Eudaimonia & Co: What America Still Doesn’t Understand About Fascism

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Its always wrapped in the reasoning for cutting social programs, that we can't afford it and poor people need to do better to not be poor.  That's whys GOP is saying or doing as much as they can, that's their mo right now.  People makes mistakes and need help, saying make less mistakes and take away help is wrong move, but what republican party is pushing for.

Gotcha.  You are responding to my statement and grouping it in with GOP talking points.  I'd rather you not do that.  I have not advocated for cutting safety nets.  I think you can help people and still admit they made crappy decisions. 

[Kilmer17]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Its always wrapped in the reasoning for cutting social programs, that we can't afford it and poor people need to do better to not be poor.  That's whys GOP is saying or doing as much as they can, that's their mo right now.  People makes mistakes and need help, saying make less mistakes and take away help is wrong move, but what republican party is pushing for.

Are we providing more or less help today than 2 decades ago?  I honetly dont know how to even find that kind of info.

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Gotcha.  You are responding to my statement and grouping it in with GOP talking points.  I'd rather you not do that.  I have not advocated for cutting safety nets.  I think you can help people and still admit they made crappy decisions. 

Fair.  I respect your opinion and all notice GOP is about to have all 3 braches of government and a propaganda machine in fox news

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Are we providing more or less help today than 2 decades ago?  I honetly dont know how to even find that kind of info.

It's not about the socia safety net itself, its the notion that poor people are more lazy because of it.  I don't look at CHIP that way, social security, FAFSA, or even WIC, etc, as "contributing to lack of personal responsibility".  That I don't agree with that at all.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

It's not about the socia safety net itself, its the notion that poor people are more lazy because of it.  I don't look at CHIP that way, social security, FAFSA, or even WIC, etc, as "contributing to lack of personal responsibility".  That I don't agree with that at all.

I dont consider lazy to be the same thing as lack of personal responsibility.

 

 

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I dont consider lazy to be the same thing as lack of personal responsibility.

 

 

Are you walking back your statement on personal responsibility or avoiding it? GOP uses them pretty interchangeably.

[Kilmer17]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Are you walking back your statement on personal responsibility or avoiding it? GOP uses them pretty interchangeably.

No, I think people lack personal responsibility and that puts people in terrible financial positions.  If someone else has claimed that that means they are lazy, I would disagree.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

45 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

It's not about the socia safety net itself, its the notion that poor people are more lazy because of it.  I don't look at CHIP that way, social security, FAFSA, or even WIC, etc, as "contributing to lack of personal responsibility".  That I don't agree with that at all.

I think it is fair to acknowledge SOME poor people are more lazy due to safety nets.  Unfortunately it is impossible to quantify what percentage of them are.

[Renegade7]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think it is fair to acknowledge SOME poor people are more lazy due to safety nets.  Unfortunately it is impossible to quantify what percentage of them are.

Think it depends on the safety net, personal experience and all (laziness is not quantitative).  CHIP, Medicaid, social security, WIC, even unemployment due to layoffs, I can think of others that are designed to keep from the bottom falling out from under us.  Social safety net is such a broad term, but I'm not a fan of section 8 housing as its typically clustered in a way that normalizes generational poverty.  That's about as far as I'm willing to go, you gotta live it to see it.  

 

@Kilmer17 is right that laziness doesn't equal lack of personal responsibility.  But I don't think asking for help is a sign of lack of personal responsibility.  Nobody likes a welfare queen, at same time the one program id like to see more of is government assistance for childcare.  I feel more open to this conversation then, even a work requirement , if were gonna make sure the parent can afford childcare (because its expensive AF for middle class people, too)  

 

Also, in some cases welfare pays more then minimum wage.  Like its really hard to have this conversation about who shouldn't or shouldnt be in welfare when you look at it from the perspective :

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/09/16/is-welfare-the-highest-paying-entry-level-job-in-35-states-read-the-study-again/

 

Quote

Among the main findings, using 2013 data:

• The biggest welfare package was in Hawaii, at $49,175. (Hawaii’s data may be distorted because of the high cost of living, researchers wrote.) The lowest was in Mississippi, at $16,984.
• Welfare paid more than the average pre-tax first year wage for a teacher in 11 states, more than the starting wage for a secretary in 39 states, and more take-home money than an entry-level computer programmer in the three most generous states.
•  
• The pre-tax wage equivalent for welfare recipients exceeded the median salary in the state in eight states. (That is far from 35 states.)
•  
• In 35 states, welfare paid more than a minimum wage job, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and paid more than $15 per hour in 13 state. (This appears to be the misconstrued point in the latest viral claims.)

 

Something is seriously wrong here, and I don't believe its rooted in laziness or lack of personal responsibility of the poor.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Is there really any debate that there is 10x more **** to spend money on now? So, I think it can both be a tougher environment to save money AND a bad job by those who can't afford it. 

 

Half-a-century ago, what were people buying the way we buy $700 mobile phones, data plans, Alexas, TVs, video game consoles, etc.? We also replace this stuff every couple of years while our grandparents and even our parents had the same big-ass TV for a decade in many cases. My parents still have the same 3-4 landline phones in their home that I used growing up. Before I killed my landline, I had probably replaced our phones 2-3 times in less than a decade in the house. 

 

We have just evolved into more of a spend-happy society. And, rather than run something into the ground, fix it ourselves, or get it repaired....we replace things so much more quickly than we used to. I just upgraded my iPhone 6s to an iPhone 8. Even that's pretty far behind the curve...but I felt dumb doing it since the features are all about the same and nothing was "wrong" with my 6s. 

[twa]

2 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

I dont consider lazy to be the same thing as lack of personal responsibility.

 

 

 

Me either, I'm the laziest person I know....but I take responsibility for me and mine.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Is there really any debate that there is 10x more **** to spend money on now? So, I think it can both be a tougher environment to save money AND a bad job by those who can't afford it. 

 

Half-a-century ago, what were people buying the way we buy $700 mobile phones, data plans, Alexas, TVs, video game consoles, etc.? We also replace this stuff every couple of years while our grandparents and even our parents had the same big-ass TV for a decade in many cases. My parents still have the same 3-4 landline phones in their home that I used growing up. Before I killed my landline, I had probably replaced our phones 2-3 times in less than a decade in the house. 

 

We have just evolved into more of a spend-happy society. And, rather than run something into the ground, fix it ourselves, or get it repaired....we replace things so much more quickly than we used to. I just upgraded my iPhone 6s to an iPhone 8. Even that's pretty far behind the curve...but I felt dumb doing it since the features are all about the same and nothing was "wrong" with my 6s. 

 

Same things.  Just different ways.  Movies (movie attendance is down), newspapers, music (vinyl, 8-track, cassette, etc), most things were much less energy effeceint.   You also aren't taking into account inflation.  In 1968, an 8 track cost you $53.96 in today's dollars.  If you bought 15 8 track albums, you've paid for your phone and then some and my parents had a pretty extensive collection of 8 tracks when I was young.

 

"A fool and his money are soon parted." isn't a new saying for a reason and neither is "There's a sucker born every minute".

 

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Same things.  Just different ways.  Movies (movie attendance is down), newspapers, music (vinyl, 8-track, cassette, etc), most things were much less energy effeceint.   You also aren't taking into account inflation.  In 1968, an 8 track cost you $53.96 in today's dollars.  If you bought 15 8 track albums, you've paid for your phone and then some and my parents had a pretty extensive collection of 8 tracks when I was young.

 

"A fool and his money are soon parted." isn't a new saying for a reason and neither is "There's a sucker born every minute".

 

 

 

I'd love to see numbers on how much was spent 50 years ago per household on "non-essentials" vs. today. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it just seems like my anecdotal evidence vs. yours. 

 

Also, if the cost of things is increasing faster than compensation, even if we're buying the same amount we are spending more. At some point, they knew that they could only afford x of something (8-tracks, trips to the movies, papers, etc.). If it's more expensive now, shouldn't we all understand that we should buy fewer of them (streaming services, TVs, etc.)? 

[Renegade7]

Y'all are rediculous.

 

I just got a note 9 after four years with my note 4, extra $20 a month on my bill.  I don't even pay that much for Netflix.  Does anyone in here really believe that buying a tv is having that much of an effect on so few people having anything in saving?  Mine was $300 and done, the article number that's been posted is $400 in emergency funds.

 

  Buying power has collapsed in this country, Jesus, jus look at the cost of child care, like y'all never heard the phrase "working poor", that's basically what much of  the middle class is now.  Too much to get federal help, not enough to pay bills and save effectively as needed.

 

@BenningRoadSkin sorry for helping to derail your thread, but this is really starting to piss me off.

[zoony]

17 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Y'all are rediculous.

 

I just got a note 9 after four years with my note 4, extra $20 a month on my bill.  I don't even pay that much for Netflix.  Does anyone in here really believe that buying a tv is having that much of an effect on so few people having anything in saving?  Mine was $300 and done, the article number that's been posted is $400 in emergency funds.

 

  Buying power has collapsed in this country, Jesus, jus look at the cost of child care, like y'all never heard the phrase "working poor", that's basically what much of  the middle class is now.  Too much to get federal help, not enough to pay bills and save effectively as needed.

 

@BenningRoadSkin sorry for helping to derail your thread, but this is really starting to piss me off.

 

I think, as with most things, it is both.  All of what you say is true Im sure.  It is also true that there are probably over 200 million americans who live way beyond their menas.  My guess is that less than 5 percent of americans make responsible, informed financial decisions.  Talk to anyone who has ever sold cars for a living... those predators farve out a living by putting people in cars they cant afford.  Thats literally their entire business model.  Billions upon billions of dollars annually...

[Fresh8686]

People can argue back and forth about this all day long, but regardless of what ratio is from income inequality versus personal responsibility, the fact is it's a mix and both need to be accounted for when crafting policy. However, when that is the case, both groups **** it up in different ways, because they don't know which of those two sides should be the priority of focus within the correct context.

Personal responsibility should be the primary focus when crafting the mechanisms of related policy that deals with protecting against the abuse of social programs. Income inequality and the other very real barriers to getting out of poverty/scarcity need to be the focus when crafting the programs themselves and discussing the extent and range/reach of the programs aid.

The problem is, "personal responsibility" people rarely move from that focus and use it as the reason for reducing or repealing programs rather than using it as an impetus for anti-abuse. To a lesser degree in my opinion, some "social inequality" people are reluctant for anti-abuse criteria or see iterations of it as an undue burden. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

49 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Y'all are rediculous.

 

I just got a note 9 after four years with my note 4, extra $20 a month on my bill.  I don't even pay that much for Netflix.  Does anyone in here really believe that buying a tv is having that much of an effect on so few people having anything in saving?  Mine was $300 and done, the article number that's been posted is $400 in emergency funds.

 

  Buying power has collapsed in this country, Jesus, jus look at the cost of child care, like y'all never heard the phrase "working poor", that's basically what much of  the middle class is now.  Too much to get federal help, not enough to pay bills and save effectively as needed.

 

@BenningRoadSkin sorry for helping to derail your thread, but this is really starting to piss me off.

It’s okay. I’m realizing this forum has a lot

of millionaires and billionaires

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

I think, as with most things, it is both.  All of what you say is true Im sure.  It is also true that there are probably over 200 million americans who live way beyond their menas.  My guess is that less than 5 percent of americans make responsible, informed financial decisions.  Talk to anyone who has ever sold cars for a living... those predators farve out a living by putting people in cars they cant afford.  Thats literally their entire business model.  Billions upon billions of dollars annually...

 

Ya, I've been on the ass end of a used car dealership before, but I was between a rock and a hard place.  My car had died and I had my then gf and her kid staying in my place. I'd say its more then 5% (but can't tell if you mean all the time, some of the time, or ever), but I wish this conversation was steered more towards the truth:  most Americans don't know the intricacies of money management because I believe our government and private sector don't want that. 

 

It's a consumer driven economy and they'd rather us be in debt for better control and keep the money flowing  Its not that people are stupid about buying cars, its that they are ignorant and the system is geared towards taking advantage of that instead if fixing it.  If corporate America really cared about our ability to save, they wouldn't of replaced pensions with 401ks, that was meant to be supplemental along with social security, were supposed to have all three.

 

Don't get me wrong, I know plenty of people that just don't want to save, but what I find myself and others in is situations where I am saving and something happens and that money is gone.  That's why I got that car I started this post with instead of another beaner, the cost of keeping my car on the road was straight killing me, two jobs or not. I tell people to treat it like a bill, even if its $20 a check.  But like I've said before, being broke us expensive. 

 

I think you right that a huge chunk of our country is living beyond their means.  I'll say that the reasons for that are more complicated then we've really drilled into.  In NOVA, the housing prices are rediculous but cheaper places in a lot of cases have max incomes.  You cant have dual incomes in a place well within their means, otherwise poor people will ass out looking for a place to live.  My parents went through that repeatedly while I was growing up, and if one of them got sick (like my mom was diagnosed with MS) or either of my parents lost their job, single income want enough to keep it afloat and we had to move.

 

Like I keep saying, we cant look at the student loan debt crises and ask why my generation is having trouble saving, buying a house, or starting a family, the answer is obvious yet we are doing nothing about it.

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

It’s okay. I’m realizing this forum has a lot

of millionaires and billionaires

I'd love to see the stats on savings for lower and middle class republicans or conservatives.  I bet its not much better then democrats or liberals, this is systemic, limiting the impact of positive individual decision making.  I know I was as smart as I could be with my money in my 20s, had to to survive.  Me not having any reasonable savings was not because I didn't take personal responsibility or a terrible financial planner.  In order to manage money, you need money.  Not complicated. 

[Renegade7]

Look when I come into these debates, I try to come at via multiple perspectives, especially my own.  It's really hard for me to co-sign to personal responsibility being such a dominant factor in saving money because I tried that, I really did, and it didn't work.  I had to make more.

[Bozo the kKklown]

40 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

It's a consumer driven economy and they'd rather us be in debt for better control and keep the money flowing  Its not that people are stupid about buying cars, its that they are ignorant and the system is geared towards taking advantage of that instead if fixing it.  If corporate America really cared about our ability to save, they wouldn't of replaced pensions with 401ks, that was meant to be supplemental along with social security, were supposed to have all three.

Exactly

 

And I had a similar experience with a used car as well.

[PeterMP]

15 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I'd love to see numbers on how much was spent 50 years ago per household on "non-essentials" vs. today. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it just seems like my anecdotal evidence vs. yours. 

 

Also, if the cost of things is increasing faster than compensation, even if we're buying the same amount we are spending more. At some point, they knew that they could only afford x of something (8-tracks, trips to the movies, papers, etc.). If it's more expensive now, shouldn't we all understand that we should buy fewer of them (streaming services, TVs, etc.)? 

 

Okay, my evidence isn't really anecdotal.  I can't find a break down the way you want, but we can reasonably find that there are important costs that have traditionally associated with the middle class that have gone up, which would explain why more people are living pay check to pay without arguing that people are just spending more on junk with no evidence.

 

We know that home prices have risen even when adjusted for inflation (even with the pop of the bubble), health cares costs are going up faster than inflation, and while I guess a college education isn't essential, it is generally pretty important, and those costs are going up faster than inflation.

 

We have 3 big costs that have historically been an important part of being in the middle class in the US that are going up faster than inflation.  And those 3 things just didn't go up faster than inflation for a few years, but they have been doing so for decades now.  Add in wages have essentially been flat.  It isn't surprising that more people are living pay check to pay check without starting to argue that they are wasting more money, buying more junk, have less personal responsibility, or worse at making financial decisions than previous decades when there is no evidence to support that.

 

14 hours ago, zoony said:

 

I think, as with most things, it is both.  All of what you say is true Im sure.  It is also true that there are probably over 200 million americans who live way beyond their menas.  My guess is that less than 5 percent of americans make responsible, informed financial decisions.  Talk to anyone who has ever sold cars for a living... those predators farve out a living by putting people in cars they cant afford.  Thats literally their entire business model.  Billions upon billions of dollars annually...

 

Nobody is claiming that people are good at making financial decisions.  Car sales men (and sales people in general) have for a long time preyed on people making bad decisions when buying cars.  That isn't anything new.

 

However, what is new is the middle class being squeezed more and more.

[Fresh8686]

If a person beats the drum of “personal responsibility” but never spends any time and attention talking about and building shared responsibility then they aren’t really about responsibility at all. They’re really just using responsibility as a guise/excuse for being free from the burden of others to as much a degree as they can be. And that’s really not responsible at all, it’s selfish. 

 

We have a lot of people like that in this world who want to pull up the ladder they climbed up on - that was made with the help of others - and just say middle finger to the rest of the people who were coming up behind them. People who don’t want to even entertain the possibility that we have an impact on the environment around us, the economy around us, and the society around us, and have a shared responsibility to leave it better than when we found it. 

 

You don't get points for that kind of “personal responsibility”. That’s parasite **** too, even if it’s a different flavor from the stereotypical "welfare queen" people from that end of the spectrum sometimes like to focus on. 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

15 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

It’s okay. I’m realizing this forum has a lot

of millionaires and billionaires

 

I don't understand that remark (I know you're just being funny but still). 

 

I can observe that most of the people in this country buy a ****-ton of stuff they don't need. I can do so without claiming I am perfect or haven't done it myself. Just because I believe something doesn't mean I'm not lumping myself into the same category. 

 

I'm MUCH more free-spending than my parents were, who are much free-spending than theirs were. That's a concrete fact regardless of anyone's assertions that 1960s newspapers = 2010s iPads. That' doesn't mean that I'm the norm and I would really like to see stats on it. But my ASSUMPTION is that we as a society spend a higher percentage of our disposable income that previous generations. 

 

Edit: If I had to summarize my point, it's that I think the current society is much more free-spending. I also don't disagree that it's probably a much tougher environment in which to get ahead. So, with thinner margins and a more aggressive spending behavior, you have people who can't make ends meet. 

 

Just as there are plenty of people who would struggle no matter how frugal, there are plenty of people who should be just fine but overspend on stuff they don't need. 

[PeterMP]

This seemed like a good fit here:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/opinion/columnists/great-recession-economy-gdp.html

 

I do think it is a bit misguided on the unemployment front.  What they say about the unemployment is true about the U3, but there are other measures of unemployment (e.g. U6).  By any measure, over all unemployment is low.  It is true that white male unemployment has been going up, but over all it is pretty far down.