The Demands of Occupy Wall Street

[WinePusher]

People at occupy wall street have released unofficial lists of demands here and there. There are apparently many out there and they don't seem to correspond to eachtother, but here's one unofficial list of demands:

-Demand 1: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending Freetrade by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
-Demand 2: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
-Demand 3: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
-Demand 4: Free college education.
-Demand 5: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
-Demand 6: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
-Demand 7: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of Americas nuclear power plants.
-Demand 8: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
-Demand 9: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
-Demand 10: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
-Demand 11: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the Books. World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the Books. And I dont mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
-Demand 12: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
-Demand 13: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

http://toddkinsey.com/blog/2011/10/08/o ... f-demands/

1) What do you make of these demands? Are they reasonable or unreasonable?
2) In a list of demands seperate from this list, OWS protestors have expressed disapproval towards the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commision. Do you agree or disagree with the ruling?
3) Although absent from the list of demands, OWS have expressed disdainment towards what they percieve to be a growing gap between the top 1% of society and the remaining 99% of society. What is the truth regarding wealth and income inequality?

[JohnPaul]

This is a false dichotomy. Your argument is (correct me if Im wrong) that if political speech by corporations is restricted, then we could no longer tax and prosecute corporations. Theres no reason why we (the people) shouldnt be able to do all of the above (limit political contributions, tax, and hold corporations legally liable.)

Actually that's not why. I'm in favor of the Citizens United ruling because of the issue of free political speech, as I already explained in detail. My argument here is to show the absurdity in the uninformed opinions of the wall street protestors because by stripping corporations of the right to be considered people, they strip away the right for government to tax them and for people to sue them.

Liberals may squeal like stuck pigs over the recent court decision, but it did not create anything new, but merely reaffirmed the centuries-old legal principle of the "personhood" of corporations. This principle is absolutely essential to the operation of any business larger than a mom-and-pop store, and built America's economy into a world power.

Corporate personhood is a term that has a long history, and centuries-old statutes recognize that corporations have the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce those contracts. But the right of corporations to contract is not what has liberals squealing like a pig. If this is really what you believe, then you are sorely misinformed, and this conversation cannot continue because we would be talking about two separate issues; i.e. you would be attacking a strawman of the liberal position.

What liberals object to is the corrupting potential of corporate electioneering. Our governments (federal and state) have a long history of attempting to keep corporate money out of elections and influencing lawmakers. Citizens' United vs. the FEC was a landmark decision that overturned several previous Supreme Court decisions. I was about to provide you with a history of campaign finance reform, but have since decided that this would just be a waste of my time since you seem only interested in attacking strawmen and making uncivil comments.

[nursebenjamin claims that "the people" should be able to do anything they want. I believe this is called anarchy or the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I have never claimed "the people should be able to do anything they want. I believe that this is called a misquotation.

Of course, we know from history that governments sometimes do anything they want. The government could simply issue an edict declaring that corporations are not only artificial persons, they are artificial JEWISH persons, and therefore their rights may not only be restricted, but eliminated completely and their property looted.

I dont know how to respond to this. Im unsure if you are serious, being sarcastic, or trying to Poe. Although, if corporations have been endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable First Amendment Rights, then they most certainly could be Jewish, right? Corporations should have Freedom of Religion as well!

Hi, nursebenjamin,
I don't mean to be personally uncivil. All I know about you personally is what you have written here, and I strongly disagree with some of that. It is often difficult to disagree with someone's ideas without expressing honest opinions in plain English. If that is what you call uncivil, then so be it. Incidentally, I have often been called a very nice person, but I admit I have also been called a Nazi once or twice.

Why should a corporation not have the right to advocate and support political causes, just as any other "person" or group has? I learned in school that the only thing a corporation as a legal "person" could not do is get married. I realize that was an exaggeration to make a point, just as my suggestion that a government could have the power to simply declare corporations to be Jewish "persons" and therefore subject to extermination, just as the government of Germany did with real Jewish people not so long ago. If you are offended by such an exaggerated comparison, then I withdraw it. Incidentally, I also learned in school that "The power to tax is the power to destroy."

Again, I apologize for anything I said that you found to be uncivil. No doubt you are a very nice person, but some of your ideas are.... well, liberal.

John

[JohnPaul]

micatala wrote:[/bE

Even mild profanity like this is technically against the rules.

You mean I can't call someone a liberal?[/quote]

[WinePusher]

And I've explained why limiting the political influence of corporations does not limit our right to tax or sue them.

I already said that's not my argument.[/quote]

Whatever. This is a point that youve argued several times.

A point that I've directed towards the absurd idea of abolishing corporate personhood, not to support Citizens United.

Youve provided no rebuttal (other than to say nuh-uh) to the fact that money plays an important role in who wins or who loses an election and political influence comes to those who make large monetary contributions. Ive given examples of money and political influence: the number of lobbyists running around Washington, why we are unable to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations even though the vast majority of Americans support such move, and the recent debate over health insurance reform.

I've provided no rebuttal? Seriously? I provided a point by point rebuttal to you in Post 12, and you ignored it. Now you have the nerve to say I didn't? Well, the post is still there and you can respond to it any time you want.

Ive responded to a good portion of Post #12. I havent responded to everything because (A) My time is short; (B) your cantankerous attitude sucks; (C) its clear that you havent thought too deeply about the points you responded to. But if you want to go back to post #12, then lets do so.

You're clearly mad nursebenjamin because you stated something that was patently false and were challenged on it. Since you don't have the dignity to retract it you must resort to posting this. Truthfully I neither care about your personal situation or your responses. This is an open forum and you're not obligated to do anything. But don't say I provided no rebuttal when I clearly did, and for your own sake, don't throw a fit like you just have when you're proven wrong. Also, if you want to talk about who hasn't thought to deeply about this issue that person would obviously be you nursebenjamin. Your posts are strikingly similar to the stuff I hear coming out of the mouths of the wall street criminals. The case has to do specifically with running political advertisements, not monetary donations. Get your facts right before you form and express your opinions.

You believe that money does not influence elections, and I believe that money has a corrupting influence on politics. This is where we disagree. I believe that corporations campaigning on behalf of a candidate basically amounts to legalized bribery. People no longer trust government (for several reasons). What America needs is a political system in which people can trust that the decisions Congress makes are solely for the purpose of forming a more perfect Union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare of the nation. Currently, we have a system in which the decisions that Congressmen makes are often exactly what the big funders of their campaigns demand. Also, I cant understand how a libertarian could support this form of legalized bribery! If big corporations are influencing public policy, then out the window goes your free markets.

Let's be clear about what my belief actually is. The influence money has on elections is subordinate to the influence actual voters have on elections. You're talking about an entirely different issue here.

This misconception has already been refuted. There are hundreds of profit and non-profit organizations, and each of them have their own seperate interests. Meaning the ads they run will be split evenly among the two parties and will essentially neutralize eachother. And no ones voice is being drowned out because when a corporation runs an ad or holds a fundraiser for a candidate, they are unknowingly representing a certain section of population. If the AFL-CIO runs ads in support of Obama's re-election, every single person in the country who is an Obama supporter is being represented through their advertisements.

You are assuming that those two parties represent the interest of the American people.

That's right. I am assuming that, and I will continue to stick to that assumption unless you can demonstrate how it's flawed.

This is the point that I wish to make: What about people who want to trust that their elected representatives will do whats best for them, instead of what their big fundraisers demand?

And then there are some corporations, such as Goldman Sachs that contribute to the election of politicians on both sides of the aisle. The issue isnt that corporations are now able to directly campaign on behalf candidates, but influence that such support buys.

Corporations are an independent legal entity that is separate from the people who own, control and manage it, created for the purpose of limiting legal liabilities. If a corporation fails, shareholders may lose their investments, and employees may lose their jobs, but neither will be liable for debts to the corporation's creditors.[1] Corporations do not care about the country or citizens. They dont care about justice, domestic tranquility, the general welfare, or the blessings of liberty. In fact, corporations have no opinion of any kind. This is because corporations are not people.

Did you know you can sue a corporation? Did you know you can even tax a corporation? Your argument is trivial and inconsistent, nursebenjamin. Yea, corporations aren't people they have many of the same rights people do have. If you were actualyl consistent, you would be in favor of insulating corporations against lawsuits and abolished all taxes on corporations.

You just stated above that you were no longer standing by this argument, so I wont respond to it again.

??? This argument was posted in response to your absurd description of what a corporation is, it was not posted as support for the ruling in Citizens United. The concept of corporations possessing rights that individual people have existed prior to the Citizens United case. The court established nothing new, nor did the court base its reasoning upon this. The reasoning is very simple, the first amendment is absolutely indiscriminate when it comes to speech.

You, just like John Paul Stevens, don't base your argument upon the constitution because nothing in the constitution supports your position. The first amendment is explicit, it says that no law shall be made prohibiting the free exercise of speech period. It does not make distinctions between different types of speakers.

The modern corporation came into existence after the constitution was written, so your point is moot.

And that means the constitution cannot be applied to any case involving 'modern corporations?'

Also, the Constitution definitely does make a distinction between different types of speakers. Originally, in most states, only white wealthy (landowning) literate males could fully exercise their right of political speech. The landless were prohibited from voting, as were women. Poll taxes and literacy tests keep the poor from exercising their right to vote. African-American slaves were considered only 3/5 of a person, and had no First Amendment rights at all.

I don't see any of these exceptions in the text of the constitution. What you speak of is the result of judicial activism.

You see, this is a perfect example of activism, luckily he isn't on the court anymore. Steven's based his vote on his personal preferences rather than what the Constitution says. He thinks that the interests of corporations will conflict with the interests of eligible voters, and he is wrong. Give me one example of this, give me one example where corporate interests conflict with voter interests. They don't, they coincide with the interests of voters and it creates more liability for corporations because if a corporations has a reputation of supporting democrat candidates they will most likely alienate republican voters.

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution states: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators. There is a clear Constitutional basis for Congressmen determining the manner in which they are elected. If Congress wants to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of for-profit corporate spending in local and national races, dont they have a Constitutional right?

Give me one example of this, give me one example where corporate interests conflict with voter interests.

For-profit corporations have one interest and one interest only: profits. Voters are usually motivated by numerous interests, (and hopefully profits are not anywhere near the top of the list).

If you want a specific example, then how about hypothetical, now incorporated, coal plant in California that weve discussed in other threads? This coal plant spews pollutions that kills numerous citizens and sends many more to the hospital each year. It would be in the voters interest to have the cost of harm included in the price of utilities so that green technologies could more fairly compete.

Also, you are ignoring the fact that many corporations could be made up of foreign nationals as board members and shareholders. Should foreign nationals via corporations have the right to influence elections in our country?

The ruling essentially gurantees the free expression of political speech regardless of who the speaker actually is, whether it's one individual or a group of individuals.

A corporation is not simply a group of individuals. Its a group of individuals with limited legal liabilities. The political contributions of the corporation dont necessarily represent the political views of all the shareholders. Some of the shareholders are not citizens, and should not even be participating in our political process. Political donations should come from individual citizens, not the corporate account.

This is nonsense. Who do you think will determine political contributions made by the corporation? The board of directors, the shareholders and the governing body. Your under the impression that this ruling forces corporations to participate in the political process and it doesn't.

The board of directors will determine political contributions and in many cases, the shareholders will be completely unaware. I have a retirement plan (as do many Americans) that is tied to the stock market. Therefore, I am the shareholder of many corporations. I would be very upset if any of these corporations that Im associated with attempted to influence public policy. If the boards of directors wish to influence public policy, then they should do so with their own money, not with mine!

And the criticisms leveled against the ruling are pretty absurd. It does nothing to harm democracy nor does it give corporations unlimited influence in D.C.

I disagree. As I stated above, this ruling has nothing to do with speech, and everything to do is money. And if money doesnt influence our democracy and political process, then why are there so many lobbyists running around Washington? If the vast majority of Americans want taxes increased on millionaires and large corporations, then why cant our politicians achieve this? Why was the public option not allowed to even be apart of the debate on health insurance reform?

Do you know why a Public Option wasn't including in Obamacare? Because a few democrats, scared of being voted out of office by their constituents, fought against it. The thing politicians operate according to is not money, special interests, or their personal opinions, it's what their constituents want because if they go against the will of their constituents they get thrown out of office. You're just reinforcing my point that money and lobbyists have no real control in Politics.

The main reason why a public option wasnt on the table was because of Senator Max Baucus, chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.[5] Baucus simply didnt want a single-payer or public option discussed. And guess who his largest beneficiaries are? I have no solid evidence that Baucus was corrupted by the wishes of his donors, but at a press conference, he made the following Freudian slip, I think single pay " Merck is not ready for single pay. I mean, America.

<<<You're just reinforcing my point that money and lobbyists have no real control in Politics.>>
I dont understand how you came to this conclusion.

Thus, elections will be decided ultimately by the people, no corporations. The amount of influence money and advertisement has among the electorate is questionable anyways.

I dont see how anyone could make such a statement with a straight face. The role money plays in American politics are an unfortunate reality. In modern elections, 9 out of 10 races are decided by who raises more campaign cash. In 2008, 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races were won by the candidate who spent the most money. In 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.[3]

It is clear that money plays an important role in who wins or who loses an election. However, I fear that the political influence that comes to those who have made large contributions is often far more important than the actual buying and selling of an election.

The amount of cash doesn't determine who wins an election, the amount of votes do.

This is your nuh-uh rebuttal that I referred to above. I stand-by my original argument and simply will state your claim that the amount of cash doesn't determine who wins an election isnt supported by the evidence.

Of course an unstated position of mine is that people are influenced by advertisements. If advertisements didnt work, then there wouldnt be so many. The fact of the matter is that many people are influenced by advertisements, but theres no way that one can reasonably make an informed decision based on a 30-second TV ad.

Look, there are numerous holes within my own argument; I could actually argue both sides of this issue. Id be more inclined to support this Citizens United vs. FCC decision if politicians were forced to wear a jersey with the logos of their sponsors sown on, just like Nascar drivers do. But for me, it boils down to this: America needs is a political system in which people can trust that the decisions that Congress comes to are made in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general Welfare. Currently, we have a system in which the decisions that Congress makes are what the big funders of their campaigns demand. This Supreme Court decision is a step in the wrong direction, and takes us further away from having a better system.

By the way, the OWS protest at Zuccotti Park was cleared out last night. A state Supreme Court judge upheld the citys right to bar the Occupy Wall Street protesters from camping again at Zuccotti Park. The judge, Michael D. Stallman, The court is mindful of the movements First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly. But Even protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times. Do you agree or disagree with this judge that protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times?

[JohnPaul]

Not exactly, but you are beginning to get the idea. My point is that IQ and other individual abilities are NOT equally distributed among the population. Have your delicate liberal ears always been sheltered from terms like "self-perpetuating underclass?" Put very crudely, this means that dumb people ON THE AVERAGE, with individual exceptions, tend to produce dumb children.

IQ is largely formed by age six, and is determined by both genetics and "nurture"factors. It can be greatly improved by intellectual stimulation received at a very early age, but by age 15 is permanently fixed. Sadly, in poor homes, very little intellectual stimulation is provided by the parents and the home environment.

The Bell Curve has two small "tails" at each end with a large central mass in the middle. My argument is that liberal domination of American public schools, with their blind insistence on equality at any price, has severely skewed the median of this central mass toward the low end. The illusion of equality can only be achieved by forcing the average for everyone down to the lowest common denominator, by grade inflation, "social promotion," diplomas for everyone, etc.

My "evidence" for this can be found in reports of Student Achievement Tests frequently published in newspapers, consisting of tiny tables of numbers surrounded by the pseudo-professional jargon of school administrators, filled with glowing words like "improving," and promises of even more wonderful improvement if only the taxpayers will vote them more money.

The actual numbers hidden in these reports are almost exactly the same as those found in my Sociology textbooks more than 60 years ago under the now-forbidden heading of IQ, and do not significantly change from year to year. They show that less than half of all students are performing satisfactorily, but of course in a liberal world, they are all "entitled" to high school diplomas, even if they can't read or write or balance a checkbook.

The figures also show (dare I say it?) vast gaps in achievement between racial groups, exactly the same or even worse than the evil IQ gaps of 60 years ago. (Oops! There goes all my credibility! I used the forbidden "R" word!).

Of course, we all know that "the American Way" is superior to the rest of the world and Americans are all equal and absolutely "entitled" to such things as diplomas and high-paying jobs. The idea of being required to actually work, qualify and compete for anything is a heresy totally banned from the liberal repertoire of destructive nonsense which is destroying our country.

Could the fact that schools in countries such as China and India are now reported to be producing 100 times as many highly skilled technical workers as American schools do, have anything to do with the fact that it is now highly skilled technical jobs which are moving overseas, not the cheap unskilled menial jobs of the past?

John

So to summarize, you explain the data by saying that poor people tend to have dumber children than rich people, and black people tend to have dumber children than white people, etc. But if this is just a byproduct of their being poor, then why is it relevant? Are you arguing that being dumb and poor is biological or not?

I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting. How would not giving dumb people high school diplomas, for example, do anything to improve income immobility?

Or are you saying that income immobility isn't a problem, because dumb people deserve to be poor?

Also I feel the need to comment that as a citizen of a liberal country that does not seem to have near the amount of problems as yours, I find the scapegoating of the "liberals" almost amusing. As a Canadian who follows American politics from the outside I did not think "liberals" had much power in your country at all, instead you have two right-wing parties battling over a razor thin political spectrum.

Don't expect any expert answers or magic solutions from me. I only took a couple of Sociology classes in school before I had sense enough to move into the hard sciences where things are a little more exact. I have only covered the basics here. Most of my information on IQ and social class is what I remember from textbooks of 50-60 years ago, so no doubt it is somewhat obsolete.

Yes, being both dumb and poor are certainly statistically correlated, and become self-perpetuating after several generations. I do not say dumb people "deserve" to be poor. That is the judgment of the real world on them as a statistical class. I am trying to be objective. I believe even Jesus admitted he could do nothing about it when he said something like: "The poor are with us always."
Here is a bit from Wikipedia on IQ and social class.

IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as morbidity and mortality, parental social status,[2] and, to a substantial degree, parental IQ.[/quote]

Politicians come and go, but bureaucracies go on forever. That is where the real liberal power lies. I have a conspiracy theory about that. The Fabian Society was an ivory-tower socialist group in late nineteenth century England. They founded the British Labor Party, but that was only incidental to their real agenda of acquiring world-wide power by infiltrating existing institutions, beginning with the universities which trained future government officials, teachers, school administrators, media and entertainment executives, etc. Their first great success in America was the imposition of the Federal Income Tax in 1913. Well, you can see where I am going, so I won't bore you further.

John

[JohnPaul]

nygreenguy wrote:

Especially since I posted statistics which prove this. If you start high, you are more likely to stay high. If you are middle class, they are split with 1/3 moving up. 1/3 moving down. 1/3 staying the same. For the lower classes, they are most likely to stay low

Wow! Imagine that! Have you never heard of the Bell Curve showing the distribution of human abilities? I don't mean a plot of class or income status. I mean actual inherent individual abilities! This may come as a total shock to liberals, but PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ABILITIES! This is true over any class or income level. Any mention of IQ or the Bell curve has been adamantly banned from American public schools for more than 50 years of liberal domination which has resulted in an American adult population more than half of whom were recently reported to be "functionally illiterate" and has placed America near the very bottom of the developed world in educational achievement.

In my experience, I have encountered dozens of high school graduates and even at least one college graduate who could barely read and write at the most elementary level and could not add a column of numbers to save their life. Simple instructions had to be verbally explained to them, they could not write a coherent sentence on an application form, and considered such things as fractions or percentages to be advanced math which should not reasonably be expected of them. Yet these stump-stupid clods came from a variety of backgrounds and all proudly claimed high school diplomas.

Enough ranting for now! You get the idea. In a land of opportunity, people tend to end up where they belong.

John

Am I to understand that you argue income immobility is caused by the inherent biological deficiencies of many poor people to a larger extent than any other factor? I am not understanding how your theory is supposed to explain the data. Shouldn't we expect much more income mobility to be apparent in the data if intelligence were equally distributed among the population?

Do you have any evidence supporting your assertions?

Not exactly, but you are beginning to get the idea. My point is that IQ and other individual abilities are NOT equally distributed among the population. Have your delicate liberal ears always been sheltered from terms like "self-perpetuating underclass?" Put very crudely, this means that dumb people ON THE AVERAGE, with individual exceptions, tend to produce dumb children.

Moderator Intervention
Moderator hat on here: The comment you made that I have taken the liberty of marking in bold blue was reported and is considered an uncivil personal attack. Please refrain from such remarks.
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.


Moderator Hat Off:

IQ is largely formed by age six, and is determined by both genetics and "nurture"factors. It can be greatly improved by intellectual stimulation received at a very early age, but by age 15 is permanently fixed. Sadly, in poor homes, very little intellectual stimulation is provided by the parents and the home environment.

Can you please provide the data that suggests that the IQ is largely formed by the age 6?

My "evidence" for this can be found in reports of Student Achievement Tests frequently published in newspapers, consisting of tiny tables of numbers surrounded by the pseudo-professional jargon of school administrators, filled with glowing words like "improving," and promises of even more wonderful improvement if only the taxpayers will vote them more money.

The actual numbers hidden in these reports are almost exactly the same as those found in my Sociology textbooks more than 60 years ago under the now-forbidden heading of IQ, and do not significantly change from year to year. They show that less than half of all students are performing satisfactorily, but of course in a liberal world, they are all "entitled" to high school diplomas, even if they can't read or write or balance a checkbook.

Sociology tends to be more mumbo jumbo than psychology in my personal opinion. But could you please provide references for these assertions?

The figures also show (dare I say it?) vast gaps in achievement between racial groups, exactly the same or even worse than the evil IQ gaps of 60 years ago. (Oops! There goes all my credibility! I used the forbidden "R" word!).

Of course, we all know that "the American Way" is superior to the rest of the world and Americans are all equal and absolutely "entitled" to such things as diplomas and high-paying jobs. The idea of being required to actually work, qualify and compete for anything is a heresy totally banned from the liberal repertoire of destructive nonsense which is destroying our country.

Could the fact that schools in countries such as China and India are now reported to be producing 100 times as many highly skilled technical workers as American schools do, have anything to do with the fact that it is now highly skilled technical jobs which are moving overseas, not the cheap unskilled menial jobs of the past?

John

I'm sorry, but I find this to be a lot of hyperbole. You suggest that "dumb" people reproduce "dumb" children. Exactly where did you get that data? Is it due to genetics or opportunities. Can you negate any extraneous variables that may cause said "dumb" children to be in fact dumb? Or are you assuming that because their parents are dumb and they appear dumb, dumb people must in fact produce dumb children?

Most of my data on IQ, social class, etc, is what I remember from my textbooks of 50-60 years ago. Please see my response to Fuzzy Dunlop above for a little more. IQ is both genetics and can be improved by "nurture," intellectual stimulation at an early age. I remember from my school that it was largely fixed by age 15, but I found a later reference now that says it reaches a peak at age 26.
Here is a bit from Wikipedia on IQ and social class:

IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as morbidity and mortality, parental social status,[2] and, to a substantial degree, parental IQ.

John

[JohnPaul]

In a couple of previous posts, I said some things about IQ, social class, etc, which seem to have disturbed some people here. I have already tried to answer a few of them, but only quite briefly, I am afraid. Except for some personal opinions, most of what I said came from my textbooks of 50-60 years ago and is all very basic.

Essentially, what I said was that IQ and social class tend to correlate, and over a period of several generations, tend to form separate, self-perpetuating groups within a society. Some of it may be obsolete, but I didn't realize any of it was controversial. I also expressed some unkind OPINIONS about liberals and American public schools.

I am sorry, but I discarded most of my college textbooks years ago and I do not have the energy now to spend hours or days searching for specific references. If I didn't answer your objection, I apologize. If you did not like what I wrote, ignore it. If you still have questions or objections for me, I will be happy to answer and support them as best I can here in a more orderly fashion. Please don't ask me to write a book.

John

[otseng]

Even mild profanity like this is technically against the rules.

You mean I can't call someone a liberal?

Moderator Comment

If someone describes him/herself as something, it is safe to reiterate it. But, if someone does not claim to be something, then one should not say that he/she is that something.

So, if someone does not say he is a liberal, then it's best not to say that he is a liberal. Or if someone does say that he is a liberal, then it's also best not to say that he is not a liberal.

But it really does not matter what position one holds. It would be a fallacy to point to one's belief system to show if something is true or false.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 102:

In a couple of previous posts, I said some things about IQ, social class, etc, which seem to have disturbed some people here. I have already tried to answer a few of them, but only quite briefly, I am afraid. Except for some personal opinions, most of what I said came from my textbooks of 50-60 years ago and is all very basic.

I could agree to the notion on a given level, but would expect a thorough analysis to at least span the proceeding 50-60 years. Factors involved could be supporting social network, accessibility to nutrition, the education advantage - as expressed in IQ tests - none of which can be shown to be conclusive proof of intelligence. I think there's just too many variables to make too harsh a judgement on the notion at hand. Sure, there'll be an effect, but to draw too firm a conclusion philosophically, I'd not be able.

...
If you still have questions or objections for me, I will be happy to answer and support them as best I can here in a more orderly fashion. Please don't ask me to write a book.

Just present some of your argument again, mindful that it is a breachable, but controversial topic, and of course do the providing linkable data to support it where ya can.

Without going to google or other sites first - I'm gonna say your data could well be current, if slightly changed. My point is that if this is the case, we still should use caution when extrapolating other notions from that data. This'll be a pretraction in case the prediction was a fiction.

[SomePunk]

1) What do you make of these demands? Are they reasonable or unreasonable?

#1 - I think stuff should not be imported into the country, as in stuff shouldnt be made dirt cheap in other countries and have Americans pay top dollar for it. It eliminates jobs here then they expect Americans to buy these products that are not worth what they cost to make.

#2 - People would not be happy with a single payer healthcare system. That means a family of six would not be able to provide for their children. They would all have to pay individually. That is stupid.

#3 " Living wage as in a wage that is above minimum. That is a demand that the government has no control of. Just like the government cant really create jobs. It is a gimmick.

#4 - Education shouldnt be free, but at the same time the government already pays for the education of people that cannot afford it. Universities and colleges for the most part are not run by the government, so the government really has no say so in who gets a college education or not.

#5 " I take it by alternative they mean solar power and electric. The fact of the matter is, people are not that concern about environmental issues. Carbon footprints are going to be created regardless.

#6 - #7 " Money the government doesnt have. In case they didnt notice people are more concern about cutting the deficit not adding to it.

#8 " We already have those.

I thought they were protesting against Wall street. Seems like they are "or this person is" protesting against the Government.

[chris_brown207]

#1 - I think stuff should not be imported into the country, as in stuff shouldnt be made dirt cheap in other countries and have Americans pay top dollar for it. It eliminates jobs here then they expect Americans to buy these products that are not worth what they cost to make.

American capitalism is based upon free trade. I graduate high school in Germany right after the wall came down. We saw first hand the results of isolationist policies on a country, as the people of East Germany started crossing over - it was like they and their possessions were stuck in the 50's.

If we can't sell our products competitively on the open market, maybe we need to look at our trade and labor policies instead of just shutting the doors all together.

Besides - look at the stuff that surrounds you computer. Try to find one thing that was made in the US... if the stuff was of such low quality, why are we surrounded by it?

[/quote]