Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 3:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2011 9:30:01 GMT -5
No, the question should be: Why shouldn't they? Aren't we all Americans? Aren't we all in this together? Or is this one of those cases of, "Well hell's bells, I'm wealthy so eff this country. I can always go to the Bahamas" type of mentality going on? Do you believe in pay equalization as a law? |
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jul 29, 2011 9:36:59 GMT -5
The left wing of the Democratic Party is quite as inflexible as the "tea party," but Zakaria chooses to focus only on the "tea party," demonstrating his bias. The pathetic thing is that people look at such as Zakaria as "objective." From my observation, I'd say that Zakaria is the liberal establishment's replacement for Bill Moyers. Those who slavishly follow Zakaria will continue to repeat the party line as if it were a demonstration of their [or his] "original ideas." I was thinking something along the same lines of I don't see any examples from the more liberal side of the isle. |
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jul 29, 2011 10:05:36 GMT -5
No, the question should be: Why shouldn't they? Aren't we all Americans? Aren't we all in this together? Or is this one of those cases of, "Well hell's bells, I'm wealthy so eff this country. I can always go to the Bahamas" type of mentality going on? Or the mentality of "they have something I want and I deserve it more than them." You know what happens when everybody makes the same, no matter the job? Eventually too many people wonder why are they putting so much effort into making a better life when they can do the minimum and have the same result. Equal opportunties does not necessarily mean equal results. |
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jul 29, 2011 10:09:56 GMT -5
I'm sure Nancy Pelosi isn't polarizing as well....just those evil Tea Party people....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 3:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2011 11:37:56 GMT -5
There was a popular book called "The Big Sort" a few years ago. It talked about demographic trends and how they were increasing polarization. It's recommended by Bill Clinton. Here's a description from the website:
THE BIG SORT (Houghton Mifflin, May 7, 2008) is the landmark story of how America came to be a country of swelling cultural division, economic separation, and political polarization.
Going far beyond the simplistic red state/blue state divide, journalist Bill Bishop (in collaboration with sociologist and statistician Robert Cushing) marshals original data and incisive reporting to show how Americans have sorted themselves geographically, economically, and politically into like-minded communities over the last three decades.
Homogeneity may be a perk of the unprecedented choice our society offers—but it also breeds economic inequality, cultural misunderstanding, political extremism, and legislative gridlock. This is the story of our times, and its reality poses a profound threat to democracy, but no one before now has seemed to notice, let alone been able to describe, its causes and consequences.
The nation we live in—our culture, economy, neighborhoods, and churches—has been sculpted by the Big Sort over the past thirty years:
•People with college degrees were relatively evenly spread across the nation's cities in 1970. Thirty years later, college graduates had congregated in particular cities, a phenomenon that decimated the economies in some places and caused other regions to flourish.
• The generation of ministers who built sprawling mega-churches in the new suburbs learned to attract their stadium-sized congregations through the "homogenous unit principle." The new churches were designed for cookie-cutter parishioners, what one church-growth proponent described as "people like us."
• In 1976, only about a quarter of America's voters lived in a county a presidential candidate won by a landslide margin. By 2004, it was nearly half.
• Businesses learned to target their marketing to like-minded "image tribes," a technique used by Republicans in the 2004 campaign.
Living in politically like-minded groups has had its consequences. People living in homogenous communities grow both more extreme and more certain in their beliefs. Locally, therefore, governments backed by large majorities are tackling every conceivable issue. Nationally, however, Congress has lost most of its moderate members and is mired in conflict.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Jul 29, 2011 11:43:21 GMT -5
Shirina,
Why aren't YOU a doctor making the big bucks?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 29, 2011 12:03:49 GMT -5
There was a popular book called "The Big Sort" a few years ago. It talked about demographic trends and how they were increasing polarization. It's recommended by Bill Clinton. Here's a description from the website: THE BIG SORT (Houghton Mifflin, May 7, 2008) is the landmark story of how America came to be a country of swelling cultural division, economic separation, and political polarization. Going far beyond the simplistic red state/blue state divide, journalist Bill Bishop (in collaboration with sociologist and statistician Robert Cushing) marshals original data and incisive reporting to show how Americans have sorted themselves geographically, economically, and politically into like-minded communities over the last three decades.Homogeneity may be a perk of the unprecedented choice our society offers—but it also breeds economic inequality, cultural misunderstanding, political extremism, and legislative gridlock. This is the story of our times, and its reality poses a profound threat to democracy, but no one before now has seemed to notice, let alone been able to describe, its causes and consequences. The nation we live in—our culture, economy, neighborhoods, and churches—has been sculpted by the Big Sort over the past thirty years: • People with college degrees were relatively evenly spread across the nation's cities in 1970. Thirty years later, college graduates had congregated in particular cities, a phenomenon that decimated the economies in some places and caused other regions to flourish. • The generation of ministers who built sprawling mega-churches in the new suburbs learned to attract their stadium-sized congregations through the "homogenous unit principle." The new churches were designed for cookie-cutter parishioners, what one church-growth proponent described as "people like us."• In 1976, only about a quarter of America's voters lived in a county a presidential candidate won by a landslide margin. By 2004, it was nearly half.• Businesses learned to target their marketing to like-minded "image tribes," a technique used by Republicans in the 2004 campaign. Living in politically like-minded groups has had its consequences. People living in homogenous communities grow both more extreme and more certain in their beliefs. Locally, therefore, governments backed by large majorities are tackling every conceivable issue. Nationally, however, Congress has lost most of its moderate members and is mired in conflict. Just came across your post..to take out of context what I found so true..IMHO of course, and so true , see comments from posters here. "Living in politically like-minded groups has had its consequences. People living in homogenous communities grow both more extreme and more certain in their beliefs."
"Nationally, however, Congress has lost most of its moderate members and is mired in conflict."
For me, right smack on the button, I wonder if others feel the same way.
Good post, thanks.. |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 29, 2011 13:23:34 GMT -5
...yes, that was a good post... and contributes quite a few ideas that speak to our newest continental divide...  |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 29, 2011 13:25:13 GMT -5
>>> •People with college degrees were relatively evenly spread across the nation's cities in 1970. Thirty years later, college graduates had congregated in particular cities, a phenomenon that decimated the economies in some places and caused other regions to flourish. <<< ...I would be interested, however, in cross-referencing this point to some anthropology studies about global urbanization patterns... |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 29, 2011 13:27:02 GMT -5
>>> • The generation of ministers who built sprawling mega-churches in the new suburbs learned to attract their stadium-sized congregations through the "homogenous unit principle." The new churches were designed for cookie-cutter parishioners, what one church-growth proponent described as "people like us." <<< ...since I've worked with ministries for years, I understand how this point is perceived, despite my not agreeing with their conclusion...  |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 29, 2011 13:29:17 GMT -5
>>> • In 1976, only about a quarter of America's voters lived in a county a presidential candidate won by a landslide margin. By 2004, it was nearly half. <<< ...again, I wonder about urbanization patterns concerning this point... which can help to find patterns in the red state/blue state maps we see touted in the MSM... |
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 30, 2011 9:28:14 GMT -5
I think you know as well as I what happens when those two things are out of balance. I don't begrudge doctors making a lot of money, but by most people's standards, $400k per year IS a lot of money. Very few come even close to that kind of money even after a lifetime of career advancement ... and yet they live comfortably. If I started at $400k per year, my family and I would live quite well even if I never saw another raise for 25 years. A lot of people in this country can't really afford health care. They may pay the premiums every month to have it, but they really can't afford it; many other things are being sacrificed to maintain those payments - and those payments keep going up by significant amounts. Therefore, if we're going to make sacrifices, everyone should be making them, and that includes someone making almost half a million per year not getting a 15% raise. If that can help keep health care costs down, that's what should be happening. As someone who is in healthcare, I can assure you that most doctors I work with do not make 400K/year. I also know that they start to make reasonably good money AFTER a decade or more of specialized training and large loans (many doctors will have 250K + of student loans). They have already made great sacrifices of time and money, including a shorter career in which to earn wealth that will be dragged down by horrific loans. Why should they be sacrificing more? What is the sacrifice from those who are going to obtain, according to Obamacare, free healthcare? WTF should they get a damn thing? BTW, where the heck are you getting a number like a 15% raise? I guarantee you that the vast majorities of doctors are NOT getting it! What they are getting is more frustrated with the demagouging against them, increased regulations and paperwork, and increased expenses combined with lower remibursement (mostly governmental). Some consider retirement and others are encouraging young people to not become doctors. Healthcare is not a right, it is something you earn and that will be much harder due to Obama's economic policies, scare tactics, and his atrocious Obamacare which may encourage companies to drop coverage. Seriously, spending hundreds of billions, if not trillions, that may lower the number of people with coverage! How brilliant! And it's going to lessen the number of doctors because it will simply no longer be worth it! Go obamacare!!! Relating to the OP, stuff like this is why we are becoming so polarized: other people thniking it's ok to force sacrifice on others, dress it up in noble terms, and then ignore that many of us are in fact no sacrficing but instead sopping from the entitlement trough! I wrote, IMHO, a rather brilliant post where I noted how it's never been about helping the poor but seizing control. The left does not care about poor people because if they did, they would stop persuing programs that just create more poor people. Same thing with healthcare. If the left REALLY wanted to help, then they could simply buy/create their own healthcare insurance company (get Gates, Buffet, Soros, Hollywierd, and others together) and then run it as they see fit: non profit, pay their CEO a buck, use these mythical beaurcracies that supposedly are hyper efficient yet never tested in the real world, etc... Same thing with Obamacare. For much less money and hassle, they could expand coverage by: 1. tort reform (note that Obamacare did nothing for that) 2. allow people to buy across state lines, vastly increasing competition 3. allow people to deduct their premiums whether obtained through their employer (which is current) or privately (which at present is not) 4. a sliding set of tax credits for the truly poor, along with the eliminate of the boondoggle that is Medicaid. Adding to that, remove any federal demands to provide or fund care for illegal immigrants. This would reduce costs and help some better afford coverage, all without hurting anyone else's existing coverage. Instead, we get the costly, overly complex Obamacare that will affect everyone's healthcare in his and Democrat's mad grab for power over your lives. THIS is why we are polarized and why I am disgusted with those who attack the Tea Party whose simple message is one that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN should be able to get behind: "Stop spending so much, stop taxing us so much, leave us alone!" Seriously, this is controversial? Only people who think it's ok for the federal government to run your lives and steal money from producers to buy votes from parasites could think that. |
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 30, 2011 9:34:56 GMT -5
No, the question should be: Why shouldn't they? Aren't we all Americans? Aren't we all in this together? Or is this one of those cases of, "Well hell's bells, I'm wealthy so eff this country. I can always go to the Bahamas" type of mentality going on? They shouldn't if they are not chosing to give their hard earned money to causes or people they disagree with. It's called FREEDOM!!! Many of the wealthy do in fact give extensively to charity yet people like Obama (himself a skinflint who only donated to charity when he started to run for Senate- makes him a liar and hypocrite when he whines that people like him who are blessed should can do with less) would force them at the point of a gun (try not paying your taxes) to give more in order to buy votes. As a nation, we have been generous to a fault both to ourselves and other nations, both privately and through government. Yet, just as it is with the government hunger for revenue, it is simply never enough. SS for the old, orphans, and disabled Medicare for the old Medicaid for the poor Welfare, WIC, foodstamps Freddie and Fannie Mac etc... over and over again we are taxed and that wealth given to others and still they demand more. Give me education, give me healthcare, pay my mortgage and put gas in the tank of my car, etc... How much more must we give? How much more must we steal? Why is it only the rich who must give? Why must poor not sacrifice? |
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 30, 2011 9:38:38 GMT -5
• Businesses learned to target their marketing to like-minded "image tribes," a technique used by Republicans in the 2004 campaign.
Democrats have relied on tribal (more specifically racial) politics for far longer.
Living in politically like-minded groups has had its consequences. People living in homogenous communities grow both more extreme and more certain in their beliefs. Locally, therefore, governments backed by large majorities are tackling every conceivable issue. Nationally, however, Congress has lost most of its moderate members and is mired in conflict.
Interesting. Sounds like a good read. I need to toss it on the stack. Thanks for the recommendation.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680 
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jul 30, 2011 10:03:38 GMT -5
All one has to do is listen to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid talk about lack of a compromise by Republicans.......when they would not even open up the House bill for debate.
Total idiots.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,296
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2011 10:49:26 GMT -5
All one has to do is listen to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid talk about lack of a compromise by Republicans.......when they would not even open up the House bill for debate. Total idiots. will you say the same thing about the GOP leaders when the House follows their lead on Monday? |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 30, 2011 11:36:49 GMT -5
All one has to do is listen to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid talk about lack of a compromise by Republicans.......when they would not even open up the House bill for debate. Total idiots. will you say the same thing about the GOP leaders when the House follows their lead on Monday? ...I would... but, it won't surprise me in the least if it takes about 5mins to "debate" the validity of cutting $1 for every $2 borrowed...  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,296
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2011 12:15:16 GMT -5
will you say the same thing about the GOP leaders when the House follows their lead on Monday? ...I would... but, it won't surprise me in the least if it takes about 5mins to "debate" the validity of cutting $1 for every $2 borrowed... red herring. that is not what is proposed. |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 30, 2011 12:22:20 GMT -5
...I would... but, it won't surprise me in the least if it takes about 5mins to "debate" the validity of cutting $1 for every $2 borrowed... red herring. that is not what is proposed. ...ah, but how would I know? the only summaries released that I've seen so far indicate a 2/1 ratio for increase... so without concrete figures, how do "we" debate it? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,296
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2011 12:26:05 GMT -5
red herring. that is not what is proposed. ...ah, but how would I know? the only summaries released that I've seen so far indicate a 2/1 ratio for increase... so without concrete figures, how do "we" debate it? everything i have read indicates 1/1. see, we are already debating. |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 30, 2011 12:31:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 30, 2011 12:33:19 GMT -5
...no, I should used this one...  ...btw, I'd vote down a 1/1 ratio... so maybe that'll take 5mins on the floor to discuss...  |
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 30, 2011 12:45:42 GMT -5
I think you know as well as I what happens when those two things are out of balance. I don't begrudge doctors making a lot of money, but by most people's standards, $400k per year IS a lot of money. Very few come even close to that kind of money even after a lifetime of career advancement ... and yet they live comfortably. If I started at $400k per year, my family and I would live quite well even if I never saw another raise for 25 years. A lot of people in this country can't really afford health care. They may pay the premiums every month to have it, but they really can't afford it; many other things are being sacrificed to maintain those payments - and those payments keep going up by significant amounts. Therefore, if we're going to make sacrifices, everyone should be making them, and that includes someone making almost half a million per year not getting a 15% raise. If that can help keep health care costs down, that's what should be happening. Just as a point of reference..when one talks about the costs of a medical education and that whay leads up to it, I have a very close friend who's daughtyer wanted to be a Doctor, was unable , by 5 popints ion the national exam, to get into any schools , decuent in the states so had to go to Ireland, Trinity College, Dublin, it was another year over the states of schooling, five vs four..
She graduated this Spring, has been and is working in Ohio, internship, will be a three year plus , one year fellowship, Pediatrics, she is 31, medicine, this year she is earning $50,000 per..but has a debt of a bit over $450,000...
I doubt she will ever earn $400,000 per, I am sure will do well, what ever that is..but to me , she has earned the right to do well, after she pays back her loans, debts..and starts actually earning a income, she will be 35 plus..
That is not made up figures , that's factual..not saying all Medical education cost are that, but hers were..are. |
|
