i am not lucky at all. Luck didn't have a damn thing to do with it. A lot of hard work and a lot of Blood and sweat got me where i am. There is nothing different between me and people in my industry below me. I just work harder/smarter. there are few things in life that get me agitated more than when someone calls me "lucky" for what i have. I wasn't handed anything. ...
Don't mistake my intent... I'm not in any way insinuating that you "fell into" or were handed anything... I'm not saying that hard work and the sweat of your brow wasn't a huge factor in getting you to where you are...
What I AM saying is that it was not the ONLY factor... Your comment that I quoted in my earlier post seemed to imply that ANYONE can make it rich and that if they don't it's only themselves they have to blame... I just don't buy into that...
Let's take whatever company it is you work for... That you've put so much of your sweat and blood into... Suppose that years of your hard work went into this company and you were finally starting to get repaid for it... Just then a "Sporters Paradise" comes to town and puts the company you work for out of business... Where do you stand then? That's the element of luck I'm talking about here... DESPITE how much effort you put forth there are any number of things that could have taken place that would have smacked you right back flat on your butt...
So to state that outside factors like this never influence the "Ability" of someone to acheive their dreams, that it's only their own lack of determination is, in my opinion just wrong...
In other words Kuzi... If you had a twin brother... raised the same, had the same exact work ethic, and made most of the same sorts of choices in life... Just because YOU became successful doesn't mean he would have... He could have easily experienced setbacks that kept him from reaching the same heights as you...
kuzi16:
If you rely on others to get you what you need in life you will never move up.
I agree completely... I don't expect anyone to hand me anything... In fact, if they tried I'd most likely refuse... My point is not that I feel like I "deserve" more or should be given handouts... If that were the case I'd just fucking quit working, have a few hundred kids, and draw welfare like so many others I see around here... (my living area, not this board of course)
kuzi16:
it sucks that your business didnt do well. and in a way you are right that money can create money. but owning your own business is not the only way to live "the American dream."
No, I agree completly that owning your own business is not the only way to be successful... BUT, hard work and determination does NOT always mean success either... If we could quantify the amount of hard work and effort you and I have put into our current employers companies we could easily find that we've both delivered exactly the same effort... But just because we've put in equal effort doesn't mean we're equaly successful... There are circumstances beyond our control that have determined where we currently are in life... Even something as simple as a slightly different attitude in your boss(s) could have easily changed where your current success level stands...
you are talking about opening a business of your own. I dont work for myself. i am STILL living the American dream.
i am not lucky at all. Luck didn't have a damn thing to do with it. A lot of hard work and a lot of Blood and sweat got me where i am. There is nothing different between me and people in my industry below me. I just work harder/smarter. there are few things in life that get me agitated more than when someone calls me "lucky" for what i have. I wasn't handed anything. I don't have a degree. my parents never paid for anything more than food and clothing. I made my "luck" through hard work and a constant willingness to learn, adapt, and in general do whatever it takes to make it. I learned the system that is in place and worked within it. It may look easy now but getting to where I am in life was a difficult task with a ton of BS, a ton of work, and a ton of failure involved.
. IT isnt easy. it isnt fun. Its life. NOTHING is handed to you, nor should it be. If you rely on others to get you what you need in life you will never move up.
it sucks that your business didnt do well. and in a way you are right that money can create money. but owning your own business is not the only way to live "the American dream." Every day i get up and go to work and i am thankful that I am part of a corporation that has deep pockets. they enable me to make money. Eventually i hope to strike out on my own because i will have saved enough to do so. where did i get the money? big business. big evil business is giving me the opportunity to make money, and get a raise/promotion even in this economy because of its pockets. it benefits me to work there. but again, im not entry level. I had to start as a dishwasher.It took time to get into management.
Kuzi, I have no issues with what you state here except for one thing. This is something which a lot of people "Believe" about the situation they find themselves in, in regard to their working live's. Kuzi you said...
it sucks that your business didnt do well. and in a way you are right that money can create money. but owning your own business is not the only way to live "the American dream." Every day i get up and go to work and i am thankful that I am part of a corporation that has deep pockets. they enable me to make money. Eventually i hope to strike out on my own because i will have saved enough to do so. where did i get the money? big business. big evil business is giving me the opportunity to make money, and get a raise/promotion even in this economy because of its pockets. it benefits me to work there. but again, im not entry level. I had to start as a dishwasher.It took time to get into management.
A long time ago I realized something about myself. I will state here first that I am not the sort of person to blow their own horn, what I realized was this...
I am a good employee (or was I am now self employed) and I do a good job for my bosses. I show up to work , on time, ready to work, and quite often found ways to make my job easier, safer, more productive, and I trained many people over the years to do that same job(s). My issue with what you stated above Kuzi is that you belittle yourself. You have reached whatever level of success you have by being a good employee and most likely doing many of the same type of things that I mentioned. The reason you make money from your employer is that you make money for your employer. Your employers does not give you money because he is a nice person. Or because he is worried about your family at home or whether your kids have shoes, food, or clothing. NOPE, he pays you because of what you bring to him by way of your skills set. If you are a lousy employee, with a drinking problem, late for work, non productive, bad attitude, low or no concern for the success of the company then YOU are either very lucky that you have a job or you ARE in a position to consider the big company as your "saviour" because you should not be working.
People need to take pride in their skills and how those skills allow their employers to run a successful company. Take pride and know that you are in a REAL contract with your employer. You give him a good skill set which he uses to make money for his family. In return for your efforts he acknowledges a job well done (hopefully) and pays you what he owes you as his part of the contract. You are not fortunate that your company has deep pockets... they are fortunate that YOU are a good employee that is making them money. It's a contract, as long as both parties are happy with the outcome then it is a successful contract at that. I hate it when people put themselves down in such a way. These situations are always a two way proposition.
you are exactly right... but not the "belittle myself" part. I have no delusions that my employer is paying me because they are nice. you said: "The reason you make money from your employer is that you make money for your employer." that is exactly right. the more money i make for them the more money i tend to make. I do better so they do better so i can do better.
it is a business transaction. I get something out of it and im happy, they get something out of it and they are happy. If I viewed this as a problem i wouldnt work there.
I have met the owner of My company. I have talked to him many times. I know many of the high ups on a first name basis. I may be wrong but i dont think i am about this: I think they Honestly care. If others hate their corporate jobs that's their preference. I like mine... and they seem to like me to. they thank me every two weeks.
I still don't think just because a business failed that the government should give them a hand out or punish the other company just to keep the smaller one in business.
Nor do I... My point was not "Ohh, my business failed because someone with more funding stole it away so now I expect the government to help me out, pay me money, or punish the guy with a bigger pocketbook.
My point rather was simply that HAVING a large pocketbook is a MUCH bigger determination of how successful you can be (i.e. how much money you can make in your lifetime) than how much work and effort you're willing to put forward...
Let's face it... A person with a couple hundred million can put that money in a simply money market or any other extremely safe investment and make FAR more money off the interest than you or I will ever make in our lifetimes... How much "effort" has he put into being successful... Especially if those millions came from mommy and daddy...
PuroFreak:
If you are living paycheck to paycheck then look elsewhere or look into getting some grants to go to school and get better training for a better job. It's not impossible...
LOL... My "training" is extensive, and I have a fantastic job... I make more money than most others at my company. In fact, compared to the average around this area I actually have a very high paying job... Living paycheck to paycheck is the result of several things not the least of which are that A) My wife is in a profession where the pay is EXTREMELY poor. I have a family to support and due to unfortunately circumstances I have an "extended" family to help support as well... and C) last but not least I have an extensive amount of debt to pay off due to my earlier discussed failed business attempts.
Which brings me full circle back to what I was talking about earlier... I've put a tremendous amount of effort into my life in the attempt to be successful... Yet life has found me where I am currently... The circumstances beyond my control have simply limited the amount of success I can enjoy... Which is why as I explained to Kuzi I took exception to his stated fact that if I wasn't successful it was only because I hadn't put enough effort into it.
And by the way Kuzi, I have nothing but respect for you... None of these posts have been in anger or anything like that... Simply a discussion...
And by the way Kuzi, I have nothing but respect for you... None of these posts have been in anger or anything like that... Simply a discussion...
no worries...
dont give up hope man. Hershey, of chocolate fame, failed four times (i think) before having a bit of success.
speaking of chocolate companies... my wife and I have just opened a business of chocolate making... well, officially. we have been selling chocolates to our friends for years but its getting too much to handle without its own bank account and what not...
The fundamental point that both Shirley and Laker are getting at, I think, is that capitalism is called "capitalism" for a reason.
That is, it's a system organized around the use and accumulation of capital. In order to succeed in it, you need some capital. The more capital you have, the more success you're likely to have.
Capital comes in many forms. The one we all immediately think of is money or other financial assets (including the classic ownership of means of production). But there's also intellectual capital -- if you're smart, you have something the market values and you can use that to extract capital from it. Education also plays into intellectual capital. There's social capital -- who you know matters, and not just in the ways we normally think of. There's athletic capital. There's physical capital -- that is, the ability to do hard, physical labor that requires great strength (though this is less valuable than it once was). There's attitudinal capital -- the willingness to work extremely hard, put up with BS, etc., to get ahead.
Regardless, in order to gain any kind of toehold in a capitalist system, you have to have some capital -- that is, you have to own something the market values. Then, if you deploy that capital sharply and don't get wiped out by bad luck or someone with more capital, etc., you can, over time, accumulate more capital, which then gives you a greater competitive advantage, and therefore the opportunity to be even more successful.
But any or all of those things may not be true for some people. Some people, I think, start off with literally nothing the market values. Others have some capital, but knowing how to use it sharply isn't one of their strengths, so the best they can do is run in place. Others get wiped out by bad luck. Others, like Shirley's computer business, by competitors with far more capital.
Capitalism, like every other economic system known to man, does not work for everybody. It isn't 100% efficient. There are people who, through no fault of their own, get left behind (to varying degrees).
The question then becomes: what does a wise/good/just society do about that? Anything?
who is to say we are or should be wise/good/just. we are america. we can be as stupid/evil/unfair as we wanna be!
no but seriously, what are we gunna do about it? what can we?
there always have been and always will be poor people no matter what. there is not much we can do about it. there has never been a way to regulate poverty out of existence.... or deregulate for that matter.
there always have been and always will be poor people no matter what. there is not much we can do about it.
So if Shirley had put everything he owned into trying to make that computer store succeed, and it still failed, tough luck for Shirley and his family? They'll just have to live on the streets until they can get back on their feet, if they can get back on their feet?
I can't see any reason to take that approach, unless it's just a misguided desire for some kind of quasi-moral purity in the system.
As for your last point, there will always be crime, but I don't hear anybody saying that means we shouldn't bother trying to minimize it. There will always be terrorists. Should we just ignore them, too?
you got that before i edited it because the joke didnt come out quite right the first time around.....
my last point was more along the lines of we shouldnt force people to give up what they earned to give it to people who didnt/couldnt/didnt want to make it. that is what charity is for, not the government. im not saying ignore them at all. im saying help them in other non government mandated ways.
The issue is not about eliminating poverty. It's about raising the global standard of living. Fifty years ago, somebody who owned a television set was almost certainly not living in poverty. Now, many people living in poverty own television sets. Fifty years ago, poor and homeless people starved to death. Now, death due to an inability to afford food or shelter are much more rare. Fifty years ago, a family that owned two cars was extremely wealthy. Now, the bulk of middle-class American families own two cars.
These are all (rather poor, but you get the idea) examples of progress in the form of raising the standard of living. Things that were, at one time, items of exclusive privilege, are now in reach of the average American. Those living at the bottom of the food chain have a higher standard of living than they did in the past. Likewise, those at the top of the food chain are enjoying a level of wealth and material possession that was unimaginable in the past. Air travel, auto travel, electricity, clean water, the internet ..... these are all things that at one time were a rare privilege (if they existed at all).
That's progress. Hopefully, within our lifetime, other items of privilege will become what is expected for our baseline affordable standard of living. Healthcare immediately comes to mind. I think people unfairly look at these programs as a "re-distribution of wealth" rather than an elevation of the minimum standard of living. The gap between the middle and upper classes continues to increase, so I don't see vailidity in that argument. Rather, I would argue that we are holding to our responsibilities to do our part, regardless of our station in life, to raise the minimum standard of living.
To me, there's an enormous difference between being left behind (i.e. homeless, with no cigars to smoke) and starting one's own business that doesn't succeed. In Shirley's case, he's still been able to get a well-paying job that provides for his family.
To Kuzi's earlier point, in this country, we all have the opportunity to work hard (at school), and thereby find a relativly good job by which we can support our families. In this regard, we all have a great deal of influence over our successes and failures. It's all about edumacation.
you got that before i edited it because the joke didnt come out quite right the first time around.....
my last point was more along the lines of we shouldnt force people to give up what they earned to give it to people who didnt/couldnt/didnt want to make it. that is what charity is for, not the government. im not saying ignore them at all. im saying help them in other non government mandated ways.
I see 2 problems with that approach. One, I think it's another theory that falls under the "tried and failed" header. I mean, that's pretty much exactly what we did in the Gilded Age. The pie -- GDP -- was growing astronomically, but there was a huge underclass whose piece of the pie did not get any bigger; they got left behind. The people whose piece of pie was getting bigger gave just enough to charity to feel good about themselves, but not enough to do any real good.
The second problem is that the condition of the lowest on the economic ladder is a legitimate concern for government, for several reasons. Public health, crime, etc. This kind of promotion of "the general welfare" is one of the U.S. government's foundational jobs. History shows that people who are allowed to go on being desperately poor for generations, while others get richer and richer, will rise up in armed revolt sooner or later. The avoidance of revolt and civil war is pretty much the first rule of good government. Any government -- any form of government -- that can't do that is not worth having in the first place.
Also, Kuzi, what if we replaced everybody in the United States with a whole nation full of Kuzis. So, let's pretend that every single person in the nation is another incarnation of you. Would all the Kuzis, with their incredible intelligence and motivation, all be equally and incredibly successful? Or would some of them, through competition, find themselves on the losing end of this capitalist contest? Would the rest of the Kuzis be right to blame them? If so, for what? It's not a lack of motivation as they are all equally motivated. It's not a lack of intelligence, as they are all equally intelligent. But shame on them anyway for being poor.
The point is that at some point, luck comes into the picture. In some instances, it is a large part of getting someone where they are. In other circumstances, people can reap the rewards of their hard work in the face of long odds. I've seen just as many lazy, stupid people in high executive positions as I've seen pulling small salaries in dead-end jobs.
The second problem is that the condition of the lowest on the economic ladder is a legitimate concern for government, for several reasons. Public health, crime, etc. This kind of promotion of "the general welfare" is one of the U.S. government's foundational jobs. History shows that people who are allowed to go on being desperately poor for generations, while others get richer and richer, will rise up in armed revolt sooner or later. The avoidance of revolt and civil war is pretty much the first rule of good government. Any government -- any form of government -- that can't do that is not worth having in the first place.
This was the point of my Monopoly analogy. I don't think anybody got that.
The second problem is that the condition of the lowest on the economic ladder is a legitimate concern for government, for several reasons. Public health, crime, etc. This kind of promotion of "the general welfare" is one of the U.S. government's foundational jobs. History shows that people who are allowed to go on being desperately poor for generations, while others get richer and richer, will rise up in armed revolt sooner or later. The avoidance of revolt and civil war is pretty much the first rule of good government. Any government -- any form of government -- that can't do that is not worth having in the first place.
This was the point of my Monopoly analogy. I don't think anybody got that.
Heh. That's probably because you left out the part where your brother (I think it was your brother you used to fleece) turned over the Monopoly board, disemboweled you, and hanged you with your own entrails.
The second problem is that the condition of the lowest on the economic ladder is a legitimate concern for government, for several reasons. Public health, crime, etc. This kind of promotion of "the general welfare" is one of the U.S. government's foundational jobs. History shows that people who are allowed to go on being desperately poor for generations, while others get richer and richer, will rise up in armed revolt sooner or later. The avoidance of revolt and civil war is pretty much the first rule of good government. Any government -- any form of government -- that can't do that is not worth having in the first place.
This was the point of my Monopoly analogy. I don't think anybody got that.
Heh. That's probably because you left out the part where your brother (I think it was your brother you used to fleece) turned over the Monopoly board, disemboweled you, and hanged you with your own entrails.
I mentioned him throwing the board across the room... I don't remember the rest, but I'm not saying it didn't happen.
Heh. I didn't remember the part about throwing the board across the room. Maybe if he'd thrown it at you, thereby . . . I dunno . . . decapitating you or something, we'd have gotten your point.
i seem to remember someone saying that Reaganomics didnt works and therefore we should move on. In that spirit i would like to propose that we move on from redistribution as well. Reaganomics was tried for about 20ish years. I am told it failed. Redistribution has been tried since the great depression and as also stated in above posts its harder now to get a business going than it was back then. Hence redistribution failed.
The second problem is that the condition of the lowest on the economic ladder is a legitimate concern for government, for several reasons. Public health, crime, etc. This kind of promotion of "the general welfare" is one of the U.S. government's foundational jobs.
no. to PROMOTE the welfare not ensure it
urbino:
History shows that people who are allowed to go on being desperately poor for generations, while others get richer and richer, will rise up in armed revolt sooner or later. The avoidance of revolt and civil war is pretty much the first rule of good government. Any government -- any form of government -- that can't do that is not worth having in the first place.
i would like to propose that a revolt might be what this power hungry tax loving government might need. ... its also looking like we are headed that direction.
So, me and my best friend are talking about moving into the LCDH in TJ. There are plenty of couches, the restuarant next door will deliver food and drinks. I'll be alright there for the next 4 years. Anyone wanna join us?
Not really obviously, but I do fear for the Supreme Court.
if Obama wins the stock market will go DOWN by more than 250 points.
true
kuzi16:
The exit polls will be way off no matter who wins.
iduno. didnt watch em. i was out with the wife having a wonderful dinner.
was the exit poll close to the actual? i made this prediction because i saw a few places there the theory was that conservative types are less likely to take exit polls AND exit polls are not designed to predict the outcome, rather why people voted for who they did.
Comments
What I AM saying is that it was not the ONLY factor... Your comment that I quoted in my earlier post seemed to imply that ANYONE can make it rich and that if they don't it's only themselves they have to blame... I just don't buy into that...
Let's take whatever company it is you work for... That you've put so much of your sweat and blood into... Suppose that years of your hard work went into this company and you were finally starting to get repaid for it... Just then a "Sporters Paradise" comes to town and puts the company you work for out of business... Where do you stand then? That's the element of luck I'm talking about here... DESPITE how much effort you put forth there are any number of things that could have taken place that would have smacked you right back flat on your butt...
So to state that outside factors like this never influence the "Ability" of someone to acheive their dreams, that it's only their own lack of determination is, in my opinion just wrong...
In other words Kuzi... If you had a twin brother... raised the same, had the same exact work ethic, and made most of the same sorts of choices in life... Just because YOU became successful doesn't mean he would have... He could have easily experienced setbacks that kept him from reaching the same heights as you... I agree completely... I don't expect anyone to hand me anything... In fact, if they tried I'd most likely refuse... My point is not that I feel like I "deserve" more or should be given handouts... If that were the case I'd just fucking quit working, have a few hundred kids, and draw welfare like so many others I see around here... (my living area, not this board of course) No, I agree completly that owning your own business is not the only way to be successful... BUT, hard work and determination does NOT always mean success either... If we could quantify the amount of hard work and effort you and I have put into our current employers companies we could easily find that we've both delivered exactly the same effort... But just because we've put in equal effort doesn't mean we're equaly successful... There are circumstances beyond our control that have determined where we currently are in life... Even something as simple as a slightly different attitude in your boss(s) could have easily changed where your current success level stands...
you said:
"The reason you make money from your employer is that you make money for your employer."
that is exactly right. the more money i make for them the more money i tend to make. I do better so they do better so i can do better.
it is a business transaction. I get something out of it and im happy, they get something out of it and they are happy. If I viewed this as a problem i wouldnt work there.
I have met the owner of My company. I have talked to him many times. I know many of the high ups on a first name basis. I may be wrong but i dont think i am about this: I think they Honestly care. If others hate their corporate jobs that's their preference. I like mine... and they seem to like me to. they thank me every two weeks.
My point rather was simply that HAVING a large pocketbook is a MUCH bigger determination of how successful you can be (i.e. how much money you can make in your lifetime) than how much work and effort you're willing to put forward...
Let's face it... A person with a couple hundred million can put that money in a simply money market or any other extremely safe investment and make FAR more money off the interest than you or I will ever make in our lifetimes... How much "effort" has he put into being successful... Especially if those millions came from mommy and daddy... LOL... My "training" is extensive, and I have a fantastic job... I make more money than most others at my company. In fact, compared to the average around this area I actually have a very high paying job... Living paycheck to paycheck is the result of several things not the least of which are that A) My wife is in a profession where the pay is EXTREMELY poor.
Which brings me full circle back to what I was talking about earlier... I've put a tremendous amount of effort into my life in the attempt to be successful... Yet life has found me where I am currently... The circumstances beyond my control have simply limited the amount of success I can enjoy... Which is why as I explained to Kuzi I took exception to his stated fact that if I wasn't successful it was only because I hadn't put enough effort into it.
And by the way Kuzi, I have nothing but respect for you... None of these posts have been in anger or anything like that... Simply a discussion...
dont give up hope man. Hershey, of chocolate fame, failed four times (i think) before having a bit of success.
speaking of chocolate companies... my wife and I have just opened a business of chocolate making... well, officially. we have been selling chocolates to our friends for years but its getting too much to handle without its own bank account and what not...
we now have two jobs.
That is, it's a system organized around the use and accumulation of capital. In order to succeed in it, you need some capital. The more capital you have, the more success you're likely to have.
Capital comes in many forms. The one we all immediately think of is money or other financial assets (including the classic ownership of means of production). But there's also intellectual capital -- if you're smart, you have something the market values and you can use that to extract capital from it. Education also plays into intellectual capital. There's social capital -- who you know matters, and not just in the ways we normally think of. There's athletic capital. There's physical capital -- that is, the ability to do hard, physical labor that requires great strength (though this is less valuable than it once was). There's attitudinal capital -- the willingness to work extremely hard, put up with BS, etc., to get ahead.
Regardless, in order to gain any kind of toehold in a capitalist system, you have to have some capital -- that is, you have to own something the market values. Then, if you deploy that capital sharply and don't get wiped out by bad luck or someone with more capital, etc., you can, over time, accumulate more capital, which then gives you a greater competitive advantage, and therefore the opportunity to be even more successful.
But any or all of those things may not be true for some people. Some people, I think, start off with literally nothing the market values. Others have some capital, but knowing how to use it sharply isn't one of their strengths, so the best they can do is run in place. Others get wiped out by bad luck. Others, like Shirley's computer business, by competitors with far more capital.
Capitalism, like every other economic system known to man, does not work for everybody. It isn't 100% efficient. There are people who, through no fault of their own, get left behind (to varying degrees).
The question then becomes: what does a wise/good/just society do about that? Anything?
no but seriously, what are we gunna do about it? what can we?
there always have been and always will be poor people no matter what. there is not much we can do about it. there has never been a way to regulate poverty out of existence.... or deregulate for that matter.
I can't see any reason to take that approach, unless it's just a misguided desire for some kind of quasi-moral purity in the system.
As for your last point, there will always be crime, but I don't hear anybody saying that means we shouldn't bother trying to minimize it. There will always be terrorists. Should we just ignore them, too?
my last point was more along the lines of we shouldnt force people to give up what they earned to give it to people who didnt/couldnt/didnt want to make it. that is what charity is for, not the government. im not saying ignore them at all. im saying help them in other non government mandated ways.
These are all (rather poor, but you get the idea) examples of progress in the form of raising the standard of living. Things that were, at one time, items of exclusive privilege, are now in reach of the average American. Those living at the bottom of the food chain have a higher standard of living than they did in the past. Likewise, those at the top of the food chain are enjoying a level of wealth and material possession that was unimaginable in the past. Air travel, auto travel, electricity, clean water, the internet ..... these are all things that at one time were a rare privilege (if they existed at all).
That's progress. Hopefully, within our lifetime, other items of privilege will become what is expected for our baseline affordable standard of living. Healthcare immediately comes to mind. I think people unfairly look at these programs as a "re-distribution of wealth" rather than an elevation of the minimum standard of living. The gap between the middle and upper classes continues to increase, so I don't see vailidity in that argument. Rather, I would argue that we are holding to our responsibilities to do our part, regardless of our station in life, to raise the minimum standard of living.
To Kuzi's earlier point, in this country, we all have the opportunity to work hard (at school), and thereby find a relativly good job by which we can support our families. In this regard, we all have a great deal of influence over our successes and failures. It's all about edumacation.
The second problem is that the condition of the lowest on the economic ladder is a legitimate concern for government, for several reasons. Public health, crime, etc. This kind of promotion of "the general welfare" is one of the U.S. government's foundational jobs. History shows that people who are allowed to go on being desperately poor for generations, while others get richer and richer, will rise up in armed revolt sooner or later. The avoidance of revolt and civil war is pretty much the first rule of good government. Any government -- any form of government -- that can't do that is not worth having in the first place.
The point is that at some point, luck comes into the picture. In some instances, it is a large part of getting someone where they are. In other circumstances, people can reap the rewards of their hard work in the face of long odds. I've seen just as many lazy, stupid people in high executive positions as I've seen pulling small salaries in dead-end jobs.
lets move away from that failed policy.
oh wait, we cant. we just elected a Marxist.
oops
Right?
Still no call on VA, but at this point, with the calls that have been made, it's hard to see how Obama doesn't win.
Congrats to those who wanted that outcome. Condolences to those who didn't.
Not really obviously, but I do fear for the Supreme Court.
head
false true iduno. didnt watch em. i was out with the wife having a wonderful dinner.
was the exit poll close to the actual?
i made this prediction because i saw a few places there the theory was that conservative types are less likely to take exit polls
AND
exit polls are not designed to predict the outcome, rather why people voted for who they did.