Forums >Off the Beaten Path>On Wisconsin!
One day at a time
Why is it sideways?
From a societal view, I do believe there are a lot of takers
But I also believe there are more people in need then ever before
But my disdain for the takers who are not even trying often cloud my view and sense of charity for the people that are really in need
Also, I understand my view of a person is likely incorrect for reasons unknown to me - So in reality some of the people I view as takers are realy in need as I have not lived their lives to understand what has driven them to where they are in life.
The older I get the more I soften my view on these things.
Long dead ... But my stench lingers !
From a societal view, I do believe there are a lot of takers But I also believe there are more people in need then ever before But my disdain for the takers who are not even trying often cloud my view and sense of charity for the people that are really in need Also, I understand my view of a person is likely incorrect for reasons unknown to me - So in reality some of the people I view as takers are realy in need as I have not lived their lives to understand what has driven them to where they are in life. The older I get the more I soften my view on these things.
This is well put, I think.
Status: This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It bears a very vague resemblance to Jefferson's comment in a prospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy: "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"[3] I do not know what Jefferson said or did not say - But I read the above to mean really close to what Fox had written - Can you explain what is different?
Status: This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It bears a very vague resemblance to Jefferson's comment in a prospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy: "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"[3]
I do not know what Jefferson said or did not say - But I read the above to mean really close to what Fox had written - Can you explain what is different?
The above quote does say something similar. But, consider the source carefully: this is taken from a comment in a prospectus for a translation of the work of another theorist. Was Jefferson saying this because he believed it? Was he saying this because he was summarizing the view of de Tracy? Was he laying out a simplistic view that he would go on to later add nuance? We can't know unless we examine the source. That's why it is important to quote someone directly and not make up similar quotes.
Assuming that Jefferson believes this fully, the quote seems to be a direct criticism of Marx's famous summary of a fundamental principle of communism: "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." But even that quote acquires nuance if you look at its context. Here is the passage from Marx from which it was taken. Read and pay attention to the "afters":
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
Here Marx makes it clear that redistribution is not a guiding principle of social economy, but the outcome of a just state, in which one's abilities and capacities to work are in line with the fruits of one's labor. Note that it is an effect that comes into being AFTER both the productive forces of the state economy and of individuals have been fully released. Marx's slogan is a consequence of good education and good social institutions, not a guiding tenet of governmental economic policy. Marx is being critical of naive socialists who think that they can redistribute wealth and the communist ideal would magically come into being. (There are other clues that he is talking to activists--the dramatic language, for example.) In other words, Marx and Jefferson agree on the ends of democracy: that an association between work and reward is a crucial tenet of democracy. They are both critical of arbitrary redistributions of wealth in the name of social justice. They also agree that the association between labor and its fruits is difficult to maintain and requires an educated populace--and is central to the establishment of a just state.
Of course all of this is a sidebar to the question of "what's wrong with America (if anything.)" I tend to agree with Dopplebock that the primary problem is not an entitlement mentality. This might be a small problem, but if it is a problem it seems more to me like a consequence of poor education and lack of opportunity, not a cause of these things.
I think some of us, not all would be OK with this state - But we have a hard time believing ("from each according to his abilities" ) People are giving their best effort. We are all at times victims of circumstances beyond out control - It is just many of us feel 100% in control of our response to adversity and others become paralyzed victims.
Socialism ... we continue to move toward it, is that really a bad thing?
National Bankruptcy ... We appear spirally toward it, I know that will be a bad thing ... at least in the short and mid-term (0-20 years), I am not sure our national egos could take it ... being less than other countries.
Change has been happening for the last 10-15 years and been accelerated the last 5 years. Although my pension is gone and I pay a large portion of my own health benefits - I believe more financial pain needs to happen to many of us.
http://www.wrn.com/2010/12/kohler-workers-accept-concessions/
These were big at the time - but long term I do not think it will not be enough to save these WI jobs - In five years, I believe they will be asking for paycuts from Grandfathered workers and other cuts,
The pain also needs to be felt more by me: Working in Finance as a Group Controller, The CEO, The Machine Operators. There are 2 large issues to me: 1) Stop our large trade deficiet - By making our cost to produce in line with other countries and 2) Rid ourselves of our national deficiet - Either through paying more taxes as individuals (If you make the companies pay more taxes - refer to issues #1) or by reducing spending supported by taxes.
Self anointed title
One can rationalize almost anything but the basic tenants still hold true today as much as in their day.
By entitlement mentality - I am not exactly with Jeff as a Nation - I think it exists. I do not believe it has a lot to do with the Teachers - They are just finally hitting the stark reality of the world we live in.
I think we have allowed/conditioned people to respond to adversity with a victim mentality because of our entitilements and the way we distribute them. Sadly this means many people receive them that really could / should pull themselves up and not need them. Because of this, they are in short supply for many others that really need them.
This all seems pretty far afield from the question of whether state workers' retirement and health insurance benefits are too rich for the times and whether the strength of labor unions are to blame. That is unless you accept the premise put forth by a NY Post Op Ed writer, reprinted on Fox News, that an entitlement culture is at the heart of this particular problem. And I don't. We're talking about public employees who work hard (for the most part) and do thankless jobs in many cases, not welfare recipients bilking the system for all its worth (for the most part.)
In my mind the big problem with labor unions is that they perpetuate an adversarial relationship between employer and employee. They pretty much require it to keep themselves relevant. Employees have to believe that "management" is out to perpetually screw them any way they can and that they (the employee) should not do any more than the absolute minimum that it says in their job description or else they are being manipulated by the man in order for the union to maintain its importance. Big brother union is the only one looking out for their rights and whatnot.
Runners run
By entitlement mentality - I am not exactly with Jeff as a Nation - I think it exists. I do not believe it has a lot to do with the Teachers - They are just finally hitting the stark reality of the world we live in. I think we have allowed/conditioned people to respond to adversity with a victim mentality because of our entitilements and the way we distribute them. Sadly this means many people receive them that really could / should pull themselves up and not need them. Because of this, they are in short supply for many others that really need them.
I did not say that the mentality did not exist. It does. I said that I don't think it is the primary cause of our problems (whatever they are); I see it as an effect of poor education and, yes, to some extent social welfare programs that were ill conceived and could use some revamping.
The word "entitlement" is a politically loaded word. I think it would be better to talk about our social goals. What should a democracy do about poverty?
We have a lot of wealth, even now. What should we do with that wealth? Put an HD TV in every household? Attempt to bring democracy to the middle east? Build more cars? Revamp the health care system? Build better roads? Provide more aid to small business? Pay higher pensions? Put more money back in the hands of the wealthiest 1%? Provide food stamps for poor folks? Balance the budget? Address global warming? Put a man on Mars? Cure cancer? Stop obesity? Pay teachers more?
Which of these things are essential? Which unnecessary? Reasonable people disagree.
an amazing likeness
I'm this all much more simple (in that complex public policy way...) than it is being made out?
We are talking about the laws of the state of Wisconsin.
The Wisconsin state legislature is deciding whether to change the laws of the state of Wisconsin regarding unions and state employees.
Should this happen, and it is not what a majority of Wi voters want, the citizens can change get the law changed.
The citizens of Wisconsin have the ultimate control in who they elect to represent them.
Under all the hubbabaloo, it doesn't seem to be a pension or health care cost issue as much as a law being rammed down the throats of the minority of the legislators. Laws can be changed.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
Boobies.
you make two huge well rounded points there.
butt...
we all know government will respond to shrinking resources by either putting the solution off for another day to create a larger problem or by acting more like a business. and business will look to cut costs wherever thay can as long as it makes busniess sense. with few choices for workers to move to other jobs the power shifts to the employer. I think 2012 will be the end of days in terms of pent up demand from employees to tell their bosses to shove it as they find a new job. I bet there is 25% turnover in all jobs next year.
who gives a shit about bigfoot.
In order to see the truth, sometimes you have to loose an eye.
http://www.runningahead.com/groups/Utri/
the joke on the street here is that people are confused because they thought Scott Walker didn't like Railroading. This is a reference to him deciding to hand the federal government back $800,000,000.00 which then went to rail investment in other states.