Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Seraph]

An analogy would be two people trying to cross a river, one says they should build a raft and the other says build a bridge. The bridge plan is attempted, but the raft-man saws through the struts so the bridge collapses.

I'd say, what matters is that we get across the river safely and securely. Maybe a raft will do it. But maybe the bridge will too.

But look at it from the raftsman's point of view:
He's a shepherd, and there was a pack of wolves on the other side of the river that was disturbing his flock but was kept at bay to a good degree by the natural barrier the river provides. Now his neighbor came along and said "We're going to deal with the wolves, will you help?". The raftman agrees, and the neighbor then announces that wolf related tourism is important, so they're going to build a bridge to make it easier to get to the wolves. The raftman then compains that'll just make it easier for the wolves to eat his sheep, at which point the neighbor says "but you agreed to do something about the wolf problem" never actually realizing that what he thought of as the "wolf problem" is totally different then what the raftman thought of as the "wolf problem".

[Neruz]

See? My initial statement was accurate.

[Leafsnail]

Well, the other problem is that raising taxes in one states but not in the others will drive richer people away.  Thus any individual state enacting it would lose out.  It's the same as cutting pollution - if it's only you doing it, you suffer, but if everyone's doing it at the same time you'll see benefits.  I suppose you COULD try and get the states to agree to all enact it simultaneously... but how?  If you insist that the federal government do nothing, America is totally fucked on a whole range of issues.

Only if you work for someone else all your life...  The American Dream by definition is being able to create your own business, make money, and be successful.  Working for someone else is supposed to be a stopgap and a way to get experience.  The A.D. has nothing to do with time, resources, land grabs and all the crap you spouted.  It's about a single person being able to make success in life without having to rely on someone else for help.

Get back to me when you've made a successful business without anyone else working for you :/.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Good point. And when the country was expanding, and you could strike it rich in minerals or oil or pelts or just buying land for pennies, I'm sure the American Dream seemed feasible.

Now you have to strive for a Curtailed American Dream, which is "if I work really hard all my life, and don't get sick or injured, and nothing bad happens to my family either, then I might be able to retire to an efficiency apartment at 70 and then into a reasonably priced nursing home".

Only if you work for someone else all your life...  The American Dream by definition is being able to create your own business, make money, and be successful.  Working for someone else is supposed to be a stopgap and a way to get experience.  The A.D. has nothing to do with time, resources, land grabs and all the crap you spouted.  It's about a single person being able to make success in life without having to rely on someone else for help.

That suggests that, despite all evidence to the contrary, any person can succeed if they just work hard enough. It turns lack of success into a moral failure. Blaming the victim and all that.

An analogy would be two people trying to cross a river, one says they should build a raft and the other says build a bridge. The bridge plan is attempted, but the raft-man saws through the struts so the bridge collapses.

I'd say, what matters is that we get across the river safely and securely. Maybe a raft will do it. But maybe the bridge will too.

But look at it from the raftsman's point of view:
He's a shepherd, and there was a pack of wolves on the other side of the river that was disturbing his flock but was kept at bay to a good degree by the natural barrier the river provides. Now his neighbor came along and said "We're going to deal with the wolves, will you help?". The raftman agrees, and the neighbor then announces that wolf related tourism is important, so they're going to build a bridge to make it easier to get to the wolves. The raftman then compains that'll just make it easier for the wolves to eat his sheep, at which point the neighbor says "but you agreed to do something about the wolf problem" never actually realizing that what he thought of as the "wolf problem" is totally different then what the raftman thought of as the "wolf problem".

You are injecting a lot of side junk and making it confusing. The point was that the Conservative is willing to sabotage a plan that MAY work, forcing it to fail. He doesn't care about the success of his country, he cares about things being done exactly his way. Which is petty and, one might argue, treasonous.

[Aqizzar]

It's about a single person being able to make success in life without having to rely on someone else for help.

You keep saying that like you think it's a realistic option for most people.  "Able to make success if life" means "able", not "will", and most people can't even afford to try to start a business.  A good third or so fail in the first five years, and are the businesses most susceptible to recessions like right now.

That suggests that, despite all evidence to the contrary, any person can succeed if they just work hard enough. It turns lack of success into a moral failure. Blaming the victim and all that.

That's pretty much what I'm hearing.  It's the 18th century all over again - if you're poor, it's because you're a bad person and a drain on society.

[Andir]

Get back to me when you've made a successful business without anyone else working for you :/.

That's not what I meant and you know it.

That suggests that, despite all evidence to the contrary, any person can succeed if they just work hard enough. It turns lack of success into a moral failure. Blaming the victim and all that.

Hardly.  You can form a business by coming up with something new and productive.  Forming a business isn't overly "difficult" but picking he right type of business might be a chore... you can also do some research, invest into an upcoming company and make money that way as well.  Hell, I have a friend that lived for 5 years trading stocks alone.  I wouldn't call it "hard work."  You can also get an education and get out of the auto line where you insert the same bolt for 8 hours a day.

You keep saying that like you think it's a realistic option for most people.  "Able to make success if life" means "able", not "will", and most people can't even afford to try to start a business.  A good third or so fail in the first five years, and are the businesses most susceptible to recessions like right now.

I only said it once... and I never said "will" but I surely did use "able."

[Aqizzar]

Get back to me when you've made a successful business without anyone else working for you :/.

That's not what I meant and you know it.

Not as such no, but it's not much more realistic.  "...without having to rely on someone else for help." is a horribly unrealistic assessment of starting a business, unless you're already independently wealthy enough that you wouldn't have to work anyway.  Every business relies on investors to start with, friends and family being the most common for small businesses.  The very fact that small-business loans exist apart from ordinary loans is that mean old government stepping in to make it easier for you to get money to start.

[Andir]

Not as such no, but it's not much more realistic.  "...without having to rely on someone else for help." is a horribly unrealistic assessment of starting a business, unless you're already independently wealthy enough that you wouldn't have to work anyway.  Every business relies on investors to start with, friends and family being the most common for small businesses.  The very fact that small-business loans exist apart from ordinary loans is that mean old government stepping in to make it easier for you to get money to start.

And still more assumptions... Anyone can start a business without massive loans.  Are you assuming that I'm saying that anyone can start up the next General Motors?  Businesses do not all require massive capital and footprints to be a success.

[Neruz]

There's also teh fact that it's blatantly not feasible for every man, woman and child in the country to own and operate their own buisness. In fact buisness owners will always be a small minority; the vast majority of the population will always be working for other people.

[Aqizzar]

And still more assumptions... Anyone can start a business without massive loans.

Good to hear advice from someone who clearly has never attempted what they're advocating.  You're a credit to your philosophy, really.

Okay, I'll be a little less pretensions.  Most people who start "small businesses" are not really in business for themselves, any more than any other worker.  Most "small businesses" are independent contractors, effectively a company of one person, who hires out their service on a semi-permanent basis to an established company that doesn't feel like keeping an internal staff to do the job.  Ironically they're the people in most need of a government provided health-care system (to return to the thread's point), because they don't have employer-provided health-care because they don't have a risk-pool to buy it with.

[G-Flex]

The fact is that, no matter what, you're always relying on someone else. If you own a business, you rely on your employees and customers. And no matter where you fit into the economy, you rely on the economy itself, which cannot be composed solely of business owners and high earners. The low-paying jobs are still jobs that must be done, are they not?

[Neruz]

Indeed; it's simply not possible to run an entire buisness all by yourself and expect to get anywhere. At some point you're going to need somone to do some drudge work.


How well do you think Walmart would work if nobody stacked the shelves or staffed the cashiers?

[G-Flex]

Even if you could, you're still relying on several sectors of the economy who are not you. You have your customers, the people who deliver and produce the goods, the guy who sold you the land, etc.

[Andir]

And still more assumptions... Anyone can start a business without massive loans.

Good to hear advice from someone who clearly has never attempted what they're advocating.  You're a credit to your philosophy, really.

Okay, I'll be a little less pretensions.  Most people who start "small businesses" are not really in business for themselves, any more than any other worker.  Most "small businesses" are independent contractors, effectively a company of one person, who hires out their service on a semi-permanent basis to an established company that doesn't feel like keeping an internal staff to do the job.  Ironically they're the people in most need of a government provided health-care system (to return to the thread's point), because they don't have employer-provided health-care because they don't have a risk-pool to buy it with.

Because everyone that believes that something can happen has obviously tried it.

But seriously,  the American Dream (AD) isn't really something you can define.  There's the goal in mind that you make your own decisions, support your family, raise your kids well and the more you can do yourself, the closer you are to being part of the AD.  It's more of an individualism goal.  Being capable of making it in life without relying on the government to pay for things or "stack the deck" so to speak.  Generally the individuality of it.  Writers have written about rugged individualism in a similar manner.  Going at it on your own and being successful at your own goals.  Failing to do that doesn't make you a drain on society or as someone put it, a moral failure unless your morals are so jacked up that you could never succeed.  There are people that don't strive for that.  They are the same ones that would rather live day to day, feeding off other people and doing as little as possible in order to continue doing whatever it is they want to do.  These are the same ones screaming that they are entitled to this or that and that the government is here to make their life better instead of doing something for themselves.

You guys are thinking on the macro level... the AD doesn't fit that and you are trying to put the square peg in the round hole, per say.

You are also being asinine in making the assumption that I said someone can run an entire business on their own.

[Aqizzar]

Going at it on your own and being successful at your own goals.  Failing to do that doesn't make you a drain on society or as someone put it, a moral failure unless your morals are so jacked up that you could never succeed.  There are people that don't strive for that.  They are the same ones that would rather live day to day, feeding off other people and doing as little as possible in order to continue doing whatever it is they want to do.  These are the same ones screaming that they are entitled to this or that and that the government is here to make their life better instead of doing something for themselves.

There you go doing it again.  Making appeals to emotion and emotional judgments - that if you aren't out there trying to start your own business or otherwise not live "day to day", whatever the Hell that means, then you're a lazy sack who doesn't deserve any consideration.  You are blaming the disadvantaged for being disadvantaged.  Not everyone who can't afford health care got that way because they were too shiftless to make enough money to pay for it themselves.

Basically, forget "The American Dream" altogether.  It's a bunch of romantic nonsense cooked up by exceptionalist boosters for another time and age, and was myopic bullcrap then too.  The world is not that fucking simple, and you need to stop pretending it is, or that you can make it that simple by insulting people who weren't clever enough to not be rendered poor by circumstances they could never control.