Birth Control - Should it be FREE

We should probably split this into a welfare thread, since it is off topic.

I have addressed this subject in other threads.. the debt thread i think..

Here's the problem. We did not have a welfare state until the late 60's, with Johnson's 'war on poverty'. Before that, people toughed it out. They got 'assistance' from charitable institutions, extended family, & neighbors. Heard of 'Hoovervilles?' Those were basically refugee camps for okies & other people fleeing the dust bowl conditions during the depression. Ever read 'Grapes of Wrath?' See the movie? This was an historical event, so we can learn from it. It also tells us a lot about human nature & motivations.

Ok, so we had thousands of people traveling like refugees to California. They were not given govt. assistance. They were abused. Local people were not happy about Hoovervilles springing up all over, & people wandering around looking for work. The 'okies' were persecuted & discriminated against. If you're not familiar with the history, read 'Grapes of Wrath'. I don't know how modern historians report it & teach it in schools. But as this was a fairly recent occurrence, & many people are still alive when it happened, the reality of what happened should not be in question.

What happened to these people? Are there still 'Hoovervilles' in California, with generations content to live in those conditions? No. Under extreme hardship, outside discrimination, & no govt. assistance, most of those who lived & grew up in depression conditions worked their butts off & got out. They became the 'Greatest Generation' that Tom Brokaw wrote about. They built most of the infrastructure in this country, delivered Europe & Asia from tyrannical oppressors, & pushed the US into becoming the world's most powerful nation on earth.

So, using our own history & people as examples, which system works better? The welfare state, which few seem to escape from, as many have alluded to, or freedom & self-reliance? We've been pumping increasingly more money into our welfare state, but instead of helping people, it traps them in a racist, crime ridden system that is very difficult to escape from. Instead of helping them, we have handicapped them & done them a great disservice. The socialist agenda has failed in this venture, because they do not understand human nature & motivations. Govt housing, food stamps, ADC, & welfare checks do not help people in the long run. They do not help a community. They are not good for the culture. The KKK could not have come up with a better racist agenda to oppress & enslave minorities. They give the 'poor' just enough to survive, but it's also enough to take their motivation to improve their lot. They herd them into govt housing projects.. lots of history there.. how is that working? They are just gulags for the poor.. concentration camps to keep the minority poor trapped in poverty.

The govt is an 'equal opportunity' oppressor, though. There are other races that are lured into the gulags.. promises of easy money.. don't have to work.. something for nothing. They usually build the 'camps' along ethnic lines, so there is not a lot of racial tension. But of course, gangs form & the unmotivated young, with no goals outside of the camps, & nothing to look forward to except a life of oppression & despair, group together in criminal 'families'.

We've got to learn from history, or doom ourselves to repeat our mistakes. The welfare state does not work. It does not work in America, Canada, Europe, Africa, or Asia. I know the liberals mean well.. at least some of them do.. but there comes a time when we have to wake up & smell the coffee. Lets get real. Lets recognize human nature. Let's stop oppressing ethnic groups & those in financial hardship with these racist & failed social programs. They don't work, & now we need to begin the long process of dismantling them. That will be hard, too, since we have built generations of dependency on these programs. There will need to be some weaning in our welfare state. But to free people, it will be necessary.

What does work? Freedom. That is what has built America, that is what other nations have been trying to imitate & move towards. We have not had a 'ruling elite' in America. Anyone with a little luck & hard work can succeed. It is the 'land of opportunity'. At least it was. ..if we can keep the left from pushing us into a euro socialist utopia, with a ruling class, & everyone else herded into work camps. To have the freedom to succeed, you also have the freedom to fail. But failure makes us work smarter, & teaches us the variables, so we don't repeat our mistakes. Give people freedom & self-reliance & you will have an industrious, responsible, successful nation. Yes, there will still be poor... many reasons for that. But has the welfare state 'stamped out poverty?' No, it has institutionalized it. The poor are more than ever, & still growing. More money thrown at the problem will only increase those who depend on it.

The welfare state is like a wall, built to keep the poor on one side, & the ruling elite on the other. Some escape & climb over the wall. The longing for freedom is great, & there are those who will not live under oppression. But the wall remains, oppressing those who cannot climb over it, & trapping generations in a life of poverty & oppression. The solution is simple:

'Mr. Obama, tear down this wall!'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath

Im going to look for a Swedish version. Nobel prize + Pulizer prize winner that are unknown for us is interesting.

Rydnseek: In my home town we have the highest taxes in Sweden we have the genrous welfare systems in many areas. We have no home less people we have no un emplyd people we have most money left in our pokets of all the Sweds. We have a very high living standard. Most of us have many cars snowmobiles houses that are allmost payd for . How would that interfere with the idea that welfare state is prisoning people ?

Birth controll pills is a privat thing i think

rokka wrote:

Rydnseek: In my home town

I read about Kiruna in wikipedia. You're moving????

Thats right ! Il pm you some info not to contaminate the tread

rokka wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath

Im going to look for a Swedish version. Nobel prize + Pulizer prize winner that are unknown for us is interesting.

"How can you frighten a man whose hunger is not only in his own cramped stomach but in the wretched bellies of his children? You can't scare him--he has known a fear beyond every other."
- John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, Chapter 19

Ma cleared her throat. "It ain't kin we? It's will we?" she said firmly. "As far as 'kin,' we can't do nothin', not go to California or nothin'; but as far as 'will,' why, we'll do what we will. An' as far as 'will'-it's a long time our folks been here and east before, an' I never heerd tell of no Joads or no Hazletts, neither, ever refusin' food an' shelter or a lift on the road to anybody that asked. They's been mean Joads, but never that mean." Ma Joad, Chapter 10

Ironic, isn't it? Here ia am railing away at socialism, & i use a decidedly socialist writing from the last century to make a point. Steinbeck is probably rolling over in his grave..

I thought this book was required reading for all socialists world wide. It (and the movie) are eerily similar to many of the Lenin ordered propaganda films of the same era.. of course, they didn't have Henry Fonda or Ma Joad to headline the feature.

Of course, the point i am making is not the message of the book, but is the message of the times. People of strong character, self determination, & a will to survive work hard & improve their lives.. they are motivated & generally more compassionate than people locked in ivory towers pontificating about the plight of the poor. They overcome obstacles & prejudice, & they succeed. In this story they don't, which is the point of the book: hopelessness & despair brought by evil capitalists.. but in real life in these places the people actually did overcome many obstacles & not only survive, but prosper.

Still, for an unapologetic bit of socialist propaganda, it is a fine book, & also a great movie. I was no doubt shaped philosophically by this book & movie in my youth, but have had time to analyze it with a more critical, jaundiced eye. It is also a significant work in shaping US policy & public opinion. FDR loved it. Actually, i love it, too, but for different reasons. It is also one of the few movies made that are equal to the book, & in some way surpass it. My backhanded review is over, & i give it a

Ok, I have to post the final speech that Joad makes..

"Whenever they's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Whenever they's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there... I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad an'-I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when our folks eat the stuff they raise an' live in the houses they build-why, I'll be there."
- John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, Chapter 28

Insurances are supposed to cover risks and spread the cost of these on all the contributors. If someone wants an insurance company to cover it, just share the related contributions with others that want it covered.

And unwanted births are a social phenomena, not an health problem.

I see what you are getting at. I have lived in a country where I could have taken a much easier way that I did. Not go to a university start working after high school. But I went to school and found that I could get a more interesting job. I had had my own companies been employed by government science institution and multinational companies. Many of my friends have done that as well. Sense moral is that ether you got it or you don’t got it. Everybody in the world perhaps doesn’t get the chance to go to schools and are therefore more limited in the possibility.

I think it is very interesting that the suggestion that my society would kind of make people passive. Why do you think that? I think that Sweden would not have become that prosperous nation with out determination and god character. I suggest that other things are more important in maniana countries. Regions that very easily could feed them self’s with easy access to food would be countries that are not really successful with industries and businesses. I think that the very god situation in my region with jobs and god earning in a Swedish comparison it’s what makes people to jump out from more education or to choose easy path.
The GNP in my region is 1,05 million seek/ 161 677 $ for every employed people and 607000 seek for the average Swede 2007.

rokka wrote:

Rydnseek: In my home town we have the highest taxes in Sweden we have the genrous welfare systems in many areas. We have no home less people we have no un emplyd people we have most money left in our pokets of all the Sweds. We have a very high living standard. Most of us have many cars snowmobiles houses that are allmost payd for . How would that interfere with the idea that welfare state is prisoning people ?

Birth controll pills is a privat thing i think

It sounds like you really do have a socialist utopia! No homelessness, no unemployment, lots of money, high standard of living & low taxes. I don't know if that is all of Sweden, or just your local area, but if it's working for you, great! I don't know if you have a lot of the same variables we have in the US, but i'm glad for your success & prosperity. Obviously, if what you say is true, my critique of socialism in the US does not apply. There's an old saying, 'if the shoe fits, wear it'. I'm not trying to force a shoe on you that doesn't fit. I think it does fit here, though.

My bad for lumping you in with 'Europe' as an example of welfare state failure. Evidently you Swedes have got it figured out. Most of Europe still has problems with it, though, from my understanding. The financial problems in Italy, Greece, Portugal, Ireland & others are clear & though many reasons are offered in a way to spin the blame, trying to give & get something for nothing is the main culprit.

We probably should move to another thread.. not much in here relating to birth control! Any mods want to snip the last few posts to another thread?

rokka wrote:

I see what you are getting at. I have lived in a country where I could have taken a much easier way that I did. Not go to a university start working after high school. But I went to school and found that I could get a more interesting job. I had had my own companies been employed by government science institution and multinational companies. Many of my friends have done that as well. Sense moral is that ether you got it or you don’t got it. Everybody in the world perhaps doesn’t get the chance to go to schools and are therefore more limited in the possibility.

I think it is very interesting that the suggestion that my society would kind of make people passive. Why do you think that? I think that Sweden would not have become that prosperous nation with out determination and god character. I suggest that other things are more important in maniana countries. Regions that very easily could feed them self’s with easy access to food would be countries that are not really successful with industries and businesses. I think that the very god situation in my region with jobs and god earning in a Swedish comparison it’s what makes people to jump out from more education or to choose easy path.
The GNP in my region is 1,05 million seek/ 161 677 $ for every employed people and 607000 seek for the average Swede 2007.

I know a lot of people here from Swedish descent. They generally are a very hard working, industrious people. I did not mean to imply otherwise. Sorry if it came out that way, it was not my intent to diss Scandinavians. I am not as familiar with your history as i am with mine. Perhaps in Sweden, there are more problems with right wing extremists than here. In the US, we rely on the left to label wackos as 'right wing' to fuel the divisiveness in the country.

Our 'right wing' are mostly in the news of late for wanting fiscal responsibility.. so we do not follow the path of other bankrupt nations. They want to cut spending to keep us solvent. But the left seems to only want to increase spending & taxes, & continue down the path of financial disaster. If our social programs for welfare had a history of actually working, it would be different. But they don't. They have only institutionalized poverty. So the right are labeled as 'terrorists' for wanting to have a balanced budget.

Does Sweden have open borders? Do they allow anyone from Africa, Asia, & the Americas to come in & tap into your successful welfare system? Or do you limit emigration to your country? I don't know, just wondering.

Not sure what your statistics mean.. just me not knowing the lingo. I guess the US gnp is about 15 trillion.

I found some interesting things browsing the web.. This is the Gross National Income of these countries.



Now, you want to see it 'per capita?' Here you go!



You rich Swedes are making more than anyone! The Irish are hot on your heels, but they won't catch you, they have to much debt to pay back. We in the US still have the most for such a big population, but China is coming on strong for the overall total. I don't know if they'll ever be very high in the per capita graph.

Ok, fun graph time.. Here's a total Gross Domestic Product with the same countries:



Now, the GDP per capita:


Now how did those Irish beat you here?

What kind of weird nerd has fun looking at statistics? This is sick & pointless. But i'm having fun, at least!

From what i read, Sweden's population is about 9m. ..about the same as North Carolina & New Jersey. California is 36m. to give some perspective.

Here's a link with some more useless information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Ok, out of curiosity, let's do a comparison.

State: New Jersey-- Sweden
population: 8.8m-- 9.3m
GDP: $497m-- $406m


What does this mean? I don't know.

But it seems to me, statistically, that New Jersey has a better per capita GDP than Sweden. Not a lot, but some.

It also seems to me that the bigger the state (or nation), the more complex & harder it is to take care of simple logistical problems. I have no problem with New Jersey coming up with a welfare system, providing for the homeless, & doing whatever it's citizens want to & can afford. It is just inefficient, wasteful, & breeds corruption to do it on a scale that our national govt. has been attempting to do. India & China can't do it, neither can we. Some things are just better done at the local level.

Here's another interesting statistic: Minnesota: Population- 5.3m GDP- $267m.. this is very similar to Sweden.. which is not surprising, since that's where most of our Scandinavians settled when coming to America.

I was too lazy to calculate the per capita for these, but it should be easy if someone has to know.

This is a real long & pointless post.. sorry for wasting bandwidth with this drivel. I just spent hours with the computer finishing last year's taxes (why wait until the last minute?), & my mind is in meltdown with numbers.

Sweden has one of the highest if not the highest tax rate of occidental countries. It's population is composed of 14% immigration.

It is true that the size helps in universal programs since a smaller country has a less diversity of culture.

The politicians don't have drivers in Sweden, they take public transportation. They don't use the public goods to their own advantages .

Nice post Scotty ! The method of local Gnp Is different than what you showed me. My regions very high gnp comes most from mining. The example of my gnp was to show you that there are other prosperous places than USA that has welfare programs I am sure that you are aware of that.

It seems to me that demons of what a few social programs might do to your country is exaggerated. and if you don’t want to have that it is ok with me. On the other hand it is not the land of milk and honey but I am lucky to be born in a country that is wealthy and that should be the case for most Europeans.

The prospct of where you might be born :)


Local GNP in Sweden
http://tillvaxtverket.se/huvudmeny/faktaochstatistik/omregionalutveckling/brp/brpifunktionellaanalysregioner.4.21099e4211fdba8c87b800017372.html

Quote :

It sounds like you really do have a socialist utopia! No homelessness, no unemployment, lots of money, high standard of living & low taxes. I don't know if that is all of Sweden, or just your local area, but if it's working for you, great! I don't know if you have a lot of the same variables we have in the US, but i'm glad for your success & prosperity. Obviously, if what you say is true, my critique of socialism in the US does not apply. There's an old saying, 'if the shoe fits, wear it'. I'm not trying to force a shoe on you that doesn't fit. I think it does fit here, though.

I would not called that a socialist utopia. I would said that that is a wonderfull thing beccauseI dont know anybody who dont have a jobb. But on the taxes we have the highest taxes in the world in my region.

motokid wrote:

I sure hope you're not suggesting that most "poor" people are poor because they chose to be poor.

Of course not.

Just the ones who were too cool for school, so they dropped out of that publicly funded school system to hang out in the 'hood and laughed at the kids who stayed in school.

The ones who found out that too cool for school meant too stupid to employ, but still won't go get a GED on one of those publicly funded programs to help them out of poverty.

The ones who just couldn't bring themselves to join the military in any one of the hundreds of military non-combat arms trades that, not only would have given them a job and a pension and a skill to take to civvy street, but access to the GI Bill as well and a mostly paid post secondary education. As far as I can tell, the military has never quit hiring.

The ones who just couldn't bring themselves to go to the camps and other places where high paying jobs for unskilled labour can be found - providing you're actually prepared to work.

The illegal aliens who send most of their income back to Mexico and then are registered up here as "poor" and get all kinds of taxpayer funded programs, especially in "sanctuary" states and cities.

The ones living off gang banging and/or drug dealing, who don't report the proceeds of their crime on a tax return, and who then get reported as living in poverty and unable to afford health insurance.

The ones who have all the time in the world to hang around unemployed playing basketball with their buddies or just plain hanging out, but not enough time to be knocking on doors every day.

The ones who have time to hang with their buddies, but not enough time to volunteer for local charities or community groups to pad out their resumes or possibly network their way into a job.

There's a lot more, but let's give special recognition to those who have bought into the socialist Kool Aid that the government owes them a living and has a duty to look after them and provide them with some baseline guaranteed economic outcome in their life, even if they don't do squat to help themselves. And who then still don't get it, but rather than changing their life plan, just sit around bitching about those who have made a success out of their lives are screwing them.

Meanwhile we keep bringing convention refugees here, like the Vietnam Boat People after the North Vietnamese started their genocide after the US pulled out. With nothing but the shirts on their backs, they've managed to learn the language and make success stories out of themselves, the vast majority. And yet Americans borne in this country have apparently, suddenly, developed a defective gene that inhibits them from accomplishing the same thing a refugee can. Obviously, more medical research is needed into this genetic disease.

Hum !

There are a lot of people that are born with bad genes in this country. If there are enough of these people that are so deconnected from what it is to participate in a society to cause a general economic collapse, it can't be because the system is failing, only bad genes can explain that.

Dancamp wrote:

Hum !

There are a lot of people that are born with bad genes in this country. If there are enough of these people that are so deconnected from what it is to participate in a society to cause a general economic collapse, it can't be because the system is failing, only bad genes can explain that.

Yes Dan.

The system forces them to drop out of school.

The system forces them to hang around doing nothing instead of applying for jobs.

The system prevents them from joining the military, going to work in the oil patch, or even applying for a job.

No personal responsibility involved - just like pregnancy, it is important to put the blame on somebody else or "the system".

What's strange is that same evil "system" doesn't seem to affect the refugees that come to this country with even less than what these home grown Americans have. For the most part they seem to remain unaffected, work, take personal responsibility, and become contributing members of society.

Dancamp wrote:

Insurances are supposed to cover risks and spread the cost of these on all the contributors. If someone wants an insurance company to cover it, just share the related contributions with others that want it covered.

And unwanted births are a social phenomena, not an health problem.

Careful, Dan! You almost sound like a conservative, here! It sounds like you are advocating free choice in an insurance policy, with the choice to buy it or not. I think all free market conservatives would agree with you. You might have to give back your socialist card!

I also agree with your second point. And since it is a social problem, i expect socialists to fix it, not the federal govt with comprehensive health care, which doesn't fix anything, but just wastes taxpayer money.

ok, i watched Jager's 'Mom' on his post above, & it linked to another, which is great! She is posting this with a bit of wry irony, but it's still pretty funny.

It won't let me embed, so i'll post the link.

https://youtu.be/KRgB2eeHZEw

She's got a few other funny ones, too. But this can be the stereotypical 'Mom' for Motokid's stereotypical 'poor child'.

I'm not sure what this has to do with birth control, except that everyone wishes that some of these people's parents had used it!

Probably the main reason that white liberals have been so gung ho on birth control & abortion is they are hoping the ghetto problems will shrink with fewer children born. But the problem is the ghettos don't bother much with birth control or abortion. They get money for having kids. It is a career choice for many of them.

Jäger wrote:

motokid wrote:

I sure hope you're not suggesting that most "poor" people are poor because they chose to be poor.

Of course not.

Just the ones who were too cool for school, so they dropped out of that publicly funded school system to hang out in the 'hood and laughed at the kids who stayed in school.

I've seen these guys, they are the ones standing on the street with one hand holding up their pants because they haven't figured out how to use a belt.
Maybe we could start a dumb fashion thread.

+1 Jäger

rydnseek wrote:

Careful, Dan! You almost sound like a conservative, here! It sounds like you are advocating free choice in an insurance policy, with the choice to buy it or not. I think all free market conservatives would agree with you. You might have to give back your socialist card!

I also agree with your second point. And since it is a social problem, i expect socialists to fix it, not the federal govt with comprehensive health care, which doesn't fix anything, but just wastes taxpayer money.

I'm not a fanatic of left or right. Like I said before, there are situations when a social program is best and some others not. I know balanced people who are right wingers and others that are left wingers. There are fanatics that stop thinking when the action doesn't fit the tag.

Capitalism would be a good thing in many matters if there was always added value for the money spent. And it would be even better if those who do the most work would be the one who got the most benefits from it. Obviously in the capitalist systems we know it doesn't work that way.

Jäger wrote:

Yes Dan.

The system forces them to drop out of school.

The system forces them to hang around doing nothing instead of applying for jobs.

The system prevents them from joining the military, going to work in the oil patch, or even applying for a job.

No personal responsibility involved - just like pregnancy, it is important to put the blame on somebody else or "the system".

What's strange is that same evil "system" doesn't seem to affect the refugees that come to this country with even less than what these home grown Americans have. For the most part they seem to remain unaffected, work, take personal responsibility, and become contributing members of society.

Glad you finally realised. What you describe is the reality of many citizens.

It is even easier to think that the system givse the same opportunities to everyone. The system is so good that if you happen to be born in a ghetto every employers will be glad to hire you. If you want to have access to higher education you need to make enough money to pay for living plus health insurance and after that have many thousands more a year to get it.

If you happen to have parents that have enough money, then you're ok from the start. Like aristocraty that was based on blood, the perfect system is based on money. Same kind of equal opportunity.

Dancamp wrote:

I know balanced people who are right wingers and others that are left wingers. There are fanatics that stop thinking when the action doesn't fit the tag.

"Balance" is usually about who fits our personal biases and prejudices and who doesn't. When somebody won't capitulate on a point we strongly support, they immediately become "fanatics". Thus, in the US, we have the Vice President and numerous prominent Democrats calling conservative Republicans "terrorists" because they refused to budge on demanding serious spending cuts and moving towards a balanced budget. And that kind of thinking trickles all the way down.

Quote :

And it would be even better if those who do the most work would be the one who got the most benefits from it. Obviously in the capitalist systems we know it doesn't work that way.

We arrive once again back at the socialist concept that everybody's work is equal, and so everybody should get paid equally.

Our high school dropout has a job as a furniture mover - it's about all he's qualified for. But he's good at it; he works his ass off sweating like a dog for eight hours a day at minimum wage, and maybe if he's lucky he gets a couple of hours of overtime.

His buddy who finished school and went to university is a data base administrator for a spatial warehouse. He works eight hours a day with a paid lunch, and every second Friday he has off; he makes about $100k a year. He usually stops at the Gold's Gym on the way home to get a workout in if he isn't going mountainbiking when he gets home.

Now there's no question that the high school dropout does the most work - he doesn't even get the paid lunch and the last thing he needs after work is an hour in the gym. So why doesn't the evil capitalist system pay him more money than the geodatabase administrator? Simple: capitalism pays on the VALUE of the work and the availability of people willing and qualified to do the job, not the amount of sweat produced. High school dropouts have chosen not to amass a skill set to compete for more complex work that has more VALUE. They choose to remain unemployable and limit their opportunities. Many are too good to even take on low paying, physically tiring jobs like being a hod carrier - but when they hand out apprenticeships in bricklaying, stonemasons, etc, those are the guys they give the apprenticeships to and who end up with a trade that pays a pretty respectable wage. The concept of paying your dues, either by completing a qualifying education or starting at the bottom and working your way up is a foreign concept to many of these people.

The idea that capitalists will pay the most benefits to those who produce the least valuable work is a logical fallacy - where is the profit in that? I don't know what you call that, but it sure the hell isn't capitalism. If anything, more benefits for less work fits the socialist model, where people get paid the same as long as they show up. I support unions and unionism, but it is a fact that one of the great weaknesses of unionism is that it demands all get paid the same regardless of how much value they individually produce, and at its worst it outright protects those who mostly just show up. It's no surprise that it shares this fault (and the hypocrisy) of socialism which provides the guiding principles for almost all unions.

Quote :

The system is so good that if you happen to be born in a ghetto every employers will be glad to hire you. If you want to have access to higher education you need to make enough money to pay for living plus health insurance and after that have many thousands more a year to get it.

Right.

We all know the military absolutely refuses to take anyone born in a ghetto. It's right there on the application in big, bold letters "WERE YOU BORN IN A GHETTO?"

Universities refuse to give full ride scholarships and bursaries to kids from ghettos.

And if you were born in a ghetto, you can forget about going to the oil and mining exploration camps as a labourer - they simply won't hire anybody from the ghetto. They aren't interested in whether you're prepared to live in a camp and work your ass off for the big bucks - all they want to know is where you were born.

We're also well aware that volunteer organizations refuse to take anyone from the ghetto as a volunteer, who's hoping to do a little networking and build their resume while volunteering in search of a job and career.

Nope, if you're from the ghetto the dice are loaded against you because every potential employer will ask you if you were born in a ghetto and then refuse to hire you.

Happily, that's just a socialist excuse - the real world doesn't work that way at all.

What doesn't get you hired is being a high school dropout, no visible effort to improve your employability, an unwillingness to go where the jobs and work are, and working on building up your criminal record instead of your resume.

Quote :

If you happen to have parents that have enough money, then you're ok from the start. Like aristocraty that was based on blood, the perfect system is based on money. Same kind of equal opportunity.

Ah yes, the old class envy/warfare. You just knew we had to end up here. The US was structured as a classless society; it's socialists (the ones supposedly about equality) who always need to make it about class.

Capitalists don't care where you started from - if your name is Rasheed Wallace or LeBron James and you can help my team make millions each year, I don't care how ghetto you started out. If LeBron James endorsing my hoodies will make them sell like hotcakes, I'll happily pay him his fees and royalties. If a welfare mom named J.K. Rowling shows me the manuscript for a great book she sweated out while on welfare (instead of just sitting around watching Oprah and playing Bingo), I'll buy the rights to that book.

There always has to be an excuse, always a claim that somehow or other it wasn't fair. Just lay down and let the government take care of you, because you didn't get a fair start.

One thing is for sure - forcing insurance companies to provide health care for free is anything but capitalism. That's socialism, through and through.

And there is always a way to be blind to the reality and to generalise the exception.

There is no bottom to the depth of ignorants who refuse to acknowledge the real problems an let go the ideology. Always binding to principles created in circumstances that don't exist anymore. And after that they put the blame on others that try to make changes to a system that proved time after time that it leads to division, disparity of opportunities and unfairness.


An interesting perspective on how the capitalism works now and how it could work. All that without becoming socialist.




http://www.amazon.ca/Black-Markets-Business-Blues-Capitalism/dp/2922285456

Dancamp wrote:

And there is always a way to be blind to the reality and to generalise the exception.

Proving yet again, when something doesn't fit your personal biases and prejudices, then it's "unbalanced". For the socialist, failure is always due to somebody else, never a lack of personal responsibility and effort. Personal responsibility for your actions and what you achieve in life is a completely foreign concept.

We're supposed to believe that "reality" has the military refusing to take applicants from the ghetto wanting to get a trade and an education. That's Dan's reality.

We're supposed to believe that "reality" has the oil and gas industry, mining, etc refusing to hire people on the basis of being born in the ghetto. That's Dan's reality.

We're supposed to believe that volunteer groups, community charities, etc will refuse to take a volunteer from the ghetto who could then use that experience to improve their resume and try and network their way into a job. That's Dan's reality.

Quote :

There is no bottom to the depth of ignorants who refuse to acknowledge the real problems an let go the ideology.

Yes. Dan knows that the real problem is the military, heavy industry, charities and community groups - all of them will refuse to accept an applicant as soon as they discover they're from the ghetto. There's no way out for the poor sods... thus, their only options are to hang around in the hood playing b-ball instead of hitting the streets applying for work, sitting home watching Oprah instead of applying for work, gang banging instead of going back to school.

Now where exactly does the ignorance lie, and where is the ideologue to be found?

Quote :

Always binding to principles created in circumstances that don't exist anymore.

Yes, the human genome and behavior has radically changed in the last 200 years or so - but only in America. Because when we take refugees from other countries, they show a remarkable ability to start with far less than a kid born in a ghetto - not even being able to speak the language - and succeed. Now why would that be, if it isn't a genetic issue? Couldn't possibly be due to the way each group is socialized, their expectations of who is responsible for their success, and personal drive and effort to succeed, could it? Nah... that's way too radical to contemplate.

But, what the hell... let's throw out that principle of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". Throw out the rest of that stuff from way back then like the Bill of Rights and all the rest of it. It's dated. Old. Doesn't apply anymore.

Quote :

And after that they put the blame on others that try to make changes to a system that proved time after time that it leads to division, disparity of opportunities and unfairness.

And of course, let's end with the obligatory cries of anguish from the socialists and Marxists that there is division (while they rail at "the upper class"), disparity of opportunities for those who won't try or socialized into believing they don't have to try, and unfairness (on behalf of the 47% who pay no income tax at all towards the services they receive).

Brings a tear to my eye.