conditions of the third world. We are just above it though. People who 'make it' in this country are anomalies and the whole idea of 'making it' has arbitrary meanings. We are not free to do what we want to do. We're forced to sell our labor to the capitalist who does no work but live off our labor and the stock market (And that capitalist didn't work hard, they inherited or stole their capital) . Yet when they fail, the government (see tax payers) bail them out. However, the bailout money is not in the form of food stamps with stipulations on what the CEO can buy. These people ruin the economy time and time again, with no consequence, yet we blame the poor for being poor and making bad decisions.

And don't tell me about people coming to this country to 'make it'. You don't care about them. They are the people you are complaining about…the working poor, those on medicaid etc. Conservatives like you don't want them here in the first place. You think they are eating up the resources and taking all the jobs.

And, don't tell me about the protestant work ethic! It's bankrupt. It's almost impossible to save and get ahead in this country unless you are really lucky. The amount of work you put into it has no bearing. I've worked with poor folks who work 60 hours a week at menial jobs just to put food on the table. They've put more hours in than all the 1% combined. So don't use that tired argument about not working hard enough.

We have different rules for the poor. Read this article with an open mind and your antiquated, unsubstantiated claims about poor folks might change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -benefits/

About a week or so ago, I listened to an article on NPR about a McDonald's employee who was happy to get a raise. The article was about how raising minimum wages to $10/hr would be financially beneficial. This particular employee, a young woman with only a high school education and no aspirations for better, focused her efforts into buying a next-gen iphone. I kid you not. There was nothing about her being able to afford tuition, or rent on a place to live in a safer neighborhood, or even the potential to save money toward her retirement. It was all about that silly piece of entertainment.
I think that there's truth somewhere in the middle of your two extremes - the instant-gratification group and the struggling to survive group.

Robyn

[patty]

About a week or so ago, I listened to an article on NPR about a McDonald's employee who was happy to get a raise. The article was about how raising minimum wages to $10/hr would be financially beneficial. This particular employee, a young woman with only a high school education and no aspirations for better, focused her efforts into buying a next-gen iphone. I kid you not. There was nothing about her being able to afford tuition, or rent on a place to live in a safer neighborhood, or even the potential to save money toward her retirement. It was all about that silly piece of entertainment.
I think that there's truth somewhere in the middle of your two extremes - the instant-gratification group and the struggling to survive group.

Robyn

Good for her:) This is from Eric Topol MD, "The Patient Will See You Now":

Paternalism, Priests, and Phones

Realizing that is a bold assertion, now I’d like to get more specific about how we connect the dots from the first chapter on medical paternalism and the current chapter. I’ve purposely gone in chronological order, as the “doctor knows best” era began around 400 BC, almost two millennia before printing came about. BPP the high priests were among the only people who could read and had access to books. The priests, nobility, and highly affluent were the only literate individuals, an exclusive basis for knowledge and power . Martin Luther authored his 95 Theses in 1517, profoundly challenging the church’s authority. 41 Obviously, he wasn’t writing about medicine, but a few of his theses may be considered relevant to the topic at hand: (1) There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of purgatory as soon as the money clinks in the bottom of the chest; (2) Why are there penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves?; and (3) It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.

We’ve already seen the connection between doctors and God. It’s in the original caduceus symbol, the godly nature of medical care; it’s in “patients must honor doctors since they have received their authority from God.” 42 While God anointed Aesculapian physicians in the ancient Greek era, it’s still even strongly implied in the original 1847 AMA Code of Medical Ethics. 43

Accordingly, the power of doctors can be likened to that of religious leaders and nobility. This dominance was derived from knowledge and authoritative control of medical information in general, and each patient specifically. Luther confronted the supreme authority of the church, with over three hundred thousand copies of the 95 Theses that were widely distributed. 44 We’ve never seen such a discrete challenge to the medical profession, but we’ve not had the platform or landscape for that to be accomplished. Until now.

Just as the model of a communications revolution explains the future impact of Gutenberg’s press, we are about to see a medical revolution with little mobile devices. For the flow of information will be radically different. Instead of the command ritual of data going first to doctors and trickling down to patients, this deep -rooted practice is about to be turned upside down. Serving as the channel, smartphones will convey all the relevant data pertaining to an individual directly to that individual (or in the case of children, to the parents)— from personal health records, biosensors, lab tests , scans, genomics, and environment. The smartphone readily connects to the cloud and will increasingly connect to supercomputer resources. In many cases, smartphones will play a role well beyond a passive conduit, such as actually performing the lab tests or medical scans, parts of the physical examination traditionally done by a doctor, or processing the data that is graphically displayed or used for predictive analytics.

But the role of smartphones in this electronic communications revolution is not only indexed to the individual. We’ve already seen the beginnings of managed competition among individuals using their smartphone data from sensors, such as quantifying sleep, glucose, or blood pressure. This can and will be further amplified across a wide gamut of physiologic metrics and through the use of social networks. At a much larger level, the extensive sharing of little device data— from single individuals to create huge population cohort information resources— presents new opportunities for massive open online medicine (MOOM ). Conceptually, we’re talking about bottom-up medicine, which was never possible until we had the tools and digital infrastructure to pull it off.

Smartphone spread of information isn’t confined to transferring medical data. It’s a means of rapidly amassing and galvanizing people who are fed up with the current state of health care. Of waiting an average of sixty-two minutes to see the doctor, leading to the full toll of seven minutes of seeing the doctor for a return office visit, often without eye contact (a unilateral sighting). Of experiencing a serious error while in the hospital, such as acquiring a dangerous nosocomial infection or receiving the wrong medication with a critical side effect. Of seeing the hospital bill that reflects the notorious chargemaster with ludicrous fees. Of being responsible for ever-increasing copays for prescription medications, doctor visits, insurance, or any consumption of health care resources. So just as we have seen emotions , ideas, pictures , and videos transmitted via smartphones to prompt political protests, the increasing frustration and vexing aspects of health care today may influence a bottom-up movement, propelled by smartphones and social networks , for improving the future of medicine.

Looking back at Table 3.1 and specifically honing in on the medical smartphone attributes, it is notable that there are already tens of thousands of medical apps that have been developed by a network of worldwide developers. What’s most amazing, however, is not the sheer number, but the staggering creativity. Who would have thought we could digitize breath via a smartphone to detect cancer? Or measure critical lung function parameters by breathing into its microphone? Or use a microfluidic attachment to run hundreds of routine lab tests with a drop of fluid? How about repurposing a phone into a high-powered microscope or into multiple physical examination devices, such as an ophthalmoscope or otoscope? Such devices empower both the patient and the doctor.

As we’ll see, medical smartphones will create unprecedented DIY applications. Since these devices operate anywhere there is a mobile signal, the chance for egalitarian access to portable medical technology throughout the world is especially promising and exciting— for example, using the camera and text messaging to screen for skin cancer. Ironically, much of the progress in medical smartphone use is occurring in the developing world, which not only starts at a lower tier of technological capability, but also is without the hindrance of perverse reimbursement incentives. The opportunity to lower health care costs with unplugged medicine is starting to get proof of concept, and will be reviewed in depth subsequently. But when the role of hospitals and clinics are challenged via remote monitoring and virtual office visits, it is not hard to envision a major change in cost structure. And major resistance.

So the substrate for a new medical communications revolution is in place. I believe it is inevitable, but the timing of when this will be actualized is uncertain. We know how hard it is to change things in medicine, just as it is extremely difficult for religious rituals to be altered. For example, dating back to the eighth and ninth centuries in Europe, the priest faced the apse, the wall behind the alter, with his back to the people, praying in Latin, which few people in the Mass understood. 45 This particular orientation was known as “ad orientem.” 46 That could mean disorientation to the maximus . Although this ritual is still in practice in some churches in Europe today, it has largely been abandoned— since the 1960s. It only took one thousand years for the priests to typically face the people and use the native language. While doctors are not so good at using nonmedical jargon, still write prescriptions in Latin, and due to pressures in using electronic medical records are less good at facing the patient, there is a new path going forward.

Topol, Eric (2015-01-06). The Patient Will See You Now: The Future of Medicine is in Your Hands (p. 52). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

I think the tipping point has happened. The DIY is the new drug. A healthy lifestyle isn't something you have to go to college for or have a high paying job. Dr. McDougall connects the dots of food and money equating health is wealth. Now science is saying free will is a fallacy:) It is in the power of acting as if:) The world will do for ourselves what we can't, by a world no longer revolving around a doctor but the beep of the cell phone.

Aloha, patty

[Spiral]

When my uncle was in high school he was a very good student and was able to get a full scholarship to an Ivy League university. But his parents, though middle class, saved up money for his college education, not knowing that he would one day get a full scholarship. So, my uncle's parents thought of what they would do with the money they had saved for their son's college tuition, since it was no longer needed for college tuition.

They decided to give my uncle the money. Giving an 18 year old a big wad of money is usually a bad idea. But my uncle was not a normal 18 year old. Instead of spending the money, my uncle purchased some stock in a corporation. When he graduated from college, he had a small nest egg of money he could use. He decided to move from New York to California to go to graduate school, where he met my aunt (they married a few years later). He got a masters degree in Electrical Engineering. Then he got some jobs with some large corporations, but got bored with that and started his own business with a Korean co-worker. They have made millions of dollars in their business.

On the other hand, I remember people I went to school with. Their parents saved their money to get them in to college. But once in college they spent their time snorting methamphetamine. They eventually dropped out of school and began collecting disability while they sold meth for a supplemental income.

Some people are just willing to defer gratification and others are not. It makes a difference once you are in your 30s, 40s and 50s.

I think it's the same way with nutrition. Some people acknowledge that eating a whole foods plant based diet is healthier. But when they made a decision about their next meal, those burgers and fries call them and they think immediate gratification is more important than long term health or even next week's health.

[eXtremE]

Classic issue that keeps us all divided and blaming poor folks for their situation. Ironically, our tax dollars pay for a minuscule amount of welfare for poor people. They do, however, pay for corporate bailouts, huge defense contracts etc. At the same time, entertainment is a high priority for folks that really can't afford it. The family that's going to Disney world that gets free lunch is probably not a true story. If it were, can you blame them? We have to start looking at these issues as a community and see how we are living in a system the affects everyone to some degree or another. I was recently in line behind a woman with a child using EBT. It was a nightmare for her using two cards, unable to spend more than a certain amount and unable to buy certain things. She wasn't buy a bunch of crap either. Even if she was, can I really blame her. Anyway, she was upset, the cashier was upset and the backed up line was upset. Did this woman make bad choices that put us all in this position? Maybe. Have I made bad choices, hell yes. She's just getting the brunt of system that is rigged. I'm just above water in my life. Worked hard to no avail of 'making it'. I've got 3 degrees am white and male. I had all the opportunity in the world, but I'm part of the dwindling middle class paying tons in loans that were supposed to be an investment, but turned out to be just debt. I'm inundated with advertisements that tell me I need to do this that and other to make my kids happy. Going to Disney is one of them. The social pressure to go to Disneyland for parents is ridiculous. I won't do it, but do I blame the poor folks for doing it? Hell no. This whole notion of different rules for the rich and poor has to stop.

My sentiments exactly and what most ppl fail to see. Ppl think nothing about all the corporate welfare. Ronald Reagan started all welfare queen crap back in the 1976 presidential campaign and got himself elected.

[baardmk]

Spiral, what you're describing about deferred gratification may not be an argument for what you think it is. There are lots of social determinants of such abilities. And if such traits are more "genetic" in nature, something you're born with, all the more reason, at least in my view of justness, to have a system where such groups or individuals are more protected from becoming addicts or otherwise than they are in today's capitalist systems around the world.

[eXtremE]

There are many people of all races and cultures who work their way out of poverty. The problem is wanting everything RIGHT NOW.

Yes, but white males in America have an advantage from the start (birth). The founding fathers set it up like like this. This needs to change in America and is slowly changing IMO. Let's let everyone start out on an equal, level playing field and then let the best man or woman win.

[patty]

There are many people of all races and cultures who work their way out of poverty. The problem is wanting everything RIGHT NOW.

Yes, but white males in America have an advantage from the start (birth). The founding fathers set it up like like this. This needs to change in America and is slowly changing IMO. Let's let everyone start out on an equal, level playing field and then let the best man or woman win.

I feel the new paradigm is to pay it forward as today we know the power of epigenetic is inclusive of our environment, which is exactly what Dr. McDougall has done creating these forums. Imagine his limited thinking never knew the power he had when walking away from Queens hospital, was the sky above him. When we feel endangered our cells depend on our view of our environment as it regulates the cortisol that sends the blood to our limbs, that leaves our vital organs unprotected. The illusion we are separate is what creates suffering. This is a body, mind and social disease. The game is to keep including those who exclude us. Poverty is a state of attitude. When someone loses a leg to diabetes, guess what the phantom leg is still there:) We are always more than we appear when we remember we are less. And that is true of the mind, which we fear the most of losing. Time and space are constructs of the brain, which means all duality. The new paradigm is ether or and both. It is seeing what sees:) When seeing poverty/separateness it is to ask for a shift of perception that is inclusive no mater how it looks. What you do to someone else, you do to yourself:) America is the bridge of all worlds anew from the bottom up.

Aloha, patty

[VegMommy]

(And that capitalist didn't work hard, they inherited or stole their capital)

This is a ridiculous myth, which benefits those who stand to profit by stirring up class warfare and keeping people complacent and dependent on government.

ETA:
I had to come back to add...the baby boomer comments crack me up, because my parents had to listen to the same nonsense ("it was different for you"..."times have changed"..."the rich get richer"..."you got yours"..."you're a pawn of capitalist crooks"...etc.) back in the sixties and seventies. Today it's Occupy Wall Street, back then they were called hippies. Different generation, same s**t.

[zumacraig]

(And that capitalist didn't work hard, they inherited or stole their capital)

This is a ridiculous myth, which benefits those who stand to profit by stirring up class warfare and keeping people complacent and dependent on government.

ETA:
I had to come back to add...the baby boomer comments crack me up, because my parents had to listen to the same nonsense ("it was different for you"..."times have changed"..."the rich get richer"..."you got yours"..."you're a pawn of capitalist crooks"...etc.) back in the sixties and seventies. Today it's Occupy Wall Street, back then they were called hippies. Different generation, same s**t.

There is historical, sociological and economic evidence that the top 1% (to use common vernacular) are either very lucky in opportunities, make money by unethical means or have inherited wealth that was earned on the backs of slaves on land stolen from Native Americans. This is not to mention the fact that they do not work, in the truest sense. They make money of other people's work and their money.

Now, if we blame poor folks for being poor, then we need to blame ourselves for not being rich, right? But we know that's not the case because we do work hard and have some opportunities, but we know full well that it's basically impossible to become a millionaire. It's a systemic issue. You can say it's nonsense, but that is no cogent argument against what is actually going on. In fact, all of the conservative comments on this thread like yours VegMommy, have been reactionary and anecdotal. These hold no water for me. I wont stop the conversation because I am genuinely concerned about human suffering and through critical thought and engagement with 'the least of these' I've found that the capitalist system is not working and people are not to blame for their situations. Moreover, we are all caught in some aspect of this suffering in this system whether we know it or not. It's a sad situation and we delude ourselves at our own peril.

[hazelrah]

ETA:
I had to come back to add...the baby boomer comments crack me up, because my parents had to listen to the same nonsense ("it was different for you"..."times have changed"..."the rich get richer"..."you got yours"..."you're a pawn of capitalist crooks"...etc.) back in the sixties and seventies. Today it's Occupy Wall Street, back then they were called hippies. Different generation, same s**t.

So you don't see the reason to try to change things? You'd rather people be complacent and accept the status quo?

Do you believe you're living the same life your parents and grandparents lived? They would not be surprised by an African American president? Female CEOs? Machines and humans carrying on conversations? Is that all just the same nonsense?


Mark

[VegMommy]

There is historical, sociological and economic evidence that the top 1% (to use common vernacular) are either very lucky in opportunities, make money by unethical means or have inherited wealth that was earned on the backs of slaves on land stolen from Native Americans. This is not to mention the fact that they do not work, in the truest sense. They make money of other people's work and their money.

Now, if we blame poor folks for being poor, then we need to blame ourselves for not being rich, right? But we know that's not the case because we do work hard and have some opportunities, but we know full well that it's basically impossible to become a millionaire. It's a systemic issue. You can say it's nonsense, but that is no cogent argument against what is actually going on. In fact, all of the conservative comments on this thread like yours VegMommy, have been reactionary and anecdotal. These hold no water for me. I wont stop the conversation because I am genuinely concerned about human suffering and through critical thought and engagement with 'the least of these' I've found that the capitalist system is not working and people are not to blame for their situations. Moreover, we are all caught in some aspect of this suffering in this system whether we know it or not. It's a sad situation and we delude ourselves at our own peril.

"Basically impossible to become a millionaire"? Spend a couple of minutes googling "young millionaires", "small business millionaires", "black millionaires", etc.

I don't blame people for being poor. There are all sorts of reasons that people might be poor. But your belief that all wealth is inherited or stolen or "earned on the backs of slaves" and it's impossible to make money is ridiculous and is the reason for my response.

[VegMommy]

ETA:
I had to come back to add...the baby boomer comments crack me up, because my parents had to listen to the same nonsense ("it was different for you"..."times have changed"..."the rich get richer"..."you got yours"..."you're a pawn of capitalist crooks"...etc.) back in the sixties and seventies. Today it's Occupy Wall Street, back then they were called hippies. Different generation, same s**t.

So you don't see the reason to try to change things? You'd rather people be complacent and accept the status quo?

Do you believe you're living the same life your parents and grandparents lived? They would not be surprised by an African American president? Female CEOs? Machines and humans carrying on conversations? Is that all just the same nonsense?


Mark

I think you misunderstood me. By "the same nonsense", I mean the idea that it's impossible to get ahead. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.