Don't ever hate to disagree with me.

Virtually everything on NPR is commentary, they just don't say so. Look at the front page of NPR's website. That's not reporting. It's a glowing commentary for the left. Search for McCain and it's luke warm at best. I can't find anything about McCain taking the lead in the polls. And if you search "polls" you get nothing but democrat or liberal results.

Have you listened to todays hourly news? How about yesterday?

How about todays "Liberal Edition"? Do you think they'll give the Republicans that much positive time?

Do you remember their 9/11 reporting (read commentaries)? They virtually wrote Michael Moore's script for him.

How about their Katrina reporting (again read commentary)?

It doesn't matter who supports them. NPR is liberal. Period. But that's beside the point. The government has no business funding political radio. Imagine if Sean Hannity or Jerry Doyle received any amount of CPB or Public university money.

I went to the business section of KGOU and found that closer to 20% comes directly from CPB and 39% from the University itself. See page 5 of the pdf. That's quite a bit more than the 10% you mentioned. Again, this is from KGOU's website.

The vast majority of people who are doing well, today, went through periods of their life where they were struggling. Class warfare has no place in a society where we aren't limited by our birth. There is more social mobility in our society than anywhere else on earth. A lot of people who don't know anything else take that for granted.

My grandfather's dad died when he was ten years old. They had no insurance, no social security, no pension, no food stamps, no family to help. His mother was left with three children under the age of 12. He ate dirt running and fetching to help keep food on the table and take care of his family. He worked three jobs through highschool and dropped down to two jobs when he went to college. He took care of his widowed mother until the day she died. He took care of my mother and he helped me go to college. He left the house at 5:00 every morning and got home after 7:00 p.m. The man was a saint.

The last 30 years of his life he drove a cadillac, had a big bank account and lived in a gorgeous home. He did quite well for himself but never forgot where he came from. He used his money to take care of his family and never asked for help. He earned his wealth. No one gave it to him. No one gave him one red dime.

A lot of people talk about the wealthy as if they are scum and owe the less fortunate. That the rich are clueless and just out of touch or just somehow got that way through a fluke. My grandfather worked his butt off his entire life and was a genuinely good man. A huge part of his salary went to taxes to keep a roof over the head of the downtrodden, many of whom would rather party than study or work. He deserves respect, not scorn.

And let me just point out the obvious - Hardly anyone begrudges helping the truly needy. What we object to is being coerced into shelling out money to people who are in the situation they are in by poor choices, and who aren't willing to work as hard as we do. Some social liberals want to claim that those who object to social projects are against the sick and frail. We aren't. We are against supporting the lazy and the misguided who are hiding behind the skirts of the truly deserving. Some social liberals want to insist that people who don't want to help are greedy. They miss the point, entirely and I suspect they take this position, primarily, to make themselves feel morally superior. I rarely see people who are handing out soup at the soup kitchens or working the free clinics wasting their energy attacking the goose that lays the golden eggs. And yes, I am quite familiar with these saintly people and activities dedicated to the helping the poor.

And by the way, no one who makes sweeping statements about the rich can possibly know anything about them as individuals. Anyone making those kind of statements is judging them by the size of their bank accounts. How shallow. Some social liberals don't want the poor to be judged by size of their bank accounts but comments like those above show that is exactly what scale is being used against the rich. How hypocritical.

You've made a number of general statements here about poor folks which seem largely based on the size of their bank accounts. Does that make you a social liberal? You did get one thing right, though:

Reality is biased.

Taomass - you are seeing what you want to see. On the first "quote," I limited it to "many of whom" rather than "all." That was deliberate. Are you suggesting that many people don't end up poor because they don't put in the effort or frittered away their opportunities? Or do you insist on shutting your eyes to reality for fear your theory of how the world works won't hold up?

As for the other two "quotes," the first one is actually, "Hardly anyone begrudges helping the truly needy. What we object to is being coerced into shelling out money to people who are in the situation they are in by poor choices, and who aren't willing to work as hard as we do. " You deliberately cut the phrase in half and placed it out of context. The people the well off begrudge helping was specific limited only to those people for whom "the shoe fits."

Do you actually have a problem with people wanting to help the needy but not the lazy? Has it occurred to you that the lazy (rather than the golden goose) are the culprits? By expecting the rest of the world to take care of them when they could do it themselves, they make it all the harder for society to have enough resources (or the good will) for the truly needy.

As for the last "quote," - how did you read that as speaking in generalities when the whole point of the sentence is to distinguish one group from another? And moreover, if you'd stop running some sort of mental "word search" to prove your point and actually READ what I wrote, I was saying that many of the well off have no problem with supporting those who need it. Are you suggesting that there is something inherently "off" about not being interested in supporting cons and players, too? Let's see, "Here is a check for a needy person but I am NOT going to give it to a bum." Yup - that tightwad needs to burn in hell, selfish b#stard!

To a lot of social liberals (note a "lot," not all - I am trying to help you, here ), there seems to be an unreasonable and unrealistic insistence that "good" people won't mind supporting the cons and bums along with the truly needy. Why would ANYONE have a problem with resenting societal leeches? Tell me again how helping them helps the needy? I am missing that part.

Nicely put East Coast.
It can make one crazy. I keep this thought in my head...Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I once suffered from it myself. With a lot of hard work and maturity I have become whole. (this will raise the haters to a new level)

East Coast Okie...you were on a rant about people making generalizations about the well-off based strictly on their income, then you turned around did the very same thing to the less fortunate. Sure, you hedged it a bit by throwing in "some" or "a lot", but you were stereotyping, just the same.

Taomaas, just give it up. I didn't hedge anything. I wrote what I wrote. You focused on what YOU brought to the party.

You're right. You did not hedge.



I'm a moderate. I look at all sides of the issues and make a reasonable decision.

I try, most of the time, to avoid politics since by not restraining will detract or diminish what I'm purposefully trying to do on the web -- promote my city's history, and yours, the new great city of the 21st century, regardless of political persuasion.

But, just having heard Joe Biden and watched events unfold tonight, I am unwilling to impose self-restraint. Joe Biden (I mention him 1st with respect to this thread's subject) + Barach Obama = a great team ... OBAMA + BIDEN = a changed America, and one we will be proud to have and have our children and grandchildren be a part of and grow up in as us older folk fade away and die, as is our destiny. But, that fading away makes me proud that the times have changed as much as they have. It does appear that in my time that the phrase, "All men are created equal" (notwithstanding the "men" part), has come to match words with reality.

These are historic and heady times for the US of A. I am well aware that many here and in Oklahoma will see these things 180 degrees differently than I do. But, hang around for a couple of years, keep an open mind, and maybe you'll come to agree ... not with me ... but with the dramatic progression of Americana that has emerged in the year 2008, and that the change is all to the good.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

I don't see anything good with Obama/Biden. Okay, B. Hussein beat Helliary. For that I'm eternally grateful. He has nothing to offer that I want my grandkids to have to endure.

Historically, it looks like Oklahoma is going to have the first Republican senate ever. Oklahoma is finally 'getting it'.

I don't see the U.S. electing a president that the most unqualified man/woman to ever run. Yes, even more unqualified that Carter. Does anybody remember that change? The 'Misery Index'?

This democrat ticket could very well be the next Mondale/Ferraro team.

I hope so.

Like I said, many here in Oklahoma will see things 180 degrees differently than I do. That's just the way it is. Thanks for your non-topic-related observations. Maybe some in that new republican state senate will be like Henry Bellmon and a lot less like Sally Kern. I surely hope so.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

I was just letting you know I see things (you wrote) 180 different. But I thought my not seeing the Obama/Biden ticket as great was topic related!

Thank you for your input.

McCain is supposed to tell us who his VP is today.

I bet he is going to pick a woman similar to Hillary :P

Come on Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska. But, I would settle for Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota as a second choice.

Tonight will be a historic occasion in American History. Regardless of the outcome of the election, Obama's nomination signals a sea change in America society. That scares the hell out of a lot of people who are insecure about thier standing in the world and fear change. Tough.

Which brings us back to the topic of the myth of social mobility.

The vast majority of American Citizens die in the same socio-economic class of their parents. This has been mostly the case throughout American history with the rare exception becoming our most treasured national myth.

Today we have less mobility than almost any other industrialized country. If we had a meritocracy or if hard work was all it took, then garbage collectors or cess pool cleaners would be our elite.

However, that's not how it works. We tend to learn by example and if our family are shoe shiners, we tend to shine shoes. No amount of hard work will buy the bootblack much in way of upward mobility.

On the other hand, if you are born into the upper 5%, you enter the world two steps from home plate with the opposing team having already left the ballpark.

To me the interesting thing is how the rare individual who does acheive mobility figures out how to change the status quo. I've seen it happen in my family and studied it in others and how that thought process occurs seems as random as it is mysterious.

However, it is a complex subject that I doubt most in the bootstraps brigade would care to learn about. After all, it's hard to challenge one's most cherished presumptions about the world

For those who care, a good primer on the sociology of it can look at this overview:
Horatio Alger is Dead: http://www.cepr.net/seminars/powerpoints/2005_10_27.ppt

Just viewed the power point presentation. Where do I go to get the last 10 minutes of my life back?

This is was a waste of time.

I watched Biden last night and I remembered his comment about Obama He stood by his statement that Obama was not ready to be president.
"The job position does not lend itself to on the job training." said to George Stephanopolis. (name may be spelled incorrectly)
Then he said later he would actually run for or with John McCain.
Hmmmm.

That statement about not being qualified was from the democrat debates.
It's on this blurb. Saying that he'd run with McCain is also on this blurb.
Most, if not all, the democrats that ran for president said BObama wasn't
ready or qualified to be president. They're right.

173 days of being a liberal Senator is all he has. Being a moderate I can
agree with liberals.





I'm a moderate. I look at all sides of the issues and make a reasonable decision.

I'm still on the hedge on who to vote for. Although Obama is inexperienced, I think that could be a good thing. I am glad both are comprimising on the issues. I think Biden was an OK choice. I think Obama/Hillary would be more electable but Biden is probably the better person to have with him in office.

<<Which brings us back to the topic of the myth of social mobility.

The vast majority of American Citizens die in the same socio-economic class of their parents. This has been mostly the case throughout American history with the rare exception becoming our most treasured national myth.>>

Dying in the same economic class as your parents does not mean you existed in that class your whole life. It goes more towards setting a point that an individual, perhaps subconsciously, strives for and considers normal/comfortable. The higher the economic level (and for the purposes of this discussion, the Paris Hilton group is really not relevant for 99.9999% of us), the tougher it is to achieve and frequently it takes longer. If you want to be solidly middle class, better count on investments and what does that mean? It means that in addition to paying your bills, you have to save - cutting into your take home pay and making you have to get by with less than if you blew your Friday paycheck as soon as you laid your hands on it. A young saver is likely, as a young person, to struggle even more than a young spendthift even though they end up dead at a higher economic class than their buddy.

The average person who has middle class parents and who never had to struggle to make it on their own to achieve middle class status would be an anomaly unless they inherited money. The vast majority of people who are middle class at death were once young people, at the entry point of careers, students, apprentices, etc. Plenty of people who are solidly middle class at age 45 - 55 were broke, over extended, nonhomeowners, parents of expensive young children, and had entry level jobs (or no job or a part-time job if they werre staying home with the kids) at age 30. How many of us at age thirty thought we'd topped out on our salaries? For most of us, our highest earning years are still ahead of us.

If someone either can't conceive of being middle class or doesn't care if they are, why would they bust their butt to make more money or get an education or training? Unfortunately, many in this group (not all!) end up overextended either by too many babies (who knew how expensive the little buggers could be when they hit their teens?) or because they didn't make sure their family had adequate insurance, including life insurance (be honest, aren't insurance benefits one of the things most of us insist on when we look for a "real" job?). If they jumped into a marriage at an early age the chances of divorce and the poverty that frequently accompanies that skyrockets. The people in this economic class tend to be the folks who often slide into the group that receives public assistance when life gets rocky, which is going to happen no matter what economic group you're in (car wrecks, illness, etc.). There has been a lot of talk about how it is not their fault if they get sick, etc. This is true, I agree with that. But it IS their fault, at least to a degree, if they did not plan for it. Why do you think people get insurance? It is not because they would rather the insurance company have their preminum money. It is because they know that they would be wiped out without it. And check out the stats on people making over $50,000 a year who don't have health insurance. These folks could pay for it but just don't. Ditto - many people eligible for government insurance don't bother to sign up. Part of my job involves getting these folks to get their children signed up. It is free but they frequently just don't think about stuff like that. Getting them signed up is one of the very first things we do with struggling families.

It is a little like drinking and driving. Some drunk may not have intended to cause a wreck but they DID intend to get drunk. Having a wreck when you get behind the wheel drunk is a predictable consequence. Short of having a trust fund - and how many of us know ANYONE with a trust fund? - if you don't get good job training or a good education, life will financially squash you like a bug. It is that simple.

What do you believe would be a good thing?

Prune, there are none so blind who will not see. On the other hand, I'm terribly sorry if something more complex than the simplistic Limbaugh view of the world is beyond your ability to comprehend. Here's a suggestion on how to get back to your life since you can't turn back the hands of time.

Grab a beer and turn on some professional rasslin. Then turn on fox to get some of that fair and balanced propaganda.

ECO, your last post chases it's tale with some pretty convoluted and contradictory reasoning.

Let's see if I understand this--social mobility exists if we define it as ending up in the same class as your parents. There a better word for that, stasis. In other words, you're describing the opposite of mobility.

Additionally, you are describing pretty well why social mobility is a myth and not reality at all.

You are also describing the conditions which currently exist which are eroding our middle class.

Congratulations, you are now a class warrior.

<<<ECO, your last post chases it's tale with some pretty convoluted and contradictory reasoning.

Let's see if I understand this--social mobility exists if we define it as ending up in the same class as your parents. There a better word for that, stasis. In other words, you're describing the opposite of mobility.

Additionally, you are describing pretty well why social mobility is a myth and not reality at all.

You are also describing the conditions which currently exist which are eroding our middle class.

Congratulations, you are now a class warrior.>>>

Well now, let me remind you that you injected the "myth" idea to argue that people are stuck in a class, the proof apparently being that most end up in the same class as their parents. MY point is that the main reason most end up in that class spring from human nature to aspire to the class they are familiar/comfortable with. Moreover, I pointed out that just because they end up in the class they chose, consciously or subconsciously, chances are they went through a lot of economic classes on the way there (the original point was addressed at some people's suggestion that the rich don't "get" what it is like to struggle). Moreover - and here is the important part if you're interested - changing their aspirations and being willing to work towards them, which they can do if they choose, makes all the difference in where they end up.

Go compare the rigid social classes in other countries and at other times in history to get an idea of how open our society is to social advancement. This is the land of Opportunity. It was given that name because people didn't have to remain in the same economic class of their birth family if they were willing to work hard. But to move upward, people have to do the work and make the sacrifices. It won't happen sitting around waiting for the rich people or the rich corporations to toss coins in a begger's cup.

Oh, and how did what I wrote talk about eroding the middle class? I didn't see that part. I think I discussed how people go different routes depending, in large part, on their aspirations and choices. If the middle class is eroding, by my analysis, it would be because most people either busted their butt to do better than their parents, or just threw in the towel and prefered to camp out in the trailer park. And if the middle class is eroding, as you claim, then how is social mobility a myth? Doesn't your argument underscore that you don't have to remain in the same economic class? It can go up as well as down. That is what mobility means. Talk about contradictory.

I think I've got.

If you don't have a leg to stand on then you must resort
to deriding and belittling, those who do, with whatever
pejorative diatribe you can muster.

It didn't work E.O.

ECO defended her points very well.