I didn't say that they were representative, Jerry. But it is in fact a problem and it plainly displays the negative aspect that welfare can ultimately have on a society and of how we need to deal with it.
It is possible (using the "embed" code) to post videos directly on one's blog. It's really pretty simple. Just cut and paste. Although for some videos the feature is disabled. Is this one of those? For some reason I doubt it. Also, who makes a link the title of their blog post?
I watched the video. The "embed" feature is not disabled. So we have some people abusing the system. Is the Will Hart answer to dismantle our social safety net programs? People can't abuse them if they don't exist.
Also, one of the people said he had trouble finding work because he had been in jail. This raises the question: should people who make mistakes be punished for the rest of their lives (by being discriminated against/not being ALLOWED to work)?
People get discouraged and give up. A big part of the problem, IMO, is all the money the 1 percent has been stealing from working people, which leaves less for the rest of us (proven by the fact that wages USED to track productivity, but no longer do). These people may have been able to find decent jobs (before they gave up) if not for this theft.
Again, Will has cause and effect mixed up. This is one of the symptoms of inequality as discussed in the book, "The Spirit Level". Reduce inequality and the number of people who give up and turn to welfare would be less.
But it's a lot easier to blame the victim. A lot easier then addressing the real cause of the problem (inequality). Conservatives don't want to do that, which explains why Will "debunked" the "Spirit Level".
Finally, what's up with the title of this video? One idiot calls the benefits "Obama Bucks", but it isn't as if Obama invented welfare.
Uh, no, Will Hart's answer is not to dismantle the social safety net (find ONE instance of me EVER suggesting anything even remotely like that). And, no, Will Hart is not mixed up about cause and effect. You are. As I displayed in a previous post, the book, "The Spirit Level", is an absolute mess. The authors cherry-picked the countries, cherry-picked the indicators, and implemented an absolutely horrific statistical analysis (an analysis that, had I handed it in to any of my classes, I would have failed). You know absolutely nothing about social research and it shows.......Yeah, yeah, it's the fault of people making $400,000 a year (after 8 long years of college, mind you) that these assholes are lazy and drinking beer in the day-time. I'll consider that my lesson for the day.
And the vast, VAST, majority of people in the top 1% didn't steal A DIME. Yes, they were given tax-cuts, (yes, the appropriateness of which could be debated) but they didn't STEAL anything, they didn't TAKE anything, and they weren't GIVEN anything. They were merely allowed to keep more of their own damned earnings. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
What is your evidence that these hundreds of thousands of people are robbing anybody? My former father in law was a vice president of finance for a major company and he worked 70-80 hours a week to put 2 of his 3 daughters through private school and all 3 of them through college. He was a good and decent man and his pursuit of rational self interest did more to benefit society than all of your greedy, socialistic, and envious rantings EVER WILL. Get off your lazy fucking ass and do something, will you.
The FACT is that the top 1% made 16.9% of the total AGI in 2009 and the bottom 99% made 83.1% of it. If you and the rest of your fellow pinkos are going to start a revolution over THAT then, seriously, heaven help us.
"People get discouraged and give up. A big part of the problem, IMO, is all the money the 1 percent has been stealing from working people"
This is a perfect example of demonizing. Do you have evidence that most of this money is theft?
Also you need to realize the fact that most of the 1% are working people.
Will said: "What is your evidence that these hundreds of thousands of people are robbing anybody? "
You put him on the spot after he makes a wild outrageous accusation, and he won't respond. Or at best he will find some anecdotal instances of actual crimes, which still only represent a fraction of what these people earn.
Also, we need to realize that calling the OWS movement "the 99%" is not accurate, is misleading, and is giving in to a marketing trick. These protesters are a tiny fraction of the population, and according to all the polls, they represent around 33% of the population, not 99%.
--------
WD said "Also, I go with the facts instead of Republican talking points."
Another silly and fact-free claim from WD. Sort of like how he uses the word "propaganda".
Let's see any evidence that what Will said is a talking point. You won't.
dmarks: You put him on the spot after he makes a wild outrageous accusation, and he won't respond.
Bullshit dmarks. I will respond. I'm responding right now. And I've already presented my proof. It's that wages aren't tracking productivity (which used to be the case). This fact isn't "anecdotal".
HuffPo Blog post by Jonathan Tasini (25 year union leader and organizer): (article excerpt) ...[the bargain was] if you worked hard and became more productive, you would see that sweat of the brow in your wages. And from the post-war era until the 1970s, that deal basically held -- as you can see from the lines that are basically close together until the 1970s (follow link to view graph).
Then, the lines diverge -- dramatically. If the lines had continued to track closely together as they did prior to the 1970s, the minimum wage would be more than $19 an hour. [end article excerpt]
Will: What is your evidence that these hundreds of thousands of people are robbing anybody?
I never said "hundreds of thousands of people" were robbing anyone. I was talking about the fact that wages used to track productivity and no longer do. This happened because employers kept the money for themselves (see the article I linked to above).
Will: My former father in law [blah blah blah]
You're lying. I never mentioned your former father in law. I never insulted him. I'm discussing politics, not making ad hominem personal attacks (like you).
And I've never posted a single greedy or envious rant. I'm a Liberal and I've posted comments from a Liberal perspective. You can stuff your ad hominem insults and extreme hatred of people you view as "far left scum".
The article that you linked? Is that the one where Bernstein based his assessment solely on household income and not on per capita income in an effort to underscore his narrative? Again, 16.9% for the top 1%, 83.1% for the bottom 99%.Yeah, maybe we could we tweak a little (I'm feeling magnanimous tonight) but, come on, man.
Will: And the vast, VAST, majority of people in the top 1% didn't steal A DIME. wd: Bullshit. They're robbing us blind.......That sounds to me like you're condemning them collectively, wd; doctors, dentists, accountants, lawyers, administrators, architects, engineers, small business owners, etc.. Hedge-fund managers are probably but a small % of the top 1%, I would think.
16 comments:
I'll "handle" it by acknowledging it is a URL. I don't know how anyone could say anything else.
The video is about as representative of welfare recipients as this video is of Mississippi citizens made by the same person.
I didn't say that they were representative, Jerry. But it is in fact a problem and it plainly displays the negative aspect that welfare can ultimately have on a society and of how we need to deal with it.
And my question remains, Jerry. What do you do with these people? Keep giving them benefits?
It is possible (using the "embed" code) to post videos directly on one's blog. It's really pretty simple. Just cut and paste. Although for some videos the feature is disabled. Is this one of those? For some reason I doubt it. Also, who makes a link the title of their blog post?
Way to avoid the actual point of the post, wd.
I watched the video. The "embed" feature is not disabled. So we have some people abusing the system. Is the Will Hart answer to dismantle our social safety net programs? People can't abuse them if they don't exist.
Also, one of the people said he had trouble finding work because he had been in jail. This raises the question: should people who make mistakes be punished for the rest of their lives (by being discriminated against/not being ALLOWED to work)?
People get discouraged and give up. A big part of the problem, IMO, is all the money the 1 percent has been stealing from working people, which leaves less for the rest of us (proven by the fact that wages USED to track productivity, but no longer do). These people may have been able to find decent jobs (before they gave up) if not for this theft.
Again, Will has cause and effect mixed up. This is one of the symptoms of inequality as discussed in the book, "The Spirit Level". Reduce inequality and the number of people who give up and turn to welfare would be less.
But it's a lot easier to blame the victim. A lot easier then addressing the real cause of the problem (inequality). Conservatives don't want to do that, which explains why Will "debunked" the "Spirit Level".
Finally, what's up with the title of this video? One idiot calls the benefits "Obama Bucks", but it isn't as if Obama invented welfare.
Uh, no, Will Hart's answer is not to dismantle the social safety net (find ONE instance of me EVER suggesting anything even remotely like that). And, no, Will Hart is not mixed up about cause and effect. You are. As I displayed in a previous post, the book, "The Spirit Level", is an absolute mess. The authors cherry-picked the countries, cherry-picked the indicators, and implemented an absolutely horrific statistical analysis (an analysis that, had I handed it in to any of my classes, I would have failed). You know absolutely nothing about social research and it shows.......Yeah, yeah, it's the fault of people making $400,000 a year (after 8 long years of college, mind you) that these assholes are lazy and drinking beer in the day-time. I'll consider that my lesson for the day.
And the vast, VAST, majority of people in the top 1% didn't steal A DIME. Yes, they were given tax-cuts, (yes, the appropriateness of which could be debated) but they didn't STEAL anything, they didn't TAKE anything, and they weren't GIVEN anything. They were merely allowed to keep more of their own damned earnings. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
Will: And the vast, VAST, majority of people in the top 1% didn't steal A DIME.
Bullshit. They're robbing us blind. This is what the 99 percenters are protesting.
Will: Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
I'm not a Conservative like you. Also, I go with the facts instead of Republican talking points.
What is your evidence that these hundreds of thousands of people are robbing anybody? My former father in law was a vice president of finance for a major company and he worked 70-80 hours a week to put 2 of his 3 daughters through private school and all 3 of them through college. He was a good and decent man and his pursuit of rational self interest did more to benefit society than all of your greedy, socialistic, and envious rantings EVER WILL. Get off your lazy fucking ass and do something, will you.
The FACT is that the top 1% made 16.9% of the total AGI in 2009 and the bottom 99% made 83.1% of it. If you and the rest of your fellow pinkos are going to start a revolution over THAT then, seriously, heaven help us.
"People get discouraged and give up. A big part of the problem, IMO, is all the money the 1 percent has been stealing from working people"
This is a perfect example of demonizing. Do you have evidence that most of this money is theft?
Also you need to realize the fact that most of the 1% are working people.
Will said: "What is your evidence that these hundreds of thousands of people are robbing anybody? "
You put him on the spot after he makes a wild outrageous accusation, and he won't respond. Or at best he will find some anecdotal instances of actual crimes, which still only represent a fraction of what these people earn.
Also, we need to realize that calling the OWS movement "the 99%" is not accurate, is misleading, and is giving in to a marketing trick. These protesters are a tiny fraction of the population, and according to all the polls, they represent around 33% of the population, not 99%.
--------
WD said "Also, I go with the facts instead of Republican talking points."
Another silly and fact-free claim from WD. Sort of like how he uses the word "propaganda".
Let's see any evidence that what Will said is a talking point. You won't.
dmarks: You put him on the spot after he makes a wild outrageous accusation, and he won't respond.
Bullshit dmarks. I will respond. I'm responding right now. And I've already presented my proof. It's that wages aren't tracking productivity (which used to be the case). This fact isn't "anecdotal".
HuffPo Blog post by Jonathan Tasini (25 year union leader and organizer): (article excerpt) ...[the bargain was] if you worked hard and became more productive, you would see that sweat of the brow in your wages. And from the post-war era until the 1970s, that deal basically held -- as you can see from the lines that are basically close together until the 1970s (follow link to view graph).
Then, the lines diverge -- dramatically. If the lines had continued to track closely together as they did prior to the 1970s, the minimum wage would be more than $19 an hour. [end article excerpt]
Will: What is your evidence that these hundreds of thousands of people are robbing anybody?
I never said "hundreds of thousands of people" were robbing anyone. I was talking about the fact that wages used to track productivity and no longer do. This happened because employers kept the money for themselves (see the article I linked to above).
Will: My former father in law [blah blah blah]
You're lying. I never mentioned your former father in law. I never insulted him. I'm discussing politics, not making ad hominem personal attacks (like you).
And I've never posted a single greedy or envious rant. I'm a Liberal and I've posted comments from a Liberal perspective. You can stuff your ad hominem insults and extreme hatred of people you view as "far left scum".
The article that you linked? Is that the one where Bernstein based his assessment solely on household income and not on per capita income in an effort to underscore his narrative? Again, 16.9% for the top 1%, 83.1% for the bottom 99%.Yeah, maybe we could we tweak a little (I'm feeling magnanimous tonight) but, come on, man.
Will: And the vast, VAST, majority of people in the top 1% didn't steal A DIME. wd: Bullshit. They're robbing us blind.......That sounds to me like you're condemning them collectively, wd; doctors, dentists, accountants, lawyers, administrators, architects, engineers, small business owners, etc.. Hedge-fund managers are probably but a small % of the top 1%, I would think.
Post a Comment