More Job Losses

[JimSawhill]

Maybe we can just breathe in all the Helium, talk like Pixies for a few minutes each and be solved with that problem...

Madvlad:

Ummm...No thanks. Two people here tried to get their kicks from Helium, but they died. They both were 21 and they wanted to talk like pixies, but they didn't realized that helium - oxygen = death!

[HartfordTycoon]

It is simply wrong for people to dodge their responsibility and expect the society to pick up the tab. If your definition of people in need is those poor kids who are hurt the most. Fine, let's limit the scope of the aids to them, not everyone under the sun. At the same time, what is your proposition so those slacking parents don't have more kids, thus placing even more burden on the rest of us?

I totally agree with you there. I wouldn't have as much of a problem if at least people under 18 had some sort of coverage as a safety net. They are the youngest and therefore most vulnerable and least culpable for their own plight.

There's no way to stop people from having kids, unless you mandate abortion or birth control which will never fly in this fairly conservative nation. I personally think both options should be looked at for the good of society. We don't need kids being born that nobody is willing to raise.

[JimSawhill]

I have removed the attacks posted by JimSawhill and he was suspended for making them. This thread is now open. Please everyone, follow our rules and show some respect, that would be befitting an adult, to the other forumers that post here. Thanks!

metro m and others:

Sorry, that I got insulting with people here. I won't change my views on GOVERNMENT (and look at New London taking Fort Trumbull), but I'll keep an open mind -- we all have different views, but I'll tell you guys if you said something that I might think it would work -- however, keep an open mind, too.

Nationalize Healthcare is not going to bring everyone together -- what it will do is seperate the rich from the poor. We need to change health care, but I believe we need to get government out of our lives.

JimSawhill

[HartfordTycoon]

metro m and others:

Sorry, that I got insulting with people here. I won't change my views on GOVERNMENT (and look at New London taking Fort Trumbull), but I'll keep an open mind -- we all have different views, but I'll tell you guys if you said something that I might think it would work -- however, keep an open mind, too.

Nationalize Healthcare is not going to bring everyone together -- what it will do is seperate the rich from the poor. We need to change health care, but I believe we need to get government out of our lives.

JimSawhill

Are you suggesting that the rich and the poor are not already deeply separated? Our country is split 50/50 right now. Liberals can't stand Conservatives anc Conservitives can't stand Liberals. They don't respect each other or either other's views anymore and that is the problem. This is supposed to be America. We are supposed to know how to compromise. There is a real problem in America right now and the divisions are only deepening I'm affraid.

[runawayjim]

I totally agree with you there. I wouldn't have as much of a problem if at least people under 18 had some sort of coverage as a safety net. They are the youngest and therefore most vulnerable and least culpable for their own plight.

There's no way to stop people from having kids, unless you mandate abortion or birth control which will never fly in this fairly conservative nation. I personally think both options should be looked at for the good of society. We don't need kids being born that nobody is willing to raise.

what we need is a government that doesn't support abstinence only education. they need to support birth control, teach kids that condoms are cool. help those who need birth control get it. legalize prostitution so that the spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancies are prevented. i am honestly really pissed off that bush is pushing this abstinence only crap. kids don't buy it. they want to have sex and they will have sex and there will be unwanted pregnancies. get them condoms, get them birth control. anything to help prevent teen pregnancies.

[JimSawhill]

I totally agree with you there. I wouldn't have as much of a problem if at least people under 18 had some sort of coverage as a safety net. They are the youngest and therefore most vulnerable and least culpable for their own plight.

There's no way to stop people from having kids, unless you mandate abortion or birth control which will never fly in this fairly conservative nation. I personally think both options should be looked at for the good of society. We don't need kids being born that nobody is willing to raise.

Tycoon:

Why not let the kid get ADOPTED by parents instead of ABORTED? Most African-Americans I know hates ABORTION and would rather have the babies being ADPOTED.

Hmmm, a safty net for under 18 year olds sounds like a good idea, but how could we keep it from growing bigger? How can we pay for it?

Jim Sawhill

[runawayjim]

Tycoon:

Why not let the kid get ADOPTED by parents instead of ABORTED? Most African-Americans I know hates ABORTION and would rather have the babies being ADPOTED.

Hmmm, a safty net for under 18 year olds sounds like a good idea, but how could we keep it from growing bigger? How can we pay for it?

Jim Sawhill

abortion is not the answer, birth control is. get people better access to emergency contraception (yes, the morning after pill is not abortion, it prevents implantation).

the problem with adoption is that it's hard to adopt and so long as our government is anti-gays, there aren't enough families to adopt all the kids who need to be adopted. no one wants to adopt an older child, they all prefer infants. there's also the problem with over-population, which this adds to.

[HartfordTycoon]

Tycoon:

Why not let the kid get ADOPTED by parents instead of ABORTED? Most African-Americans I know hates ABORTION and would rather have the babies being ADPOTED.

Hmmm, a safty net for under 18 year olds sounds like a good idea, but how could we keep it from growing bigger? How can we pay for it?

Jim Sawhill

But look how many kids go un-adopted now. It sounds great, but is it feasible to assume they will all be placed with parents and not become wards of the state and a burden to me and you and our tax dollars? I don't really favor abortion either, however I do advocate birth control and teaching abstinence is not cutting it at all. We just need to do more and not be affraid to talk the the kids like adults, because they sure act like adults now a days.

I don't know how it would work. Again, I am just troubled by poor children who have severely diminished chances in society to be happy, healthy, and prosperous.

[JimSawhill]

Are you suggesting that the rich and the poor are not already separated?

Tycoon:

Yes, but how can we force people together. The only way is by having a law pass saying that you nieghborhood will be 1/3 lower class, 1/3 middle class and 1/3 upper class, but then homesales would drop off.

What wee need to do is to find a way for the classes to mix. In my development here -- I see different classes, but we aretrying to stay as a neighborhood. One of my neighbor has a 35 foot Cruiser at his dock, another nieghor a 17 foot center console fishing boat and I have a 22 foot open bow. When we see each other we talk about our boats, kids, and other things (including politics) and yes, my neighborhood is racially mixed.

Jim Sawhill

[HartfordTycoon]

Tycoon:

Yes, but how can we force people together. The only way is by having a law pass saying that you nieghborhood will be 1/3 lower class, 1/3 middle class and 1/3 upper class, but then homesales would drop off.

What wee need to do is to find a way for the classes to mix. In my development here -- I see different classes, but we aretrying to stay as a neighborhood. One of my neighbor has a 35 foot Cruiser at his dock, another nieghor a 17 foot center console fishing boat and I have a 22 foot open bow. When we see each other we talk about our boats, kids, and other things (including politics) and yes, my neighborhood is racially mixed.

Jim Sawhill

There is no way to get the rich and poor together. Most rich people will never even care about the poor one bit. That's the problem and that's why the poor need some protections that the rich don't. The rich have power, the poor are powerless (Not literally, but for all intents and purposes).

[runawayjim]

Tycoon:

Yes, but how can we force people together. The only way is by having a law pass saying that you nieghborhood will be 1/3 lower class, 1/3 middle class and 1/3 upper class, but then homesales would drop off.

What wee need to do is to find a way for the classes to mix. In my development here -- I see different classes, but we aretrying to stay as a neighborhood. One of my neighbor has a 35 foot Cruiser at his dock, another nieghor a 17 foot center console fishing boat and I have a 22 foot open bow. When we see each other we talk about our boats, kids, and other things (including politics) and yes, my neighborhood is racially mixed.

Jim Sawhill

i think you're mistaking people with different sized boats as being different classes. that's not necessarily true. how many poor have homes, cars, and boats?

[JimSawhill]

abortion is not the answer, birth control is. get people better access to emergency contraception (yes, the morning after pill is not abortion, it prevents implantation).

the problem with adoption is that it's hard to adopt and so long as our government is anti-gays, there aren't enough families to adopt all the kids who need to be adopted. no one wants to adopt an older child, they all prefer infants. there's also the problem with over-population, which this adds to.

runaway jim:

We both agree on something -- the government is ANTI-GAY!! I don't care who lives next to me, just as long as they don't bother me. I don't have problems with gays -- except the one who try to be in your face about it (the gay rights parade people, which are the MINORITY of gays, but they need to COOL it).

I don't mind them being married, but we'd need to revamp the marriage laws, since in Vermont the law is that you can be 16 to marry. As a LIBERTARIAN, I don't care what people do, but more people (including singles and gays) should adopt!

Jim Sawhill

[damus]

abortion is not the answer, birth control is. get people better access to emergency contraception (yes, the morning after pill is not abortion, it prevents implantation).

the problem with adoption is that it's hard to adopt and so long as our government is anti-gays, there aren't enough families to adopt all the kids who need to be adopted. no one wants to adopt an older child, they all prefer infants. there's also the problem with over-population, which this adds to.

The morning after pill is already around... why doesn't everyone use this after unprotected sex or a condom "accident"?

[runawayjim]

The morning after pill is already around... why doesn't everyone use this after unprotected sex or a condom "accident"?

it's not easy to get and many pharmacists won't provide it because it's against their religion. it's my opinion that these pharmacists should lose their license for denying a customer their prescribed medication.

[JimSawhill]

i think you're mistaking people with different sized boats as being different classes. that's not necessarily true. how many poor have homes, cars, and boats?

Runaway Jim:

Poor? In the USA. I'd rather be poor in the USA (where 96% of the poor have at least 2 tvs), then be midde class in the UK (where 40% have at least 2 tvs). Most poor in the USA have cars, phones and either a home (they own -- or the bank do) or an apartment. The homeless problem is not the poor -- they are the drug abusers.

Jim Sawhill

[JimSawhill]

it's not easy to get and many pharmacists won't provide it because it's against their religion. it's my opinion that these pharmacists should lose their license for denying a customer their prescribed medication.

runaway Jim:

Shouldn't they have the right NOT to sell something? I guess you are saying that Border's and Barnes & Noble should sell GAY MAGAZINES and Blockbuster should sell PORN? I believe if a pharmacist DOES NOT want to sell a drug like RU486, it is his right. If someone doesn't like it -- open a Phamacy.

Jim Sawhill

[runawayjim]

Runaway Jim:

Poor? In the USA. I'd rather be poor in the USA (where 96% of the poor have at least 2 tvs), then be midde class in the UK (where 40% have at least 2 tvs). Most poor in the USA have cars, phones and either a home (they own -- or the bank do) or an apartment. The homeless problem is not the poor -- they are the drug abusers.

Jim Sawhill

i think you have a very different view of those living in poverty than i do. i also think you should try to take a walk through some of the poverty-stricken neighborhoods in this country. you might be surprised as to what you see.

most people in poverty, while they might have a car and tv, rent their homes and definitely do not have boats.

runaway Jim:

Shouldn't they have the right NOT to sell something? I guess you are saying that Border's and Barnes & Noble should sell GAY MAGAZINES and Blockbuster should sell PORN? I believe if a pharmacist DOES NOT want to sell a drug like RU486, it is his right. If someone doesn't like it -- open a Phamacy.

Jim Sawhill

that's not what i said. i said that certain pharmacists, not the pharmacy itself, but a pharmacist at the pharmacy decided that it was against their religion to provide emergency contraception (different from RU486, the abortion pill). while the pharmacy usually carries the drug, the individual pharmacist told customers that they can't fill the prescription because of religious reasons. a pharmacist does not have the right to do this, a pharmacy does have the right to not carry a drug, but they need to make it known that they don't. the pharmacy also should be required to make known any policy they have allowing their pharmacists to arbitrarily deny prescriptions.

[jcrc]

and that's part of the problem. i agree that there's a need for reform of the programs we have. but the fact remains that there are programs that allow people who are stuck in a bit of a rut to pull themselves out.

i bet you're one of those people who believes that anything you make is yours and that you shouldn't have to help others. i've heard the same argument over and over again. i've heard the argument that the country needs people living in poverty and that it's good to giev the rich breaks. after all, the rich are what drive our economy, right?

that's all wrong. welfare progarms are needed. they need better protections from abuse and one should not be allowed to collect for more than 3 years. that's plenty of time to pick yourself up by your own bootstraps and get back on your feet. if you can't do taht, then you need to find your own help. there are programs to help people losing money, people going into bankruptcy. these programs prevent people like your friends from losing their homes.

As a matter of fact yes, what I made is my, you think I work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for jolly? As far as should I or should I not help others, it is my affair and none of your or anyone else's business. If you don't think your paycheck is yours, then pass some my way. I have never said there is a need for poor people, I have said there is a need for self reliance. With our progressive taxation income tax I am not sure what break the rich are getting. As far as if the economy is top down driven or bottom up driven, what do you think? Who do you think create the wealth of this nation? I have my own idea, but since you have already stereotyped me as one who subscribe to Reagonomic, I'd like to hear your point of view first.

I don't know what programs you are referring to. If there is one common theme with the three situations I mentioned it is we all need money. Now where are the programs where we can get free money? If it is perfectly acceptable to provide some people with free healthcare, then why not provide me with some free money?

What it really comes down to is this, what to do with able body poor that are in perpetual poverty? And is there way to get them out of it? If free healthcare is the answer, then maybe it is a worhwhile investment the rest of us are willing to consider. But it is not. Nothing in life is free, we all have to make money the old fashion way, we have to earn it.

[HartfordTycoon]

But it is not. Nothing in life is free, we all have to make money the old fashion way, we have to earn it.

No we don't. Many if not most rich people inherit their fortunes. Many of those assets date back to when America was not a free society for all. That's the real issue. Many people inherit great wealth that dates to a time when others had no possibility of attaining it and many people inherit the poverty of the legacy of oppression and discrimination. That's the issue. That at one point the government had it set up to be completely tilted towards white men. It's like a race, at least to many such as myself whose family have been here for hundreds of years, and we have already been lapped countless times. We will never catch up, but the government must have a hand in fixing those inequalities that it had a hand in creating. I can't really speak for immigrants, but I know for a fact that most blacks would be better of if we had been treated equally since day one. (even though we most likely would not have been here if that was the case) But this is not only a race issue. There where many poor whites who never had a chance back in the day. Society was so class based that class mobility was extremely rare. So really everyone got screwed while the rich got richer and lazier for centuries. Now the playing field is more even, but 10% of the population already control 90% of the resources. Do you think that lucky 10% is trying to give up anything? I don't. So they will need to be forced. It may sound fukced up, but hey. Things have been fukced up forever. Why stop now?

[damus]

Most millionaires are self made. I'm not certain the actual percentage among billionaires, but when you look at the top billionaires in America you have Warren Buffet, Paul Allen, Bill Gates, Michael Dell and others among "self made". On the other side you have the Waltons.

Some people, like Trump, were born with money and did well. The way people become wealthy is typically through hard work and frugalness. Being poor or poor relative to their dreams is a good motivator. Living above your means is a way to never get rich.

[runawayjim]

As a matter of fact yes, what I made is my, you think I work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for jolly? As far as should I or should I not help others, it is my affair and none of your or anyone else's business. If you don't think your paycheck is yours, then pass some my way. I have never said there is a need for poor people, I have said there is a need for self reliance. With our progressive taxation income tax I am not sure what break the rich are getting. As far as if the economy is top down driven or bottom up driven, what do you think? Who do you think create the wealth of this nation? I have my own idea, but since you have already stereotyped me as one who subscribe to Reagonomic, I'd like to hear your point of view first.

I don't know what programs you are referring to. If there is one common theme with the three situations I mentioned it is we all need money. Now where are the programs where we can get free money? If it is perfectly acceptable to provide some people with free healthcare, then why not provide me with some free money?

What it really comes down to is this, what to do with able body poor that are in perpetual poverty? And is there way to get them out of it? If free healthcare is the answer, then maybe it is a worhwhile investment the rest of us are willing to consider. But it is not. Nothing in life is free, we all have to make money the old fashion way, we have to earn it.

what about welfare? it's designed to help people get out of the rut they're in. do you think your money should go to paying for a war that was not necessary? do you think your money should support public schools? do you think your money should pay the salary of your elected officials?

i don't want to pay the salary for many of these people. i don't want to pay for a war. i do want all the money i pay in taxes to go to social programs and education. i don't agree with military spending in excess like we're doing now. i don't agree with spending money on wiretapping programs. i don't agree with creating mandated education programs without proper funding.

[HartfordTycoon]

Most millionaires are self made. I'm not certain the actual percentage among billionaires, but when you look at the top billionaires in America you have Warren Buffet, Paul Allen, Bill Gates, Michael Dell and others among "self made". On the other side you have the Waltons.

Some people, like Trump, were born with money and did well. The way people become wealthy is typically through hard work and frugalness. Being poor or poor relative to their dreams is a good motivator. Living above your means is a way to never get rich.

Not buying this one bit. Those are high profile millionaires. Do you have any idea how many millionairs live in the US? It's an unfathomable number, and I would suspect that close to half inherited a great deal of it. And also, you can pretty much gaurantee that any non white millionaire is completely self made and probably lifted themselves from poverty to boot.

I did my senior thesis on Intergenerational Wealth Transfer in 2003. I have researched this.

Interesting Article I found doing a google search. Don't know how accurate is is, but it seems credible enough.

The self-made myth

Societal support key to much wealth creation, report says

By Thomas Kostigen, CBS.MarketWatch.com

Last Update: 8:55 PM ET Jun 28, 2004

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (CBS.MW) -- Some of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in this country say there is no such thing as the "self-made man."

With more * millionaires making rather than inheriting their wealth, there is a false conceit that they haven't received outside support, a new report says.

But society's role in wealth creation is significant, therefore society has an obligation to maintain a level playing field for opportunities to create wealth, contends the report, "I Didn't Do It Alone: Society's Contribution to Individual Wealth and Success."

The idea that if government would get out of the way, then every entrepreneur would automatically succeed is wrong, the report says.

The report is published by Boston-based United for a Fair Economy, a nonprofit group that researches and raises awareness on issues related to wealth and power. It has signed more than 2,200 multimillionaires and billionaires to a petition to reform and keep the inheritance tax; the "I Didn't Do It Alone" report was gleaned from small sample of those petitioners.

"Pro-business economic policies and tax policies are often centered on the myth of the self-made man," the report says. But the myth of "self-made" wealth "is potentially destructive to the very infrastructure that enables wealth creation."

Individuals profiled believe that they prospered in large part thanks to things beyond their individual control, such as social investments in education, research, technology and infrastructure, the report says. Or as Jim Sherblom, former CFO of Genzyme, says, "We are all standing on the shoulders of those who came before us."

*(notice the use of more as if the number was at one time miniscule, HT)

Self Made Myth

[damus]

But society's role in wealth creation is significant, therefore society has an obligation to maintain a level playing field for opportunities to create wealth, contends the report, "I Didn't Do It Alone: Society's Contribution to Individual Wealth and Success."

The idea that if government would get out of the way, then every entrepreneur would automatically succeed is wrong, the report says.

Who says that every entreprenuer succeeds? I've never heard that before in my life.

Individuals profiled believe that they prospered in large part thanks to things beyond their individual control, such as social investments in education, research, technology and infrastructure, the report says. Or as Jim Sherblom, former CFO of Genzyme, says, "We are all standing on the shoulders of those who came before us."

All men stand on the shoulders of giants.. DUH! If you are born to parents, rich or poor, that instill the principles of shrewdness and frugality into you, chances are you'll do pretty well financially.

He and others profiled believe it's vital to give back to society so that others in the next generation can have the same opportunities they had. This giving goes beyond taxes to charity and mentoring programs.

Doesn't that kinda debunk the myth of the greedy Republican millionares?

Warren Buffett, founder of Berkshire Hathaway and the second-richest man in the world, says: "I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned."

And Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, says, "Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don't have a fraction of what I have. I realize I don't have my wealth because I'm so brilliant."

What shines through the report is that those profiled and interviewed have an awareness of what made them successful, and they want to pass that along to future generations in the form of public support. Some of us call that government -- more or less

Sounds like you need to be able to collaborate with people that are trustworthy, and keep untrustworthy people out of your life...

Rome wasn't built by one man, but you are not born into a situation that you cannot get out of in most cases in this country. You can take advantage of scholarships, you can open your own business, you can go to college. In some countries, you do not have upward mobility whatsover. The majority of millionaires in this country were not born millionaires and that's a fact.

This is a good book that is full of common sense that really isn't common sense to most people. It's a quick and interesting read.

[HartfordTycoon]

He and others profiled believe it's vital to give back to society so that others in the next generation can have the same opportunities they had. This giving goes beyond taxes to charity and mentoring programs.

Doesn't that kinda debunk the myth of the greedy Republican millionares?

Rome wasn't built by one man, but you are not born into a situation that you cannot get out of in most cases in this country. You can take advantage of scholarships, you can open your own business, you can go to college. In some countries, you do not have upward mobility whatsover. The majority of millionaires in this country were not born millionaires and that's a fact.

This is a good book that is full of common sense that really isn't common sense to most people. It's a quick and interesting read.

I don't think it dubunks anything considering we don't know whether the people profiled where a majority of either party. There are plenty of rich liberal democrats. All of whom pretty much champion social justice more than republicans.

I am still researching to see what percentage of millionaires, and more specifically multi millionaires and billionaires (since being a millionaire really isn't saying all that much today), inherited most of the wealth. I'm pretty sure it's a high percentage and like the article alludes to is way lower today than say 20 and 30 years ago.

[jcrc]

No we don't. Many if not most rich people inherit their fortunes. Many of those assets date back to when America was not a free society for all. That's the real issue. Many people inherit great wealth that dates to a time when others had no possibility of attaining it and many people inherit the poverty of the legacy of oppression and discrimination. That's the issue. That at one point the government had it set up to be completely tilted towards white men. It's like a race, at least to many such as myself whose family have been here for hundreds of years, and we have already been lapped countless times. We will never catch up, but the government must have a hand in fixing those inequalities that it had a hand in creating. I can't really speak for immigrants, but I know for a fact that most blacks would be better of if we had been treated equally since day one. (even though we most likely would not have been here if that was the case) But this is not only a race issue. There where many poor whites who never had a chance back in the day. Society was so class based that class mobility was extremely rare. So really everyone got screwed while the rich got richer and lazier for centuries. Now the playing field is more even, but 10% of the population already control 90% of the resources. Do you think that lucky 10% is trying to give up anything? I don't. So they will need to be forced. It may sound fukced up, but hey. Things have been fukced up forever. Why stop now?

Your article "The self-made myth" just went counter to your statement above. The inherited wealth cannot be greater than the original wealth because we have an inheritance tax. The inherited rich cannot get richer unless they managed their wealth wisely. Most of the wealth are self made. Yes the society made the condition possible for people to get rich, but we all have the same condition as the self made rich. You can not use past injustice as an excuse. I know of recent immigrants that came over with no money, and can't speak a word of English, yet some of them are self made millionaires. I know of blacks from ghetto who are self made millionaires. Even if most don't become millionaires, middle class is very obtainable. If you don't think the society reward hard work and earning your way out of poverty you are sadly mistaken.