Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dezi

TP’s family telling Trump to go to hell

Recommended Posts

Just a snippet of a lyric in Bus To Tampa Bay

There's a map of Osceola and his Raiders
Fighting off the Everglades Invaders
He burnt them down, he left them for the gators
And there's maybe something better down the road
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, martin03345 said:

May the souls you're generation sent to die in illegal wars like Iraq and Afghanistan haunt you forever.

A little help for you, you apparently meant "your generation".   As to the Iraq war (the one that started in 2003), there was a vote held in October of 2002 to effectively authorize that war.  I had never written to a politician in my life before then.  I e-mailed my US representative and both US senators, imploring them to vote against the resolution.  I did not trust George W. Bush and I especially did not trust the Neocons around him, as I felt he was essentially an amiable dupe who was easily manipulated.  At the time, the resolution was sold as "strengthening Bush's hand" to deal with Saddam.  I didn't believe it.  I felt that once Bush was given the green light for war, there would be war.  I had studied the views of the Neocons and they made me sick, they still do.  I received replies in the US mail from all 3 members of Congress that I e-mailed.  These were no doubt form letters, but I still appreciated that they replied.  My votes in the next election were such that I supported those who voted against the resolution, and against those who voted for it.  My hands are clean on Iraq.  Afghanistan was a different case as they harbored Osama Bin Laden. 

5 hours ago, martin03345 said:

 And may the economic disaster your generation bring destroy your 401k right before you're about to slip into retirement. It may not take you but it'll take your friends. It's on your hands and conscience, not ours. We have only just begun our struggle to have a voice in the government that represents the few like you and the many like us. And may that same ill be wished upon us when we over stay our welcome.

You certainly have a lot of bitterness directed at a large number of people.  It's interesting that you view the generations as monoliths that all think and act identically.  It's interesting that you would affix both beliefs and credit or blame to an entire generation.  What it reveals to me is that your political beliefs are much like a religion to you, and that you assume everyone else is the same in that regard.  You assume that someone from one generation MUST hold a certain belief, because they are part of that generation.  Perhaps you believe in that type of enforced orthodoxy for your generation, and you can't imagine anyone varying from it.  I am still in touch with many people who were in the same grade school class as myself, and believe it or not we can have vastly different views.  Perhaps the only "generational" agreement that I can see, is that virtually everyone in my generation believes in free speech and keeping an open mind, to not be afraid of hearing the opinions of others, and to think for yourself - adjusting for your own experiences and observations along the way.  I would like to think that every generation should keep that belief, but clearly the propagandists for your generation are telling people to close off your minds, you've already learned all that you need to know.  That's not helpful to you or to society.  Teaching you to hate entire generations for the crime of being older than yourself, is not helpful to you either.  Making you believe that each generation is monolithic in its beliefs is also not helpful to you.

You don't sound like an entirely stupid person, though you also don't sound particularly smart.  However, I believe that you are smart enough that your experiences will eventually change many of the beliefs you hold now.  You will wonder how you could have felt so sure of yourself back then, but that's the way of nearly everyone.  You sound like the type of person who is told to "believe the science", but then you trust someone else to analyze the data, rather than wanting to see the data for yourself.  That makes you an easy mark for propagandists.   Eventually real life experiences and your own analysis will challenge and end your adherence to the orthodoxies you've been taught.  Unless you aren't smart enough or independent minded enough to do that, but I'd like to think that any Tom Petty fan is capable of it.  

4 hours ago, martin03345 said:

Finally on my education: when it came to economics, my professors were all apolitical. But the fact you swear to the dogma that is everything must be free market shows you truly don't know how to be flexible

Economics teachers aren't usually political.  The political orthodoxy comes from other teachers and professors from other fields, who think they grasp Economics even though their field is English or Biology or whatever.  They can't help themselves, they want to indoctrinate others into their views and only their views.  It's similar to musicians like Tom Morello thinking that they can preach to the masses on the Economics of "fairness", when they truly haven't a clue beyond their own field of expertise.

The free market is not the answer to everything, nor have I said this.  There is need for government regulation for things such as pollution standards, worker safety standards, food/health inspections, etc.  There is need for common infrastructure such as interstate highways.  I would further say there is a need for employees becoming informed of the various rates of pay, and an ability to transfer their skills easily from one employer to another - perhaps both of these could be facilitated by government databases, accessed through the internet.  There is the need for enforcement of contracts, including patent rights.  But in most cases the free market with these exceptions will deliver the best results for employers, consumers, and workers.  

  

7 hours ago, martin03345 said:

That brings us to a more moral question: is it moral to raise money on the lives and health of others? Most people would say no.

You seem to think that there is a "morality" on which everyone agrees.  "Morality" is for the most part an individual decision, though there are certainly groups that will try to impose their versions of "morality" on you.  Regarding the "morality" of health care, yes as I've noted earlier it's quite moral for a profit seeking company to improve people's lives via a health care innovation.  I would also wonder if you consider grocery stores to be "immoral".  After all, if someone doesn't get food, they will starve.  Shouldn't all food just be raised and distributed by the government, as public handouts?  Is it truly "moral" to make a profit on the backs of those who would otherwise starve?  Grocery stores are immoral! You could go on and on with that type of "moral logic".  I'm pretty sure we know where that leads.  Whether you spell it with a P or an M.      

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, martin03345 said:

And no, wages have not kept up with inflation. Just because they've gone up, doesn't mean they've gone up at the rate to which the dollar is valued. And no, most economists aren't a secret cabal of left leaning commies, they tend to be more conservative as well.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

That claim regarding real wages not increasing for 40 years is a complete crock. It's flawed in so many ways.  For one thing it treats part time workers the same as full time.  For another, it doesn't adjust for non-wage benefits such as company provided health insurance (or in some cases, government provided health care), paid vacation time, and company provided IRA contributions.   But the main flaw is that it vastly overstates inflation, and on top of that it doesn't adjust for the higher quality and desirability of today's goods.   No one would want to go back and purchase goods from 40 years ago, so the CPI "basket of goods" is a poor way to measure inflation to start with.  

The claim from that article is that CPI has risen 3.62 times in 40 years, and that by using this as a "real wage" adjustment, median wages have risen only 4.6%.  Again, that calculation doesn't adjust for part-time workers or for the vast increase in immigrant workers, who on average lack high levels of education, and often lack adequate English-language skills.  Which is not a knock on immigrants, and they are obviously making a lot more in the USA than they could in their countries of origin, but you aren't comparing apples to apples in terms of the ability to earn wages, then vs. now.      

The CPI is a government measure based on a "basket of goods".   But people don't buy the same goods now as they did 40 years ago.  Also, the choices of goods in the basket are flawed.  One part of the basket is "education".  College costs have soared over the decades:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/average-cost-college-jumped-incredible-122000732.html

Yet the average worker does not have a college degree, so should these vast increases in college costs be related as a cost that the average worker doesn't have?  Furthermore, college costs are calculated at the "full freight" charge, when many students, especially from poorer families, get large subsidies and even full scholarships. 

Then there's health care as part of the CPI.  Health care costs have soared even more than college tuition, but the CPI uses the calculation of the non-insured pricing, which very few people actually play.  Additionally, health insurance is often provided without being noted as part of a worker's "wages".  So why should CPI measure something as a "cost of living" when most workers are not paying this from their "wages"?  And of course with ACA and Medicaid for all, it's even more ridiculous to use this in the "cost of living".  On top of all that, healthcare today is much better than it was 40 years ago, but there's no adjustment in terms of quality of care.  Many cancers for example are now treatable vs. 40 years ago, hip replacements and stents didn't really exist 40 years ago, etc.  Bottom line, "health care costs" and "health care wage benefits" are not at all accurately reflected in the calculations, but they skew the CPI much higher than it should be.

Then there's the "transportation" component.  Cars on average cost a lot more today than 40 years, but you can't compare a car made 40 years ago with one made today.  Today's cars get better gas milage, they last much longer, they have far more functionality, luxury, and safety features, etc.  Those factors are not adjusted in the CPI calculation.  Also, many people are choosing not to own a car today.  They might lease, rent, take Uber, use the internet instead of driving to a store, etc.  The CPI does not adjust for lifestyle changes.

Likewise, in the "entertainment" component, they don't accurately adjust for the fact that TV's today are bigger and better for less money than 40 years ago, that personal computers are vastly better and vastly cheaper than 40 years ago, that home appliances are better without rising much in cost vs. 40 years ago, etc.

Let's look at the TPATH album Hard Promises which famously retailed for $8.98 even though the record companies wanted to make it $9.98.  That was roughly 40 years ago.   Today on Amazon you can buy the Hard Promises CD for $11.59 (1.29 times as much as 40 years ago) - CDs weren't even available 40 years ago, but they are arguably "better" (more precise, more durable, more compact, doesn't have to be flipped over, can play in a car or be ripped to digital storage) than vinyl LP's.  But if you insist on comparing the vinyl to the vinyl, that's currently $20.69 on Amazon, or 2.3 times as much as 40 years ago.   Realize though that Amazon will deliver this to your door; you don't have to spend your time, gasoline, wear and tear on your vehicle, etc. in shopping the record stores to find what you want, as was the case 40 years ago.  

If you use the CD for vinyl calculation on Hard Promises (unadjusted for convenience, which is all in favor of today), then $232 in "wages" from 40 years ago would become $299 in wages today, as compared with the stated $879 in wages as of the Pew Research article you linked.  That's nearly a 3-fold increase in buying power, now vs then.  Or if you prefer to compare the vinyl to vinyl (again not adjusting for "free" delivery now), you get a 65% increase in median buying power over the past 40 years.  That's even with the very flawed calculations that exclude non-wage benefits as previously stated.  

What should be obvious to anyone who lived 40 years ago (and was in a position to notice the world around them at that point), Americans have a much higher standard of living now vs. then.  It's a complete left-wing myth that "real wages" have stagnated.  That's simply not reality.  Productivity and innovation have brought people much higher standards of living today, when compared to the same hours worked and the same educational levels or levels of expertise.  There's absolutely no question about that.  

 

          

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

You don't sound like an entirely stupid person, though you also don't sound particularly smart.

Oh for shame. The SameOldDrew, you can be better than that.  

How's that way of communicating with people working out for you?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Big Blue Sky said:
23 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

You don't sound like an entirely stupid person, though you also don't sound particularly smart.

Oh for shame. The SameOldDrew, you can be better than that.  

How's that way of communicating with people working out for you

Did you see what he wrote about me?  Relentless insults, frequent impugning of both my intelligence and character.   He harbored - and unleashed here - a great deal of personal and apparently "generational" bitterness on top of that.  What I gave back to him was very slight in comparison. 

And let's face it, he's just not very smart.  Go back and read his text if you need further confirmation of that.   But he's also not entirely stupid, so I feel I made the correct call there.  

Why don't you ask him how his way of communicating is working for him?  Oh that's right, because you don't apply the same posting standards to those with whom you share a political view, as you apply to people with whom you disagree.  After all, you were the one constantly asking one side not to post their political views here, while ignoring the people who posted political views you agreed with.  How's are those double standards working for you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...