the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
― John Steinbeck

John Steinbeck, the great chronicler of Depression-era America, was born in 1902 and died in 1968.  This may have been taken from something he wrote in America and the Americans, published in 1966.  I don't know when he first had this thought but the idea is as true today as is was then. 

I suppose that's why we are perfectly okay with electing millionaires into public office... over... and over... and over.  One day we too will be millionaires.  Right?  Someone please tell me I'm right!

"We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have-nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon-to-haves," Indiana (R) Gov. Mitch Daniels

Quote from: Julie Marie on February 26, 2012, 09:52:11 AM
the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
― John Steinbeck

John Steinbeck, the great chronicler of Depression-era America, was born in 1902 and died in 1968.  This may have been taken from something he wrote in America and the Americans, published in 1966.  I don't know when he first had this thought but the idea is as true today as is was then. 

I suppose that's why we are perfectly okay with electing millionaires into public office... over... and over... and over.  One day we too will be millionaires.  Right?  Someone please tell me I'm right!

"We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have-nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon-to-haves," Indiana (R) Gov. Mitch Daniels

... Not trying to start a flame war... I'm well aware that some people in need truly are in need and don't abuse the system but two things I've noticed...

MOST public officials (senators and house reps, governors and such) shouldn't be allowed to use their "business skills" while in office, and should be held completely open about what dealings they have and what profit they make when no longer in office. This media fiasco no holds bard "give me millions to become the next official" thing needs to come to an end. Honestly, a few debates on public TV or radio channels and let the rest of the public discuss for themselves what is and what isn't is all it should take to know enough to vote someone into office. Special interest groups??? Gone. Political fundraising where big companies can "donate" / "BUY OUT" who they want in office... GONE!!! If these people truly cared about "the public" we (the public) wouldn't get a screwed as much as we have been.

A nation of haves and soon-to-haves... One must work to have imo. This is the leading cause of the problem each generation (in my opinion) suffers from and from the time I can remember I've always heard older people tell me "you young ones don't know how easy you have it"... I think we would be better off as a nation, if we didn't coddle the "have-nots" as much as we do, or persistently make sure that "our children will have it better then I had it". No one is ready to be a parent until that one day they are sitting in the Doc's office and is told "well ready or not in this many months your gunna have to cope with it". Honestly, if someone takes unemployment over working at a burger joint because unemployment would pay them better... wtf?

This is from personal experience. The National Health Care issue... I was having a conversation with a co-worker about this and he was quite adamant that because he was born with type 1 diabetes he shouldn't have to pay as much as he does for his medication and syringes (as he put it, the needles are killing him, the meds aren't that bad). It wasn't his fault he was born like that so he should get it on the cheap...

He was telling me this WHILE he was eating a BIG MAC and drinking from a VERY large cup of what looked to the Mnt. Dew. and I even asked him if it was regular or diet and he said "oh it's regular, I just took my shot I'll be good"...

w.
t.
f.
!

Why should I have to pay for someone like that to stuff his face with crap I wouldn't even dare to touch and I'm relatively healthy. That's the kind of stuff that blows my mind some days.

Anywho... I should stop before I work myself up to much. I've told myself I would post things like this because some people might not like the way it sounds.

And yes, I know there's a lot of people on here that can't afford their transition and wish something could be done so they didn't have to pay so much for a transition. I'm in the same boat (sorta). Money is a leading reason why I haven't just dropped everything I'm doing and went right to the Doc's office. But even if there was some kind of National system that would allow me to transition on the backs of other Americans I wouldn't choose that route. I would rather let someone who needs it more then me be able to use those funds... Like the type 1 diabetic that goes to McD's for lunch.

I grew up you must work in order to have.

Socialism never took root in America because...

...Franklin Roosevelt saved America for capitalism.  Really.  Otherwise we would have been there long ago.  We were - up to WWII - a more communal and community minded and community supported population.  That was destroyed (deliberate) after the war with the invention of the nuclear family, the rise of suburbs, freeways and the technology that spread the population out at the very same time that it exploded that population.

But we came damn close in the 1930s, the war saved us, we were able to bomb and invade the ->-bleeped-<- out of Europe and Japan and regain our industrial/financial mojo (while wiping out everyone else's).   

Quote from: LivingInGrey on February 26, 2012, 10:53:16 AM
This is from personal experience. The National Health Care issue... I was having a conversation with a co-worker about this and he was quite adamant that because he was born with type 1 diabetes he shouldn't have to pay as much as he does for his medication and syringes (as he put it, the needles are killing him, the meds aren't that bad). It wasn't his fault he was born like that so he should get it on the cheap...

He was telling me this WHILE he was eating a BIG MAC and drinking from a VERY large cup of what looked to the Mnt. Dew. and I even asked him if it was regular or diet and he said "oh it's regular, I just took my shot I'll be good"...

w.
t.
f.
!

Why should I have to pay for someone like that to stuff his face with crap I wouldn't even dare to touch and I'm relatively healthy. That's the kind of stuff that blows my mind some days.

Umm, you might want to do some research on Type 1 before you spout hateful NONSENSE.

Type 1 has NOTHING to do with weight or diet.  A person with type 1 produces NO insulin at all.  It is an autoimmune condition where their islet cells in the pancreas have been attacked by their own body.  While it is very true that Type 2 is greatly affected by weight, there is no correlation with type 1 at all.  Type 2 is a RESISTANCE such that the body can't produce ENOUGH so yes, if they overeat they have a problem.  Type 1 is not a resistance but a total lack of production.

While the meal your co-worker was eating was not the most healthy in the world, it was not a contributor in their disease at ALL.  This image that all type 1's are just fat slobs that need to eat less and exercise is VERY offensive to the young children that it strikes. 

Our oldest son was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes a bit over three years and we've seen the attitude plenty.

As for the halves and soon-to-halves, how much money would one need to become a "have"? 

a) $100,000
b) $500,000
c) $1,000,000
d) $10,000,000

If you chose a), you have a pretty good chance of becoming a "have".

If everyone becomes a "have" then everyone would have the same personal value.  At it's worst, there was about $48 trillion in personal wealth in the U.S.  At that time the deficit stood around $14 trillion for a net worth of $32 trillion.  There are about 311,000,000 people in the U.S.  When personal wealth is evenly distributed throughout, each person will have about $109,000 in personal wealth.

But few people would choose a) from the list above.

And that's the problem with the illusion everyone will one day become a "have".  Politicians know most could never accept never becoming a "have" so they play on people's hope.  And most swallow it whole.

If you want to see how Sweden and Norway escaped rule by the 1%, this is an interesting article: http://www.truth-out.org/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-power-one-percent/1327942221

Quote from: Jeneva on February 26, 2012, 11:11:30 AM
Umm, you might want to do some research on Type 1 before you spout hateful NONSENSE.

Type 1 has NOTHING to do with weight or diet.  A person with type 1 produces NO insulin at all.  It is an autoimmune condition where their islet cells in the pancreas have been attacked by their own body.  While it is very true that Type 2 is greatly affected by weight, there is no correlation with type 1 at all.  Type 2 is a RESISTANCE such that the body can't produce ENOUGH so yes, if they overeat they have a problem.  Type 1 is not a resistance but a total lack of production.

While the meal your co-worker was eating was not the most healthy in the world, it was not a contributor in their disease at ALL.  This image that all type 1's are just fat slobs that need to eat less and exercise is VERY offensive to the young children that it strikes. 

Our oldest son was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes a bit over three years and we've seen the attitude plenty.

Some reading material about type 1 diabetes and diet.

http://www.diabetes.org/living-with-diabetes/recently-diagnosed/living-with-type-1-diabetes.html
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Food_and_recipes/Eating-well-with-Type-1-diabetes/
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/type-1-diabetes/DS00329/DSECTION=lifestyle-and-home-remedies
http://www.who.int/diabetes/action_online/basics/en/index1.html
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/daily.aspx

And for a little bit of light reading on diabetic shock... (hypo)

http://diabetes.webmd.com/diabetic-shock-and-insulin-reactions

I understand that some people take it differently then others but there's a lot of resources on the web that clearly state (and because I've lived with diabetics all my life) it has a lot to do with food intake. Not just for type 2 diabetics but type 1 also. Both types of diabetics it's very important to maintain a strict diet in order to manage diabetes.

But this is about socialism... Not just diabetes. I go on a rant and this is what happens.

Sorry.

Bucky Fuller had some interesting things to say in his last book "Critical Path";

QuoteRoosevelt and his advisors said, "One thing is clear. Despite the emergency America abhors socialism. Americans don't like the assumption that everybody is equal. Americans are so independent, they don't feel at all equal. They don't like socialism, but," said the New Deal leaders, "the fact is that we, the American people, are going to have to guarantee our own bank accounts. People don't like to keep their money under their mattresses and prefer to put it into a bank, so we will have to do what we can to rehabilitate the banks. We the people acting unanimously through our government are going to have to guarantee the safety of each deposit in the banks to a convincingly substantial amount—$5000. We will leave the bank in ownership of the management of the stockholders of those banks that, by virtue of the presidential moratorium, are as yet theoretically alive, and hope that, with our guaranteeing, regulation, and supervising, many of them will reopen and will be able to progressively accredit their depositors with some percentage of their original deposits.

And...

QuoteWhen the government owns the wealth and controls the issuance of its money, it is socialism.

R. Buckminister Fuller, Critical Path http://www.maebrussell.com/Critical%20Path/Critical%20Path%20excerpts%201.html
   

And I'm sorry if I made it seem like "I think all diabetics are fat slobs"... I know a lot of people out there that can manage it just fine, and keep the amount of meds they're on down to a minimal because of a good diet and active lifestyle and you wouldn't even know it that they were a diabetic until you actually see them poke their belly or w/e.

But... that one coworker wasn't one of them. And I've meet my share of other people that just didn't get the memo when they ended up in a hospital for hypo. When you spend a lot of time eating a lot of sugar and taking a lot of insulin all it takes is that one day you pump yourself up with a lot of insulin and then "accidentally" skip out on that morning doughnut. Or end up having a foot cut off because you spent to much time eating that extra doughnut and didn't keep an eye on your glucose levels.

I think that there are a number of reasons socialism never developed into a major political movement in America.   First the pioneer 'self-reliant to the nth degree' spirit all though much diluted since its 19th century heyday still resonates in American social and political life.  The pioneers while they did things like 'barn-raising' with others still knew that the emergent state both local and national was still too embryonic to help them out.  In other wards those settlers of the West knew that if something needed done they would have to do it themselves. *  This 'can do' attitude was passed down the generations  and is sad to say very much on the way out.

America was and still is a surprisingly Christian and religious country.   Many Americans not only know the Bible and Scriptures intimately they are not at all embarrassed to talk in public with strangers about their faith.   Christianity with its 'The Lord helps them who help themselves', combined with the pioneer spirit evenly in greatly diluted form perhaps explains why socialism has never gained a foothold in America.   To many Americans Socialism means getting something for nothing and this goes against tradition and religion.

I have just thought of a third reason.  Americans still have the child-like belief that they can 'make-it' and 'live the dream' and they are very uncomfortable with the idea that under socialism someone could come along and take away from them their wealth and their possessions and give them to people whom they see as lazy and ungodly.   
Here in Europe we gave up the idea of going from 'logcabin to White House' way of thinking a very long time a go.  So, the idea of a distribution of wealth seems to a sizeable number the only weigh of getting a 'fair share' of the spoils.

* There were also language and cultural differences that forced many early Americans to become self-reliant even if they didn't want to be.

Quote from: LivingInGrey on February 26, 2012, 01:09:16 PM
I understand that some people take it differently then others but there's a lot of resources on the web that clearly state (and because I've lived with diabetics all my life) it has a lot to do with food intake. Not just for type 2 diabetics but type 1 also. Both types of diabetics it's very important to maintain a strict diet in order to manage diabetes.

Yes a type 1 diabetic needs to be careful of what they eat.  No a magic diet isn't going to remove type 1 and mean they don't have to test 5-8 times a day and continuously dose insulin.  Nor does a diet CAUSE type 1 diabetes.  Please show a single reference that shows an link there at all?  Sure they should watch what they eat and especially for people on a shot system vs pump diet is absolutely crucial.  But your co-worker eating habits doesn't invalidate ANY claims that a type 1 diabetic should receive reduce cost testing supplies.  He needs to test that much REGARDLESS of what he eats.  Those strips are MORE than a dollar a piece retail and a type 1 will go through SO many more than a type 2.

Quote from: Princess of Hearts on February 26, 2012, 01:58:19 PM
America was and still is a surprisingly Christian and religious country.   Many Americans not only know the Bible and Scriptures intimately they are not at all embarrassed to talk in public with strangers about their faith.   Christianity with its 'The Lord helps them who help themselves', combined with the pioneer spirit evenly in greatly diluted form perhaps explains why socialism has never gained a foothold in America.   To many Americans Socialism means getting something for nothing and this goes against tradition and religion.

No doubt the "we must suffer to be rewarded" attitude so many religions teach their followers has affected the attitude many have towards Socialism.  The idea of helping those who are down and out or who don't have all the advantages of the fortunate seems anathema to so many. 

"I had to work my ass off to get what I have, you have to too!"

I've heard that so many times and often the person saying it had a head start going in.  Coming from a well off family, being given a good education, being born with a higher IQ or good looks or even the "socially favored" skin color all puts a person at an advantage, but rarely do you hear that mentioned by those spouting how it's all about hard work.

I came from a well off family and could have gone through post graduate school debt free.  My dad would have paid every penny, as long as it was towards a law degree.  I grew up in a "nice" neighborhood and many of my friends came from lots more money than I did, and I mean lots more.  Usually it is them I see standing on the podium declaring anyone can make it in this country if they work as hard as they do.  Yet I know for a fact these same people had most of what they have handed to them.

I shunned all that.  I left home when I was 20 and everything I have today I earned, without anyone's help.  But I know I had an advantage as a Caucasian male with good looks and an above average IQ.  And that's why I don't buy into this crap about how everyone who is poor didn't work hard enough. 

It's like a grading curve, some are penalized, some are rewarded, simply because of where the curve places them.

Many folks in poorer work hard but have roadblocks thrown in front of them. In some quarters, a person may never be accepted no matter how hard he has worked or how successful he/she has become. Folks with old money exemplify this in some places. I never get caught in this type of stuff because I' ve always been somewhat of a loner. ,

It is true that some individuals are born into wealth, or born with a favored skin color, or born with an above average intelligence.  Such aspects of a person, however, were not chosen by the individual.  To claim otherwise is to claim a belief in unicorns, i.e., a supernatural world where you can choose your parents before birth.  To say that a rich kid should (morally or legally) give up a portion of his wealth to those who were born into poverty is just as preposterous as saying a genius should give up a portion of his intelligence to an idiot.  Such a stance is a complete negation of ethics, of morality; it is a secularized version of original sin.  Ethics, morality, must pertain to individual, voluntary choices and actions; not actions taken at the point of a gun nor to unchosen aspects of an individual at birth.

Being born into poverty, an unfavored skin color, or a lack of intelligence are not chosen either, and individuals should not be damned for it.  If an individual is willing to work for $3 an hour, and another is willing to hire him for $3 an hour, but would go bankrupt if he had to pay the government mandated minimum wage, who wins and who loses?  The prospective worker loses the opportunity to earn a wage, however meager, and the prospective employer has to do that job himself (when he could be doing more productive work) or leave that job undone.

Life is a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action. To live, as a human, that means the use of our faculty of reason in pursuit of values.  Criminals and thugs choose to live at the sub-human level of animals, using force to get what they need to survive.  Career welfare recipients choose to live at a sub-animal level, attempting to live as plants do, rooted in place, gaining values (food, water, sunlight) automatically.  Both categories fail to realize it is only the rationally productive people, the humans who choose to live AS humans, that make it possible for them to live.

I recently heard a news story of a man who cut off his own foot with a circular saw, and then burned his foot in the oven so the doctors would be unable to reattach it.  Why did he go to such extremes?  To continue getting unemployment benefits, because he really didn't want to go back to work.  From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.  In my view, socialism doesn't have a foot to stand on.

Quote from: tekla on February 26, 2012, 11:08:37 AM
Socialism never took root in America because...

...Franklin Roosevelt saved America for capitalism.  Really.  Otherwise we would have been there long ago.  We were - up to WWII - a more communal and community minded and community supported population.  That was destroyed (deliberate) after the war with the invention of the nuclear family, the rise of suburbs, freeways and the technology that spread the population out at the very same time that it exploded that population.

But we came damn close in the 1930s, the war saved us, we were able to bomb and invade the ->-bleeped-<- out of Europe and Japan and regain our industrial/financial mojo (while wiping out everyone else's).   

[likes]

...and that's about all I'm saying on this.  I learned a long time ago that it's unhealthy for me to get into these arguments on-line, and I'd rather discuss them at the bar, where most of the people I tend to have them with either a) just barely disagree with me, or b) are relaxed enough by alcohol and the fact that they can plainly see I'm 4'11½" and am clearly not about to start throwing punches.

If an individual is willing to work for $3 an hour, and another is willing to hire him for $3 an hour, but would go bankrupt if he had to pay the government mandated minimum wage, who wins and who loses?

Well if you are paying people $3 an hour we all lose because society has to pick up the extra costs, like said employee would still be eligible for food stamps, and unable to pay for medical care so those costs are passed on to society as a whole.

Would you say the same thing if said employer would go bankrupt if they had to follow the fire and building codes?

Regarding the OP.

As a group, people need to be pushed very hard indeed to rise up against their oppressors. Some people don't need to be goaded much before they reach the end of their tether. But they are just your timothy mcvay, anders Brievik type people. They are always stopped. It takes a critical mass to be reached when enough people have reached the end of their tether for revolution to occur. As happened in Russia and Cuba.

Why hasn't socialism taken root in America? It has, but it's kept under control in a well tended garden. Tax payer funded social welfare keeps people from being pushed to revolution. You've really got to have a vast swathe of the population starving for revolution to be an option for them.

People, as a group, aren't brave enough to revolt for a better life. It needs to be more scary to not revolt than to revolt, for them to do it.

Your average person is fear motivated and unreasonable. If you disagree or don't understand then you are one of them. Or possibly you are more politic than myself

its quite elementry kids

Quote from: Rubberneck on April 04, 2012, 05:13:16 AM
People, as a group, aren't brave enough to revolt for a better life. It needs to be more scary to not revolt than to revolt, for them to do it.

Your average person is fear motivated and unreasonable. If you disagree or don't understand then you are one of them. Or possibly you are more politic than myself

I'd disagree with both those points.

I think, as a group, people are too practically minded to revolt 'for a better life'. The revolting is easy enough, it's the better life part that is so very difficult. I think while most people's lives are reasonably comfortable with the possibility of better, then revolting remains a backwards step for most.

As for these average people, the amount of people who naysay and belittle is incredible. It would seem the entire world is the member of some intellectual elite looking askance at the average person... I think average people do pretty well on the reasoning front - what might be labelled fear may in many cases be a reasoned antipathy to something or other.

You've really got to have a vast swathe of the population starving for revolution to be an option for them.

I doubt that part too.  We have a lot of people - virtually all of them as a matter of fact - who want/seek/demand/work for something called 'Change', but we have no set definition of what that 'change' is. 

Often - almost usually - you have two or more groups of people working to diametrically opposed ends.  There are people who are wanting/seeking/demanding/working for more wide ranging changes in the health care system up to and including those that advocate 'single-payer' (or Medicare for All) and bunches of people who want current modest changes rolled back and eliminated.  You'll find all sorts of groups advocating all sorts of change in that manner.

I think that few places have the means and mechanism for change that the US has, and if you look at it beyond a political/economic deal you'll see a real revolutionary society in action.  The changes in my life, which has not been very long, are wide ranging and radical - like issues of sex, gender and race in society - and lots of that change has been accomplished much faster than the political system can even adjust to, like computing, the internet, & mobile technology and then the complete merger of those three things, have all been adopted by vastly differences sections of society to accomplish vastly different ends.

It may not look it, as with any laboratory the sections for actual experimentation are confined to few places, so like California, while other areas change far more slowly, but the places that are zooming ahead are very far ahead these days.

Besides we have tons of socialism in the US, we just loathe to call it that because it gets so many people's knickers in a knot, but there are many public power & utility systems, and that's socialism.  The public education system is socialism, as is it's slightly better working these days counterpart, the public college and university system.  Agriculture (often depicted as Bob Farmer on his family farm, but in reality Cargill and ADM) would not exist without massive infusions of public money, the interstate system, hell I could go on and on... but this quote says it pretty well...


This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issed by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Pika pika, you've ignored my main point and attacked the details. My point is that people need to be more uncomfortable not to revolt than to revolt in order to revolt. Whether this is fear or sense is extranious. Good day sir.


Tekla,These conspiracy theorys are all fine and well I suppose. The idea that one man stopped socialism single handedly in America must be very gratifying to those who admire him. Your franklin roosavelt.

If anyone's interested, what Roosavelt did was create the federal reserve. It's different than other country's banks. Other countries own their federal reserve. Roosavelt gave americas to a private investor. So the American people have to pay interest on any money they take from the federal reserve. In other words, you don't have any money. You merely loan it for every single thing the goverment does.

Further more, since America has set this terrifyingly detrimental standard, other western countries have not found it alarming to become similarly hopelesly in debt. At least they aren't paying interest to borrow their own tax money like America is.

Quote from: Rubberneck on April 04, 2012, 03:01:46 PM
Pika pika, you've ignored my main point and attacked the details. My point is that people need to be more uncomfortable not to revolt than to revolt in order to revolt. Whether this is fear or sense is extranious. Good day sir.

Details are very important, especially details that underpin an argument. My point being that you are basing your idea on a very dismissive view on humanity and people in general.

Indeed, details can be the difference between making a valid point and just getting up someone's nose. Such as, for example, the difference between Pica Pica (latin name for a m->-bleeped-<-ie) and Pika Pika (a disease where you eat non-foodstuffs).

Also, an eye for detail may help avoid saluting an androgyne, in what a suppose is a pseudo-Johnsonian flourish, as 'sir', may be a little lacking in taste.