dogzilla

Since neither the article nor the pdf provide any information about the source of the data, the way the study was conducted, the specific questions asked, the background research that was done, or anything else besides what could be a predetermined conclusion that blacks are poorer because of an unfair tax system and unfavorable interest rates, the article itself is highly suspect.

Just because a publication is peer reviewed does not make it correct.

There are plenty of other reasons why groups of people are poorer than average which have nothing to do with what taxes they pay.

Poor money management skills and lack of training on fundamentals of budgeting your income are just two.

CandleInTheDark

It would seem that some of you think that questioning the methods is an invalid form of comment. Nothing could be further from the the truth. Any form of empirical study can and should have it's methods probed for faults. We are at a disadvantage as the brief is not the actual report, which I assume would contain a detailed methods section. That said, in simple statistical terms, 2000 samples of 300,000,000 may indeed be enough; however, the sample is clearly not random, and the data subject to too many variables for me to necessarily believe that. How is family defined? How do you follow multiple families for a generation? How were families chosen? Were some compensated for their participation? There are too many variables not controlled, or not answered, in the brief. Methodology matters.

But, assuming the underlying study is fault free:


roachboy, no one is 'blaming the poor' for moral or cognitive defects. What, I think, most have said is that the poor (as a whole) do share some (but not necessarily all) of the responsibility for being in this position. Cultural forces for both rich and poor have driven us to a consumer, debt-ridden culture. If the tax system does favour the rich over the poor, and historically advantaged whites can maintain their assets while taking on debt; those are structural issues beyond culture.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

kutulu

That's right, poor people are poor because they spend all their money on new cars, big screen TV, and all sorts of crap. If they just stopped all that frivolous spending they'd have no problems making ends meet on 30k or less per year.

---------- Post added at 11:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

Maybe because 'questioning the methods' is the standard attack by the right on scientific research. By the time the questions are answered it doesn't matter anymore because the news cycle has already moved passed the issue. This has been the MO on the assault against global warming.

roachboy

candle: i have no problem at all with questioning method. when i initially responded to your post, i noted that it was a drag that the whole thing has not yet been released...before i did that i spent quite a bit of time trawling about to see if it had been released elsewhere (like via the mcarthur) but saw nada. i did get to check out the authors of the report a bit and would suggest that you do the same. in the absence of the whole thing this is about as good as one can get in terms of markers that the methodology is likely to be legit. not necessarily perfect, but legit.

your main point is to the side of objections about method, however---it's more about sociological approaches in general and the objection comes down to: it's difficult to account for particularities in an aggregating or statistically based approach. to which one can only say...well sure. but that's not an objection against any particular social-scientific approach because it can apply to any of them. the anecdotal gets left out. that doesnt invalidate anything. it's merely a state of affairs.

structural problems, like the explanations for the stagnation of african-american wealth under 30 years of conservative economic domination, are simply the weight of history and actions shaped by that weight. the lack of access to credit and to opportunities to own and operate businesses that had been visited upon african americans out of "custom" continue to impact on the distribution of wealth. these are not magical or "extra-cultural" matters. they are institutional effects that have to be confronted in order to be reversed. nothing about conservative-dominated social policy or thinking about social policy gets anyone anywhere near doing that. and the evidence in this brief simply points out that there are consequences which follow from that, and that these consequences are kinda ugly. and big. hard to ignore. you know.


the basis for the critique

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dogzilla

I never claimed all poor people were poor because they blew their money on silly things. Some people. Other people are poor because of large families, lack of interest in developing real job skills, etc, etc. Claiming all poor people are poor because of frivolus spending makes just as much sense as the claims in this brief that all the poor black people are poor because of high taxes and interest rates.

I learned a long time ago to not blindly accept the assertions in any publication, especially one which provides no backup information or explanation of sources. Otherwise you're likely to believe in nonsense and fairy tales like the ones postulated in this brief.

dippin

The problem isn't with questioning the methodology per se. That is actually what people are supposed to be doing.
The problem is with questioning the methodology without having read the description of the methodology or understanding even elementary statistics just because one doesn't like the results.

filtherton

Another note on methodology: there is a glaring inconsistency in blindly questioning the sample size used in a particular instance of clinical research whilst at the same time taking as gospel the stuff you've personally experienced, which has a much smaller sample size.

For instance, the statement: "There's no way that 2000 people could be representative of 300,000,000, but I find my own personal experiences with the small and highly biased sample that is comprised of people in my vicinity to be an incredibly compelling representation of 300,000,000 people." Or stated another way, "I saw some poor people doing this thing once, and so that other, more rigorous study about poor people can't possibly be true."

If one is going to pull the methodology card, one ought to do so in regards to one's own perspective and not just in regards to research whose conclusions rub one the wrong way.

FoolThemAll

There's gotta be some unstated caveat here, like 'families with children' or 'massive medical bills'. If a single person with unexciting problems can't find a comfortable buffer zone with 30k a year, then yeah, frivolous spending is probably the culprit.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

pan6467

And I don't understand why I need to qualify my opinion on anything other than my life experiences and that which my friends have experienced and shown me. Especially when I state it is nothing more than MY opinion. I did not qualify it as that of a scholar or expert on the subject. But my opinion and belief determines my vote far more than any article that can I am sure somewhere be rebutted by a different source just as respected.

I didn't know in order to have an opinion on anything I need a degree or college credits in the subject.

That's one of the problems here, in TFP and political debate in general. People allow their emotions and experiences to determine their opinion. Then you have those who want to be all holier than thou by asking, "what credentials do you have to have such an opinion? You can't have an opinion that will be taken seriously without a laundry list of credentials, links and proof." Thus.... people leave, get turned off and dig further into their beliefs and become more and more defensive and less likely to change their mind or find some type of compromise. This then leads to further partisanship and more of a divide in the nation.

You can disagree all you want, I will allow your opinion and listen to it. I am sure you have the required laundry list to have such an opinion. Then again.... wait a minute... I don't... fuck so my opinion doesn't matter.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

rahl

Pan, I don't think anyone here is saying your not entitled to your opinion. But when someones opinion is proven wrong(not speaking about this particular discussion, but debate in general) and they still cling to that opinion, the discussion really can't go any further because some people cling to their opinions even when they have been proven to be utterly incorrect.

It is frustrating to talk to someone who can't achknowledge when they are wrong. (not speaking about you, just people in general)

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Cimarron29414

I was unaware that an opinion could be classified as "wrong".

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

rahl

If you believe a thing, and that thing is incorrect, that is called "wrong".

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Cimarron29414

No, if you base an opinion on erroneous facts - the facts are wrong. The opinion is neither right nor wrong. It is simply an opinion.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

you cannot be serious. an opinion is a position taken on the basis of information. all aspects of it can be wrong--the information can be wrong, the interpretation can be wrong and the position itself can be wrong.

unless you take opinion to really be a device that enables a reversion to some infantile state in which your desires rule everything because you can't distinguish inside from outside.

it's funny to me that this discussion is happening in a thread that's about a sociological study on the patterns of inequality in the distribution of wealth in the united states. it's not like the problem of inequality in the distribution of wealth is new. it's been a characteristic of american-style cowboy capitalism for the whole of its sorry existence--cowboy capitalism reversed trends that were in place after world war 2 which tended toward a somewhat more equal distribution of wealth. the irony of the politics which sold cowboy capitalism is obviously the extent to which its memes appealed to people who were far from being the principal beneficiaries of the massive flow of wealth into the hands of the top 5% and away from everyone else. most folk who are **really** committed to the mythology of cowboy capitalism are properly speaking the victims of exactly the unequal distribution of wealth and educational and cultural opportunities that they champion. go figure.

given that, it's doubly ironic to find folk from the right (or who are ultra-right but deny that it's the case) defending know-nothing positions. made a fool of by the ideology they defend, they process things by denying reality, denying information which generates dissonance. the apex of this is:

"this is my opinion and because it's my right to have an opinion it necessarily follows that the opinion i have is correct."

that's just nutty.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

An opinion is neither right nor wrong... it is drawn off life experiences, the education and the experiences and influences of those close.

THAT is an opinion.

It does not have to be "qualified" or it would be called a "qualified" opinion. An opinion is simply someone's belief.

And look for the last time because obviously you are missing something. When you degrade or tell someone their opinion/belief is LESS than... for whatever reason, it in NO WAY promotes a debate where respect, dignity and openness can thrive. Once an opinion is dismissed or degraded, the person automatically takes a defensive and it's over... you will NEVER get them to change their minds. They may because of other sources but I can almost guarantee it wasn't because of the degradation of their opinion.

Why do you think Limbaugh, Beck, Maher, Moore, Sharpton, whomever are so successful... because they alienate those whose opinions are disagreeable and give safe haven for those with a like opinion. They play on people's emotions, beliefs and opinions... AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.... there is no mutual respect of opinion, no trying to reach a positive compromise... one side demands the other takes their stand and neither side will back down because there is NO RESPECT for the other's opinion.

When opinions are shared, respected and talked about... BOTH sides learn and can respect the other. If that sharing, respect and dignity isn't given... there will be no true resolution.

Is it really that fucking hard to understand?

Can't believe people are arguing that opinion has to be based on education and fact before they can respect it. I guess that's your opinion and I respect it ... but it's fucked up. Now how do you feel.... all defensive and a bit angry "how dare pan dismiss my opinion that way. I'll show him".

Exactly my point.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Cimarron29414

So, I did a brief study of the poorest 10 cities over the past 30 years. For the record, these cities all had over 50% minority (Black, Latino) populations, so they seem relevant to the thread.

America's 10 Poorest Cities - ABC News

I looked at which major political party ran those cities for the past 30 years. It takes a bit of legwork, but you can trace a city here The Political Graveyard and then look up the mayor/counsel members on that site as well as several places, including wikipedia.

Then I looked at which major political party ran those states for the past 30-35 years.

Results: In the cases of the cities which I traced, Democrat councils and mayors ran those towns for 80% or longer over the past 30-35 years. In some cases, it was impossible to find party affiliation, so I left that leader out. Below is a listing of the cities, their current mayor's party, and the % of time they've had a Democrat for Governor over the last 35 years.

Please forgive the formatting. It looks correct in edit mode, but won't render with the correct spacing on the page.

City Current Mayor % Time Democrat Gov
Pine Bluff, Ark. Democrat 66%
Albany, Ga Democrat 80%
Macon, Ga. Democrat 80 %
Rocky Mount, N.C. Democrat 80%
McAllen, Tx Democrat 20%
Brownsville, Tx Democrat 20%
El Centro, Calif. Democrat 30%
Yuma, Ariz Republican 61%
Saginaw, Mich. Democrat 43%
Flint, Mich Democrat 43%

Hopefully, my facts will not be proven erroneous.

There have been opinions made by members that, what are traditionally Republican policies are responsible for the disparity of wealth. However, this sampling seems to indicate that, at best, the leadership was shared. At worst, it was actually 30 years of Democrat policy which has produced the 10 poorest cities.

Feel free to correct my facts or suggest why they may not be relevant. I would appreciate a level of civility in discussing this.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

RogueGypsy

So let me get this right. It's alright to support an incomplete, undocumented preliminary study, but it's not alright to question it?

If disagreement bothers you so much, I suggest medication. Life is full of disagreements, you will always have to deal with them and most people are not going to be swayed to your point of view. Most will move further from your view the harder you push.

As has been stated, there is no documentation of the group making it impossible to verify. They could have cruised through Compton, canvased a 2 block area, moved on to Pacific Palisades for a sample then started their study. Or they could have formed a pool from through out the country based on finances, family, work, education, legal and an assortment of other financially impacting issues. Divided that pool into similar groups, then selected equal samples from each group. Or anything in between, but we don't know, do we.

As far as personal observation goes, having lived in 45 cities in 15 states and two foreign countries gives me a little more than your average Jose. I can safely say my personal cross sampling of the nation is far greater than this study entails and I would want much more info scientifically before making statements as they have. Knowing little about statistics is still enough to know, the larger the sample, the more accurate the result.

This thread and this nation would be going so much better if people did question more, instead of blindly following something because they think the source is an authority. Authorities make mistakes, no ones education is complete and having an education in a particular field does not make you an expert. It just makes you think you are one, which is more dangerous than not having a clue. Blindly following party lines is what is destroying this nation. Making assumed accusations of ones party association and through that assumption, assuming their values, is just infantile.

__________________
Methods, application and intensity of application vary by the individual. All legal wavers must be signed before 'treatment' begins. Self 'Medicating' is not recommend. However, if necessary, it is best to have an 'assistant' or 'soft landing zone' nearby. Any and all legal issues resulting from improperly applied techniques should be forwarded to: Dewy, Cheatum & Howe, Intercourse, PA 17534. Attn: Anonymous.

roachboy

cimmaron: i have no problem at all with that information. none. but that may follow from seeing very little in the way of difference between moderate democrats and republicans, particularly during that unfortunate period of neo-liberal hegemony---here it was called "the washington consensus" when it was called anything at all--you know markets are rational and all that. i emphasize the role played by republicans because, well, historically they were at the forefront of constructing neo-liberalism and selling it. democrats like clinton were moderate republicans. policies at the federal level are significant constraints on what states and cities can do, given the role the federal government plays in allocating monies. so neo-liberal federal policies constraint states and cities to move in parallel ways.

personally, i see the problem as following from way too much conservative economic domination, but that doesn't parse the way you'd like. the policies that would be required to address these structural inequalities are social-democratic in nature. and i have no problem with that.

sadly i have to work at the moment.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

I appreciate the response and I understand your point. Sadly, I have to work as well. Well, not sadly. I'm actually happy to work right now!

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Jinn

You're wrong.

The most dangerous part of the American conscience is that everyone is entitled to an opinion and that all opinions are 'equal' regardless of their substance.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Cimarron29414

I just found this and haven't gone through much of it:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf

There are some disturbing trends here, as well.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

silent_jay

Probably not, people here in politics seem to have thicker skin than some who throw hissy fits whenever someone disagrees with their opinion, and scream 'personal attack, personal attack' anytime some disagrees with them, but meh, seems to be the usual.
Well, you see pan, this is a discussion forum, where sources generally come in handy to help people see what you're going on about, otherwise well we're debating your opinion, and we all know if we question that, it ends in another victim act, we've all seen the movie here before, don't question pan, he'll scream 'attack, attack', so you'll have to forgive people if they suddenly start ignoring you and your 'opinion'

rahl

Pan, an opinion can absolutely be right or wrong. If your opinion is that 2+2=6, that would be wrong. I wasn't singleing you out, I was merely trying to convey how a discussion/debate works. You can have opinions all you want, but when you inject them into a discussion that is involving facts/studies/surveys, your "opinion" really has no relevance unless you can provide some sort of basis for it. Without validating your opinion it is meaningless. You seem to have completely missed the point of my previous post and taken it personally for some reason. It was not an attack on you. It was basically a definition of opinion, as well as a definition of discussion.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Derwood

it is my opinion that the sky is green and dogs can fly.

this opinion is as valid as yours.

USA! USA! USA!

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Baraka_Guru

It's my opinion that it's rather sad that this thread is turning into a nonstarter based on a denial of evidence.

I dunno. Maybe blacks in the U.S. are doing just fine. I wouldn't want to be a racist by accepting evidence suggesting otherwise.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dogzilla

I don't deny that there are poor people and wealthy of all races. What I don't buy is the attitude that somehow the major reasons for this is that minorities are taxed unfairly and charged interest rates that are too high.

There's dozens of other reasons for people to be poor, but it seems to be politically incorrect among the liberals to admit that the poor might bear some responsibility for their status.

Baraka_Guru

Taxation and interest rates might not explain why many are poor in the first place, but it explains why the gap is growing, which I think is the point.

I don't disagree, but I think many reasonable liberals will understand and value personal responsibility, but this can only get you so far. When you have so many external factors stacked against you, it can cause a lot of problems. I think one point to be taken from the study is that there is less economic friction if you already have wealth in the first place and that there is undue friction when you don't. Though I suppose it could be argued that the friction isn't undue at all, but that's another story.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dogzilla

I don't agree with that either. Conduct a similar survey with highest level education achieved and track income from 20 years after date of final graduation and I think you would see a similar spread. I'll bet if you did a survey based on the discipline four year degrees were awarded for, you would see a similar spread.

roachboy

so this ludicrous sidebar concerning opinions about opinions on opinions and how differences in opinions about opinions about opinions are ruining america aside....

we still have the same refusals to engage from some folk on the right, and this despite the fact that the moves have been pointed out repeatedly in this thread: the premises for a data-based study do not conform to either the anecdotal experience or hunches of conservatives then the study must be wrong; arbitrary assertions of political biais---and i mean arbitrary in this case---transposed into assumptions transposed into a device to dismiss data that does not sit well with conservative predispositions, onto which is tacked yet another claim concerning what it is that's destroying america; attempts to dismiss the entire discipline of sociology; and lots of crying victim from conservatives when their gambits don't work.

what's lost in all this of course is the actual study.
so this study concludes that wealth---which they define quite exactly and which excludes house ownership, which no doubt would have made the results worse---is distributed in a radically unequal manner in the united states. that inequality--which is by far the worst in the industrialized world, and which is roughly compatible with that of guatemala--- sadly--and to our collective shame--runs along racial lines. so taken collectively, within a context that disadvantages ALOT of people, african-americans fare *far* worse than whites. period. full stop.

1. what are the motives that animate folk from the right to pretend this data--which is not out of nowhere, which does not break with previous data about the distribution of wealth in the united states once you look at reality as it is and not as conservatives would prefer to pretend that it is---what is the motivation behind pretending this data must be wrong?
what are you defending when you make that move?

2. what do you think are the *policy* explanations for this inequality in the distribution of wealth? what are the structural explanations for it?

aside:
conservative ideology don't allow folk who take it on to like the idea of structure--or history for that matter--this because structures are expressions of history, the histories of institutions, the histories of populations with respect to institutions---conservative ideology doesn't make it easy to think about the opacity of the world, the opacity of the present, the extent to which human beings are not transparent to themselves, the extent to which the present is conditioned by the past. the folk who buy into that ideology prefer to perform the effects of these relations entirely unconsciously because they prefer to pretend they are somehow extra-social beings, outside processes of conditioning or socialization and outside of history--all this because they can't see any of these factors and can't know them without a degree of abstraction. and because of the way the educational system operates and because of the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities---which affects ALOT of people, but disproportionately african-americans--the capacity to work in or with abstractions and/or to correlate statistical information, isolate regularities or patterns of action or interactions and to interpret them tends to be a specialized affair.

and because alot of conservatives do not like what this sort of information says, do not like what it leads to, do not like the kind of reflexivity that knowing your actions are conditioned by history forces onto you, they prefer to act as though this kind of information is a weapon fashioned to persecute them, to disrupt their opinions man, to push them out of the smug reliance on some immediate common sense which is useful when you're figuring out what orange juice to drink or what's happening in your immediate surroundings on the relatively superficial level of the "present" but doesnt help at all to think about what conditions that "present" and still less to think about what conditions the "common sense" that lives in the superficial variants of the present...superficial because this present is seen as self-contained.

it isn't.

enough of that. i feel a little better for having said it like there's at least something of a response to the "i dont like it so it can't be true" responses.

the ludicrous opinion about opinions about opinions digression aside.

===

cimmaron: i'll get back to the argument you're building.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dogzilla

Maybe the average wealth for African-Americans is lower than whites. I'll take your word for it. Cities like Detroit have problems. Other inner city areas of large cities have problems.

What I don't buy is the claim this brief makes that the predominate reasons for this are unfair taxes and interest rates, especially to the exclusion of other reasons, some of which are self-imposed.

This chatter sounds like a solution looking for a problem. If there's enough chatter from the liberal camp about this poorly structured brief and others like it, that turns into an 'Oh my God, we have to do something to help those poor people' and my taxes go up. In the meantime, wealthy liberal hypocrites who think it's society's job to help the poor continue to accumulate their millions, or in some cases billions.


Seriously? I don't think the welfare programs helped much at all, with the problems of multi-generational welfare in the 70's and 80's, either the incentives for it to be easier for black males to walk away from their families, or the disincentives for them to stay married.

As an aside, the victimhood of African-Americans is getting rather old after 50 years. Want to see to real victims? Check out the Native Americans. Been to places like northern New Mexico or northern Arizona anytime lately? Why don't we hear much about them?

Jinn

You call it an aside, but:

This was the best part. It's spot on.

And unfortunately I empathize, simply because I was a bootstrappy liberal long before any education in sociology or the conditions of the past that make the conditions of the present and how we're not simply products of our immediate desire like the naiveté of ignorance would have us believe.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

dippin

Again, who the fuck said that it is not alright to disagree with the study? The problem is when someone disagrees with the study without having even read what they are disagreeing with because they don't like the conclusions.

And if this is the position people are going to take, debate is useless, because then we are talking about faith and not science.

Baraka_Guru

You don't agree with what? That there are tax advantages to you when you manage financial assets in certain ways? That by having few or no assets means you only have access to high-interest credit, loans, and mortgages? What exactly about that don't you agree with? Because these things do indeed cause the gap to widen. How do they not?

Can you explain this further? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

pan6467

See in these cases... facts, studies and surveys are ALMOST ALWAYS open to interpretation and one side will bring in their facts/studies and surveys.... and the other side theirs and then it becomes a pissing match as to who's is more accurate... which leads us back to OPINION.

True debate is my saying I don't believe this and here's why. Then the other side says... ok but I disagree here and here and this is why. Then you exchange ideas look at facts/surveys/studies together and instead of putting the other down, you find a way to compromise to benefit all people.

That maybe pollyanna to some of you but up until Reagan, that was pretty much how things got done in Washington with respect and the Clinton years it just got totally out of hand and has gotten exponentially worse now to where it's all about getting power so that you can put forth your agenda without compromise.

But of course what do I know. I don't have the poli-sci doctorates that many on here seem to act as if they have. I'm just a guy with an opinion who was told it doesn't matter because I didn't qualify it and it has no meaning.

Again... you wonder why this forum (politics) is dying..... right there is your answer. There is no true debate or exchange of ideas it's a pissing match and probably always has been just it has gotten worse and worse because people are no longer allowed to share their views without having to qualify them. So keep arguing the same shit and playing the games and losing more and more people and believing you won. Sad thing about your winning... TFP loses a great part of it's whole.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

rahl

Jesus christ pan, STOP CRYING VICTIM. I have never singled you out.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dogzilla

I agree that taxes and interest rates have an effect in some cases. I don't agree with the claims these are the predominate reason for the gap.

It just occurred to me to actually look up the federal tax rates on income and capital gains. Until your income exceeds $34K this year, your income tax rate is actually lower than the rate on capital gains taxes. Add in various tax credits and the rates are even lower.

Income tax rates:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Capital gains tax rates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital..._United_States

That doesn't look to me like poor people are paying higher tax rates.

What I'm suggesting is to track the incomes of people with high school diplomas, associate degrees, bachelor degrees, etc over 20 years and that you will see that those with lesser education don't fare as well as those with advanced degrees. The same idea that some disciplines result in more income growth over time than others.

pan6467

Where did I say you singled me out? Where am I crying victim?I just answered you post with .... my opinion.

But see, you, and several others find that it is easier when you cannot debate or realize that you can't shut me up to start with this BS.

Again, where did I say you singled me out? Where did I do ANYTHING but reply to your comment to me?

Did YOU or did YOU not type the above quote^^^^?

I answered that with this:

It's not crying foul or victim.... it was just in reply to your saying unless I validate my opinion is meaningless.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

silent_jay

Really pan, that's why it's dying, it has nothing to do with some people who go on emotional rants with no substance to back them up, then cry 'personal attack, personal attack' or 'quit degrading my view' at every opportunity when someone disagrees with them, or generally acts like a child and throws temper tantrums quite frequently when people don't agree with what they have to say, the funny part is you probably don't even see any of those being an issue or a problem, to you everyone else is the problem, 'oh I want true debate', yet how does true debate come from something like:
So you see pan, look in a mirror sometime, rather than thinking you know all about why this place is dying, you may just find yourself and your emotional rants and your victim act part of the problem.

But what do I know, I'm just some guy who's on your ignore list because he 'personally attacks pan', funny thing is, never even been warned for these apparent 'attacks', so I reckon all these others you imagine are just in your head as well.

Sorry for the threadjack, just getting tired of every thread pan posts in turning out to be about himself, and how much of a victim he is, I've seen that movie, know how it ends, but maybe the ending will change someday.

roachboy

dogzilla:
again with the phantasms. again with the victimization. again with the reconstruction period politics of petit bourgeois white resentment. the lynchpin of the politics of resentment (to be polite about it) during the reconstruction period (you know, just after the civil war) was aimed at the attempts on the part of the federal government to provide some sort of compensation or head-start or transition from slavery into "freedom" (in quotes because, well, you know this is capitalism and freedom is mostly formal unless there's something like equality of condition)...which alot of white petit-bourgeois saw as taking something from them. this resentment was only racist in its consequences except when it was racist in its form and content. the line was often floaty. i suppose it would have depended on the question, on who you asked and how you asked them.

anyway, it's the same thing with contemporary politics of petit-bourgeois resentment. any attempt to redress structural problems with the american social arrangement, problems which are reflected in massive inefficiencies, labor market incoherences, stifling of innovation, a collapse of any meaningful democratic process behind the weight of an entirely anti-democratic social arrangement, which could not be otherwise because the inequality in the distribution of wealth translates in spatial segregation translates into wildly uneven access to educational opportunities translates into multiple levels of effective citizenship translates into an enormous squandering of human potential, one that has to be visible even at the rah rah america level, or would be were the rah rah america types not so sure that the problems are the fault of the people squeezed through this ridiculous, untenable, unethical stratified system---it's reflected in levels of social violence (and ultra-right gun fetishism is perhaps a recognition of it, but one routed through a refusal of the social and flipped onto an illusion of Heroic Individualism)--its reflected in health problems--and it's reflected in the fading of american empire because a dysfunctional system cannot hold itself together by exporting its pathologies for long...

but hey, no problem is so great that it justifies raising your fucking taxes.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dogzilla

Well since I looked up federal tax rates and see that the lowest income tax bracket, for those earning less than $34K is lower than the capital gains tax rate, and low income tax credits offset that even more, the argument that poor African-American's taxes are too high is nonsense.

Since wealthy liberals are bound and determined to hang onto their wealth instead of using to solve a problem they seem to think is so important, I'll join them in holding on to what wealth I have.

Since there's many other reasons for being poor besides high taxes and interest rates, the other main argument of this brief is nonsense.

Since I don't believe the government has any business redistributing wealth, they can keep their hands out of my pockets, especially for a non-problem.