(03-22-2010 04:55 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 01:37 AM)CanadianOwl Wrote:  The real shame here is that the Democrats wimped out on providing a public option. The only true winners in all of this are the Health Insurers.

I agree with this statement. It's a crap deal and in the end I stopped caring whether it passed or not even though I'm HEAVILY in favor of some kind of overhaul or public option. Something smart and new would have been cool. Or something known to work. Instead we got tried and doesn't work. nice.

I'm sorry. I'm sure you're brilliant in your field of study. But until you're in the grind of raising a family and earning a living for 20 or 30 years it's hard for me to value your opinion (on this). Now, if you want to discuss astrophysics I'm all ears.

(03-22-2010 05:18 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Was it good fortune that got you to the point you are at? You won a lottery?

Yes. I've drawn some good hands in my life. I was born to middle-class parents who nurtured me, read to me, taught me to love math. I had nothing to do with that. I lived in a safe, middle-class neighborhood where I could play baseball with my friends in the street and chase fireflies at night. I had nothing to do with that. I was blessed with a pretty high IQ (despite what you might think from my posts in this forum!) that allowed me to do well in school starting in kindergarten. I had nothing to do with that. I am white, American, and not butt-ugly. I had nothing to do with that.

Yes, I worked hard all along the way and continue to do so now. But I cannot and will not forget that, the day I was born, the dealer sat me in late position, with a tall stack of chips, and dealt me an Ace and King of spades. That is good fortune.

That's what drives a lot of my political beliefs -- a personal belief that there are many, many others who are just as worthy, just as human as I am, who were not born into safe, comfortable situations, with loving parents, and a mind that, for whatever reason, can do things that many people cannot (present company excluded).

The day I was born, I could have been that guy sitting to the left of the dealer, with just a few remaining chips, looking at an 8-4 offsuit. Of course, that guy's responsibility is to play his hand smartly, to maximize his chances. But no one should be surprised if he loses the hand.

But I wasn't that guy. Ace-King suited, baby. Thank you, Mom and Dad. And thank you, Lady Luck.

What I want is the system that creates the most opportunity for individuals to achieve whatever their initial circumstances are. In fact, there are so many examples of individuals born to lesser circumstances achieving "success" and even greatness that it's not even worth arguing about (and this is the country where that happens most often). Your "life's lottery" argument is just a bunch of "white guilt" psychobabble. Somewhere along the line your ancestors/parents earned the wealth that you benefitted from - they probably sacrificed for the next generation like most of us do. It's no different (except the timing)from the immigrant who first comes to this country, works hard, scrimps and saves to put his children through college, who, in turn, achieve greater success and wealth which they pass on from generation to generation (unless one generation blows it, of course). It had to start somewhere - right?

(03-22-2010 05:56 PM)LonghornOwl Wrote:  ... just a bunch of "white guilt" psychobabble...

Wow. Thanks.

EDIT: Please reread my post, Longhorn. I feel guilty about nothing. I feel lucky about a lot.

(03-22-2010 05:21 PM)LonghornOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 04:55 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 01:37 AM)CanadianOwl Wrote:  The real shame here is that the Democrats wimped out on providing a public option. The only true winners in all of this are the Health Insurers.

I agree with this statement. It's a crap deal and in the end I stopped caring whether it passed or not even though I'm HEAVILY in favor of some kind of overhaul or public option. Something smart and new would have been cool. Or something known to work. Instead we got tried and doesn't work. nice.

I'm sorry. I'm sure you're brilliant in your field of study. But until you're in the grind of raising a family and earning a living for 20 or 30 years it's hard for me to value your opinion (on this). Now, if you want to discuss astrophysics I'm all ears.

Wow. Usually we're not so dismissive of other people around here. Maybe part of the grind of raising a family and earning a living over the last 20 or 30 years for you has included taking night classes on econometrics and health care economics, which might validate your position. Or not. Either way, playing the "I'm older than you" card is just lame and belongs on the playground, not here.

(03-22-2010 05:59 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 05:21 PM)LonghornOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 04:55 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 01:37 AM)CanadianOwl Wrote:  The real shame here is that the Democrats wimped out on providing a public option. The only true winners in all of this are the Health Insurers.

I agree with this statement. It's a crap deal and in the end I stopped caring whether it passed or not even though I'm HEAVILY in favor of some kind of overhaul or public option. Something smart and new would have been cool. Or something known to work. Instead we got tried and doesn't work. nice.

I'm sorry. I'm sure you're brilliant in your field of study. But until you're in the grind of raising a family and earning a living for 20 or 30 years it's hard for me to value your opinion (on this). Now, if you want to discuss astrophysics I'm all ears.

Wow. Usually we're not so dismissive of other people around here. Maybe part of the grind of raising a family and earning a living over the last 20 or 30 years for you has included taking night classes on econometrics and health care economics, which might validate your position. Or not. Either way, playing the "I'm older than you" card is just lame and belongs on the playground, not here.

I'm not dismissive of her, just her one opinion as stated in her post. It's not an "I'm older than you are argument". It's an argument about having gone through life's real world experiences and seeing the impact of government policies first hand on family finances, etc., as opposed to someone who has not. By the way, I do study the economics and impact of government policies on almost a daily basis and have for 30+ years. If you'll notice I was also complimenting emmiesix for her accomplishments in astrophysics which is well beyond (in terms of difficulty) any area of expertise I could claim.

(03-22-2010 05:56 PM)LonghornOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 05:18 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Was it good fortune that got you to the point you are at? You won a lottery?

Yes. I've drawn some good hands in my life. I was born to middle-class parents who nurtured me, read to me, taught me to love math. I had nothing to do with that. I lived in a safe, middle-class neighborhood where I could play baseball with my friends in the street and chase fireflies at night. I had nothing to do with that. I was blessed with a pretty high IQ (despite what you might think from my posts in this forum!) that allowed me to do well in school starting in kindergarten. I had nothing to do with that. I am white, American, and not butt-ugly. I had nothing to do with that.

Yes, I worked hard all along the way and continue to do so now. But I cannot and will not forget that, the day I was born, the dealer sat me in late position, with a tall stack of chips, and dealt me an Ace and King of spades. That is good fortune.

That's what drives a lot of my political beliefs -- a personal belief that there are many, many others who are just as worthy, just as human as I am, who were not born into safe, comfortable situations, with loving parents, and a mind that, for whatever reason, can do things that many people cannot (present company excluded).

The day I was born, I could have been that guy sitting to the left of the dealer, with just a few remaining chips, looking at an 8-4 offsuit. Of course, that guy's responsibility is to play his hand smartly, to maximize his chances. But no one should be surprised if he loses the hand.

But I wasn't that guy. Ace-King suited, baby. Thank you, Mom and Dad. And thank you, Lady Luck.

What I want is the system that creates the most opportunity for individuals to achieve whatever their initial circumstances are. In fact, there are so many examples of individuals born to lesser circumstances achieving "success" and even greatness that it's not even worth arguing about (and this is the country where that happens most often). Your "life's lottery" argument is just a bunch of "white guilt" psychobabble. Somewhere along the line your ancestors/parents earned the wealth that you benefitted from - they probably sacrificed for the next generation like most of us do. It's no different (except the timing)from the immigrant who first comes to this country, works hard, scrimps and saves to put his children through college, who, in turn, achieve greater success and wealth which they pass on from generation to generation (unless one generation blows it, of course). It had to start somewhere - right?

You're welcome - happy to straighten you out.

(03-22-2010 06:18 PM)LonghornOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 05:59 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 05:21 PM)LonghornOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 04:55 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 01:37 AM)CanadianOwl Wrote:  The real shame here is that the Democrats wimped out on providing a public option. The only true winners in all of this are the Health Insurers.

I agree with this statement. It's a crap deal and in the end I stopped caring whether it passed or not even though I'm HEAVILY in favor of some kind of overhaul or public option. Something smart and new would have been cool. Or something known to work. Instead we got tried and doesn't work. nice.

I'm sorry. I'm sure you're brilliant in your field of study. But until you're in the grind of raising a family and earning a living for 20 or 30 years it's hard for me to value your opinion (on this). Now, if you want to discuss astrophysics I'm all ears.

Wow. Usually we're not so dismissive of other people around here. Maybe part of the grind of raising a family and earning a living over the last 20 or 30 years for you has included taking night classes on econometrics and health care economics, which might validate your position. Or not. Either way, playing the "I'm older than you" card is just lame and belongs on the playground, not here.

I'm not dismissive of her, just her one opinion as stated in her post. It's not an "I'm older than you are argument". It's an argument about having gone through life's real world experiences and seeing the impact of government policies first hand on family finances, etc., as opposed to someone who has not. By the way, I do study the economics and impact of government policies on almost a daily basis and have for 30+ years. If you'll notice I was also complimenting emmiesix for her accomplishments in astrophysics which is well beyond (in terms of difficulty) any area of expertise I could claim.

I am not offended. However, arguments from authority hold no water with me. I am a multi-dimensional person, and at the age of 26 I am admittedly young but hardly inexperienced. I am financially independent, a homeowner, etc. Unless you care to state how your experiences as an individual qualitatively outweigh my own (I have done plenty of my own research as I headed up the GSA health committee for several years, and personally have spent a lot of time in the hospital AND paid for it, I also have several people close to me in the medical professions), I don't see a real position being argued here. I was simply offering my opinion to flavor the discussion a bit, my apologies for not writing up a more detailed and argued post (which I still don't really have time to do right now).

(03-22-2010 04:59 PM)LonghornOwl Wrote:  In fact, there are so many examples of individuals born to lesser circumstances achieving "success" and even greatness that it's not even worth arguing about (and this is the country where that happens most often). Your "life's lottery" argument is just a bunch of "white guilt" psychobabble.

There are many examples of people earning a furtune playing slots in Vegas, but it's not my recommended way of becoming successful.

It's still true that socio-economic status is the number one predictor of success - be that in later income, degrees earned, or days not in jail.

There is research suggesting that success is largely random - the myth of the meritocracy - and that the best you can do is position yourself well. My fiance is reading a book on it and if you're interested I can get the title (escapes me at present).

Personally I see little empathy for other people from some of you and I wonder why that is. I am not much of a touchy-feely person but I still feel a responsibility to my fellow man and a desire to see them do better, even if that means I get a little less (materially) in life. I try to think of how what I do (or vote for) will help the best person in crappy circumstances, not focus on how the worst person will benefit. And just saying "well it would be nice if these poor people pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" --- really??

(03-22-2010 06:40 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In fact, there are so many examples of individuals born to lesser circumstances achieving "success" and even greatness that it's not even worth arguing about (and this is the country where that happens most often). Your "life's lottery" argument is just a bunch of "white guilt" psychobabble.

There are many examples of people earning a furtune playing slots in Vegas, but it's not my recommended way of becoming successful.

It's still true that socio-economic status is the number one predictor of success - be that in later income, degrees earned, or days not in jail.

There is research suggesting that success is largely random - the myth of the meritocracy - and that the best you can do is position yourself well. My fiance is reading a book on it and if you're interested I can get the title (escapes me at present).

Personally I see little empathy for other people from some of you and I wonder why that is. I am not much of a touchy-feely person but I still feel a responsibility to my fellow man and a desire to see them do better, even if that means I get a little less (materially) in life. I try to think of how what I do (or vote for) will help the best person in crappy circumstances, not focus on how the worst person will benefit. And just saying "well it would be nice if these poor people pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" --- really??

Boy, where do I start? I'll just try to close this out and go back to discussing baseball. It's insulting to hear that tired old argument that conservatives are not empathetic/sympathetic to the less fortunate or those in need of a helping hand. For all of the conservatives I know, nothing could be further from the truth. Most of us simply believe that it is in the long-term best interest of this country to have an economic system in place where there is the most freedom and opportunity for individuals (not the government) to grow and prosper, regardless of where they begin in life. Helping those who cannot help themselves and lending a hand so that individuals can take advantage of that economic system are part of that philosophy. If I give someone a thousand dollars do I have more empathy than if I try to make sure he has the tools and opportunity (and yes, motivation) to earn that thousand dollars and can duplicate that time and time again? There is also a spiritual aspect to all of this which is often ignored, too, but I need to get back to being productive myself.

emmiesix's post has a bad edit - the "white guilt" psychobabble line is LonghornOwl's, not Optimistic Owl's.

Anyone out there think that if GWB had been adopted by a lower middle class working family he would have had the success he has seen?

(03-22-2010 07:46 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  emmiesix's post has a bad edit - the "white guilt" psychobabble line is LonghornOwl's, not Optimistic Owl's.

Anyone out there think that if GWB had been adopted by a lower middle class working family he would have had the success he has seen?

Sammy, so you are admitting that GWB had success? See you 4/1.

(03-22-2010 07:46 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  emmiesix's post has a bad edit - the "white guilt" psychobabble line is LonghornOwl's, not Optimistic Owl's.

Anyone out there think that if GWB had been adopted by a lower middle class working family he would have had the success he has seen?

I don't, but so what? His was only one path to the Presidency. On the other hand, humble beginnings certainly did not preclude others from becoming President, including BHO, WJC, RWR, and RMN.

(03-22-2010 05:18 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Was it good fortune that got you to the point you are at? You won a lottery?

Yes. I've drawn some good hands in my life. I was born to middle-class parents who nurtured me, read to me, taught me to love math. I had nothing to do with that. I lived in a safe, middle-class neighborhood where I could play baseball with my friends in the street and chase fireflies at night. I had nothing to do with that. I was blessed with a pretty high IQ (despite what you might think from my posts in this forum!) that allowed me to do well in school starting in kindergarten. I had nothing to do with that. I am white, American, and not butt-ugly. I had nothing to do with that.

Yes, I worked hard all along the way and continue to do so now. But I cannot and will not forget that, the day I was born, the dealer sat me in late position, with a tall stack of chips, and dealt me an Ace and King of spades. That is good fortune.

That's what drives a lot of my political beliefs -- a personal belief that there are many, many others who are just as worthy, just as human as I am, who were not born into safe, comfortable situations, with loving parents, and a mind that, for whatever reason, can do things that many people cannot (present company excluded).

The day I was born, I could have been that guy sitting to the left of the dealer, with just a few remaining chips, looking at an 8-4 offsuit. Of course, that guy's responsibility is to play his hand smartly, to maximize his chances. But no one should be surprised if he loses the hand.

But I wasn't that guy. Ace-King suited, baby. Thank you, Mom and Dad. And thank you, Lady Luck.

Sure, we're all lucky that we weren't born in Darfur or Cuba. And equally so, we are all unlucky not be be born into the Kennedy family or the kerry family or the soros family. But it is very simplistic to attribute one's lot in life to accidents of birth. Some people who are born to parents just like yours end up in prison, or as deadbeats. Some people who are born to poor people end up rich, by anybody's definition. My own Dad was the child of an absent father and a Mexican-American schoolteacher mom in the Depression in the poorest city of the US, and he worked (from age 9) and made something of himself, starting his oown business and working through difficulties - floods, IRS, abd luck, bad partners - but he kept at it. NOT LUCK. He gave me a better start than he had, not a great start like the AKs you speak of, but more like a 10-9, and I have taken what he gave me and carried it higher and farther. It's not the hand you are dealt so much as how you play the game, and that seems to be the part you are missing. Maybe if you had been born differently, you would be a Master plumber or a ranch manager, but the opportunity to take whatever you had and improve on it would depend on you. Even people born in River Oaks or Highland Park can be failures, and even people born in the worst of circumstances can be successes. Play the hand you're dealt and don't whine that when you got AK, someone else got AA. Or that the guy with 7-6 outdrew you.

It's ironic that you choose a hold 'em analogy, so let's carry it a little further. You take your AK suited and win with it. Then the dealer tells you to send 40% of your chips to the guy with the short stack, because you were lucky and he wasn't. Do you agree that he deserves 40% of your chips? Yes or no.

Luck belongs at the poker table. Work belongs in real life. We all play the hand we are dealt. Some just play better or harder than others. No reason to demean them for that.

(03-22-2010 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It's ironic that you choose a hold 'em analogy, so let's carry it a little further. You take your AK suited and win with it. Then the dealer tells you to send 40% of your chips to the guy with the short stack, because you were lucky and he wasn't. Do you agree that he deserves 40% of your chips? Yes or no.

OK, let's play!

If I were at Foxwoods, actually playing poker, absolutely not! I love my money.

But what about in life? A different story.

In my analogy, I got dealt one very important hand, at birth, that was a very good hand that I did nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve. Remember that my good hand was not just about my middle-class birth to loving parents in the richest country in the world. It's also about my physical appearance, mental ability, emotional stability, etc. -- all things that sound silly but that really gave me (and many of you) a leg up in this world. All of us who have been pregnant or have wives that are or were pregnant surely remember how worried you get about whether your child will come out okay. Because being born smart, healthy, and ready to take on the world has nothing to do with you or your parents (mostly) and everything to do with luck (or God, if you are so inclined).

Some were not as lucky as I was. Perhaps they had trouble reading, or adding, or had some emotional issue or a physical abnormality. Perhaps they were born into situations that weren't so stable or loving. This probably happened to some of you. Your initial hand wasn't great.

In the game of life, as opposed to the game at Foxwoods, yes, I believe it is a moral and reasonable thing for me to share some of the fruits of my good fortune with those less fortunate. Rawls' veil of ignorance and all that.

A good question for a different thread is how much redistribution is right and just. You specifically alluded to 40 percent, Optimistic. That is, um, optimistic in the sense that it is far higher than what we currently pay to those less fortunate among us. (Short explanation: In my tax bracket, the marginal tax rate is 28 percent, but my average tax rate this year was under 19 percent. And about half of that goes to things like defense, roads, and veterans. Only perhaps half of my 19 percent tax rate goes to social welfare programs. Even adding in the portion of other taxes going to social welfare, the number won't approach 40 percent.)

I have to think about this more. I can tell you that, yes, what I pay now is right and just. And, to connect back to the thread, providing health care to 32 million -- 32 million!!! -- uninsured Americans is worth it to me, even if the CBO is wrong and it costs me more money.

Because I know, way back when I was a wee lad emerging from my mother's womb, I could have just as easily drawn 84o as AKs. Yes, I played my hand pretty well. And where I am today is a function of how well I played it. But it is also a function of where I started. I will never forget that.

EDIT: In rereading your post, Optimistic, I see that what might be irking you is that you drew an okay hand (to continue the analogy), worked hard, and did well, and you rightfully deserve to enjoy what you have. I appreciate and admire that. Without knowing anything about your specific circumstances beyond what you've written, though, I would hypothesize that some of your success was good fortune -- whether it was some of the types of good fortune I described, or maybe the good fortune to get admitted to Rice when there were lots of other great candidates (there are always more great candidates than slots, right?), or the good fortune to meet the right person in your career, to get that break. In other words, maybe you got a great flop.

I agree, success depends on both the hand you're dealt and how you play. I think we lose sight of the first part too often, though.

(03-22-2010 08:22 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 07:46 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  emmiesix's post has a bad edit - the "white guilt" psychobabble line is LonghornOwl's, not Optimistic Owl's.

Anyone out there think that if GWB had been adopted by a lower middle class working family he would have had the success he has seen?

Sammy, so you are admitting that GWB had success? See you 4/1.

Sure. Getting elected President is quite an achievement. And if he's not very wealthy now, he soon will be. That's success in my book.

(03-22-2010 06:40 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 04:59 PM)LonghornOwl Wrote:  In fact, there are so many examples of individuals born to lesser circumstances achieving "success" and even greatness that it's not even worth arguing about (and this is the country where that happens most often). Your "life's lottery" argument is just a bunch of "white guilt" psychobabble.

There are many examples of people earning a furtune playing slots in Vegas, but it's not my recommended way of becoming successful.

It's still true that socio-economic status is the number one predictor of success - be that in later income, degrees earned, or days not in jail.

There is research suggesting that success is largely random - the myth of the meritocracy - and that the best you can do is position yourself well. My fiance is reading a book on it and if you're interested I can get the title (escapes me at present).

Personally I see little empathy for other people from some of you and I wonder why that is. I am not much of a touchy-feely person but I still feel a responsibility to my fellow man and a desire to see them do better, even if that means I get a little less (materially) in life. I try to think of how what I do (or vote for) will help the best person in crappy circumstances, not focus on how the worst person will benefit. And just saying "well it would be nice if these poor people pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" --- really??

I guess some of it depends on what you mean by helping and how that helping occurs.

I am not in the upper 4%. Ten per cent of my income goes to my (non-mega, racially mixed. smack-in-the-middle-of-cheap-apartments-in-a- declining-area) church. We provide free pancake breakfast for kids from the complexes every Sunday morning, take up money to send kids to camp, do things for them other nights of the week. Our pastor's salary was cut this year due to budget problems and he lives in an area where his car is burglarized routinely and people have been shot walking the street.

We pick apartment kids up in vans, etc, from parents who frankly seem willing to trust anyone to watch them for 4 hours as long as they can stay in bed or get away from them. Most of there home situations are incredibly bad. I could go on. My kids are in the minority most Sunday mornings and have from an early age gone with us to distribute food to the homeless, are recognized on frequent visits to the blood center when parents give blood, etc.

Now my kids are 'lucky' in many respects. I spend over 33% of my income on private school. It's secular (in case you wondered), and the reason they're there is that 99% of the kids attending go on to 4-year colleges (as opposed to the incredibly low percentages that do so from HISD, who gets my property tax money). To do that, we drive cars past 200,000 miles, do a lot (and I mean a LOT) less than some of their peer families in their school. We don't go on vacation every year. We don't have cable TV - - (I'll add that the apartment complexes we deliver food and Christmas presents too have a decent percentage of satellite dishes interspersed, while garbage is lying around on sidewalks.)

None of this makes me special. By the numbers, I'm still in the top 20%, and by Boston Owl's reckoning rich. However, like most people in my situation, I'm one downsizing from being totally hosed.

I imagine most people here, and I mean the conservatives you're questioning on the empathy issue, can give similar stories of things they do to help those around them. Yes, I want to see people do better, and in fact I take active steps to help some of them do better. No, I'm not special and I wish I had time to do more.

The problem I have is the seeming assumption that a government, or a bureaucracy, is the best one suited to help other people. Or that it's the government's job to make us help people.

Frankly, all I see out of this is rising tax rates, and not just for those in the top 4%. I see Social Security and Medicaid, and I see bankrupt systems that are not going to pay out to the people who paid in.

The U.S. is deeply in debt, and about to go deeper, and this is not going to help.

What's worse is that I see all of this hitting me in the pocketbook at a time when I don't really need that.

At any rate, do I want to see people helped? Absolutely. Do I want to pay higher taxes? Given that I'm already resigned to working well past 65 to make sure my kids have the opportunity to go to any university they might earn their way into, not so much. I guess that makes me selfish to a degree.

It's not that I'm averse to making sacrifices. It's just that I'd prefer to be the one to decide which ones to make, and exactly what I'm making them for.

Even though I'm "rich", I don't foresee my life getting any easier any time real soon.

this of course is going to make my kids "lucky".

(03-22-2010 10:02 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It's ironic that you choose a hold 'em analogy, so let's carry it a little further. You take your AK suited and win with it. Then the dealer tells you to send 40% of your chips to the guy with the short stack, because you were lucky and he wasn't. Do you agree that he deserves 40% of your chips? Yes or no.

OK, let's play!

If I were at Foxwoods, actually playing poker, absolutely not! I love my money.

But what about in life? A different story.

In my analogy, I got dealt one very important hand, at birth, that was a very good hand that I did nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve. Remember that my good hand was not just about my middle-class birth to loving parents in the richest country in the world. It's also about my physical appearance, mental ability, emotional stability, etc. -- all things that sound silly but that really gave me (and many of you) a leg up in this world. All of us who have been pregnant or have wives that are or were pregnant surely remember how worried you get about whether your child will come out okay. Because being born smart, healthy, and ready to take on the world has nothing to do with you or your parents (mostly) and everything to do with luck (or God, if you are so inclined).

Some were not as lucky as I was. Perhaps they had trouble reading, or adding, or had some emotional issue or a physical abnormality. Perhaps they were born into situations that weren't so stable or loving. This probably happened to some of you. Your initial hand wasn't great.

In the game of life, as opposed to the game at Foxwoods, yes, I believe it is a moral and reasonable thing for me to share some of the fruits of my good fortune with those less fortunate. Rawls' veil of ignorance and all that.

A good question for a different thread is how much redistribution is right and just. You specifically alluded to 40 percent, Optimistic. That is, um, optimistic in the sense that it is far higher than what we currently pay to those less fortunate among us. (Short explanation: In my tax bracket, the marginal tax rate is 28 percent, but my average tax rate this year was under 19 percent. And about half of that goes to things like defense, roads, and veterans. Only perhaps half of my 19 percent tax rate goes to social welfare programs. Even adding in the portion of other taxes going to social welfare, the number won't approach 40 percent.)

I have to think about this more. I can tell you that, yes, what I pay now is right and just. And, to connect back to the thread, providing health care to 32 million -- 32 million!!! -- uninsured Americans is worth it to me, even if the CBO is wrong and it costs me more money.

Because I know, way back when I was a wee lad emerging from my mother's womb, I could have just as easily drawn 84o as AKs. Yes, I played my hand pretty well. And where I am today is a function of how well I played it. But it is also a function of where I started. I will never forget that.

EDIT: In rereading your post, Optimistic, I see that what might be irking you is that you drew an okay hand (to continue the analogy), worked hard, and did well, and you rightfully deserve to enjoy what you have. I appreciate and admire that. Without knowing anything about your specific circumstances beyond what you've written, though, I would hypothesize that some of your success was good fortune -- whether it was some of the types of good fortune I described, or maybe the good fortune to get admitted to Rice when there were lots of other great candidates (there are always more great candidates than slots, right?), or the good fortune to meet the right person in your career, to get that break. In other words, maybe you got a great flop.

I agree, success depends on both the hand you're dealt and how you play. I think we lose sight of the first part too often, though.

Yes, and I think we lose sight of the last part too often too.

The hand you are dealt only determines where you start. You have a lot to do with determining how you end.

The hand we draw at birth is one we cannot help. None of us choose our parents, or the part of the world in which we are born, or the century into which we are born.

But from that point on, it mostly depends on on you, the individual. Choices start early and continue forever. Those choices are yours, not luck. One of the great things about this country, at this time, is that you can make it big no matter what starting hand you get. Of course, you can just sit at the table and wait for someone else's good luck to be shoved your way, too. That, too, is a choice. I hear a lot of losers complaining about their luck. Some of them actually did have some bad luck, but mostly they just don't play well. Some guys will come out of the projects and become wealthy businessmen , and others will be there forever complaining about their luck. Same starting hand. OTOH, some guys will come out of fancy prep schools and become wealthy businessmen, and others will just grow old complaing about their luck. The difference? Not luck. Been to a HS reunion yet? I bet there were some surprises both ways. Was it luck?

I'm glad you had an easy start. But there are other people making as much or more money that you who did not have that start, and achieved anyway. Maybe they ought to have some of your loot too. They were not as lucky as you.

You say what you pay now is right and just. If they want you to pay more, that would make the excess unjust, right? Or is there no ceiling, no end to the apology for having middle class parents who cared? If there is a ceiling, what is it? At what point does it become unjust? and who made you the arbiter of that number?

My gripe is with the assumption, evident in your post and in the rhetoric of countless social tinkerers, that people who have something didn't earn it, that they were just lucky, and so they owe something to those who didn't earn it, who by definition are unlucky. As in cards, sometimes it is luck, sometimes skill,, and usually a mixture of both, but I am tired of the assumption that it is all luck. In Life AND in cards.

I'm not familiar with the taxes for $200K, but i thought you would be in a much higher bracket than 28%. I think I'm in that bracket, and I make a lot less. Using some of those tax breaks for the rich? If so, why? Just call everything ordinary income, standard deduction, pay more taxes and help more people. If you are itemizing or using capital gains, you are just depriving some unlucky people of the use of your money. Money that is yours because the accident of birth.

I went to Rice because it was cheap. Remember, back then there was zero tuition. You should have see my parents celebrate. it was tough for them to cover my room and board, but it was Rice, so they found a way. Lucky i got accepted, i guess. Arlington State (now UT-Arlington)was the second choice, or maybe TCU. At TCU I was offered a scholarship, but I still would have had to live at home. Sure wasn't going to be in any frat. Cheaper overall at Arlington, just 15 miles away. Would have had to live at home, though. Rice, even with the extra $1.5k/year cost for room and board, was clearly the best option i had. Plus i didn't want to live at home in my college years.

I know some people with learning disabilities. Business owners, both of them. Not looking for any redistribution of wealth, since it would redistributed from them. They overcame with hard work and taking chances. Starting or buying a business is always something of a gamble.
Like drawing to a double gutshot.



OK, enough of this. Poker joke:

Do you know the difference between a puppy and a poker player?

Eventually, the puppy will stop whining.

(03-22-2010 11:12 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 06:40 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 04:59 PM)LonghornOwl Wrote:  In fact, there are so many examples of individuals born to lesser circumstances achieving "success" and even greatness that it's not even worth arguing about (and this is the country where that happens most often). Your "life's lottery" argument is just a bunch of "white guilt" psychobabble.

There are many examples of people earning a furtune playing slots in Vegas, but it's not my recommended way of becoming successful.

It's still true that socio-economic status is the number one predictor of success - be that in later income, degrees earned, or days not in jail.

There is research suggesting that success is largely random - the myth of the meritocracy - and that the best you can do is position yourself well. My fiance is reading a book on it and if you're interested I can get the title (escapes me at present).

Personally I see little empathy for other people from some of you and I wonder why that is. I am not much of a touchy-feely person but I still feel a responsibility to my fellow man and a desire to see them do better, even if that means I get a little less (materially) in life. I try to think of how what I do (or vote for) will help the best person in crappy circumstances, not focus on how the worst person will benefit. And just saying "well it would be nice if these poor people pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" --- really??

I guess some of it depends on what you mean by helping and how that helping occurs.

I am not in the upper 4%. Ten per cent of my income goes to my (non-mega, racially mixed. smack-in-the-middle-of-cheap-apartments-in-a- declining-area) church. We provide free pancake breakfast for kids from the complexes every Sunday morning, take up money to send kids to camp, do things for them other nights of the week. Our pastor's salary was cut this year due to budget problems and he lives in an area where his car is burglarized routinely and people have been shot walking the street.

We pick apartment kids up in vans, etc, from parents who frankly seem willing to trust anyone to watch them for 4 hours as long as they can stay in bed or get away from them. Most of there home situations are incredibly bad. I could go on. My kids are in the minority most Sunday mornings and have from an early age gone with us to distribute food to the homeless, are recognized on frequent visits to the blood center when parents give blood, etc.

Now my kids are 'lucky' in many respects. I spend over 33% of my income on private school. It's secular (in case you wondered), and the reason they're there is that 99% of the kids attending go on to 4-year colleges (as opposed to the incredibly low percentages that do so from HISD, who gets my property tax money). To do that, we drive cars past 200,000 miles, do a lot (and I mean a LOT) less than some of their peer families in their school. We don't go on vacation every year. We don't have cable TV - - (I'll add that the apartment complexes we deliver food and Christmas presents too have a decent percentage of satellite dishes interspersed, while garbage is lying around on sidewalks.)

None of this makes me special. By the numbers, I'm still in the top 20%, and by Boston Owl's reckoning rich. However, like most people in my situation, I'm one downsizing from being totally hosed.

I imagine most people here, and I mean the conservatives you're questioning on the empathy issue, can give similar stories of things they do to help those around them. Yes, I want to see people do better, and in fact I take active steps to help some of them do better. No, I'm not special and I wish I had time to do more.

The problem I have is the seeming assumption that a government, or a bureaucracy, is the best one suited to help other people. Or that it's the government's job to make us help people.

Frankly, all I see out of this is rising tax rates, and not just for those in the top 4%. I see Social Security and Medicaid, and I see bankrupt systems that are not going to pay out to the people who paid in.

The U.S. is deeply in debt, and about to go deeper, and this is not going to help.

What's worse is that I see all of this hitting me in the pocketbook at a time when I don't really need that.

At any rate, do I want to see people helped? Absolutely. Do I want to pay higher taxes? Given that I'm already resigned to working well past 65 to make sure my kids have the opportunity to go to any university they might earn their way into, not so much. I guess that makes me selfish to a degree.

It's not that I'm averse to making sacrifices. It's just that I'd prefer to be the one to decide which ones to make, and exactly what I'm making them for.

Even though I'm "rich", I don't foresee my life getting any easier any time real soon.

this of course is going to make my kids "lucky".

Bravo. Proud to know you.

(03-23-2010 01:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'm not familiar with the taxes for $200K, but i thought you would be in a much higher bracket than 28%. I think I'm in that bracket, and I make a lot less.

It's a big bracket. The 28% tax bracket runs from $82,250-$171,550 for singles and $137,050-$208,850 for married couples. However, it's still a marginal tax rate--meaning there are much lower rates on the "first" portion of income. Even if you make the absolute top dollar in each bracket and have no itemized deductions, your effective income tax rate is 21.1% for singles and 18.7% for married couples.

Also worth mentioning is that the currently, people making $110,000-$300,000 (give or take) pay lower marginal tax rates than those making $80,000-$110,000, because the increase in marginal income tax rates from 25% to 28% does not offset the lower Social Security rates (declining from 12.4% to zero), which stop at $106,800. This bill will reduce, not remove, that regressivity for those making $200,000+.

(03-22-2010 05:18 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  Yes, I worked hard all along the way and continue to do so now.

Do you really believe that, with all the environmental factors you describe, you would have been successful without this?

People who make good life decisions seem to end up "lucky" or "fortunate"; people who don't, don't.

Do I feel any guilt or shame that I have been "fortunate"? Not one iota.

What I do feel guilt and shame about is that we as a country have let our government take over helping out those who are less well-off materially. The result has been a system of handouts that have institutionalized poverty. When we have third and fourth generations on welfare, we need to focus not on figuring out how to provide one more handout, but on figuring out what are the root causes of the problem and attacking them. I can name a few:

1. We reward bad behaviour. If an 18-year-old single girl has a baby, she and the father can get married and he can go to work, usually at the minimum wage, or he can run away and she can raise the child as a single parent, getting more in government handouts than daddy could make going to work. When I was a child, I was always impressed by how strong the family bonds were among my black friends. Within a generation, that is largely gone.

2. We penalize good behaviour. Almost all our welfare programs are "means-tested" with cliff vesting--you either qualify or you don't, with no phasing in or out. The result was illustrated dramatically in a graph at Greg Mankiw's blog site not long ago. In Fairfax, Virginia, a family of four making $15,000 a year has the same disposable income, at the end of the day, as one making $50,000. Those numbers go up or down a bit depending on location, but the impact is the same. Why work to improve your skills or get a better job? Just take it easy and stay on the dole; it's all the same in the end.

How would I do it differently? Replace our myriad of welfare programs with some form of basic subsistence allowance, that phased out slowly as income increased, rather then cliff vesting like now, would be a start. I always liked Milton Friedman's negative income tax. We came very close to adopting it under Nixon, except we were going to do it in addition to the existing welfare morass instead of instead of it. Gotta save those bureaucrats' jobs, you know. This kind of program could be administered by the IRS, without needing all the alphabet soup agencies, so more of the money spent would actually go to needy people, and less to paying the mortgage on McMansions in Fairfax County. This change would be bad for sociology majors and bad for realtors in suburban DC, but good for the other 299 million of us. A modern version of this is the prefund contained in Boortz and Linder's "fair tax" proposal. If we had the prefund and French/German/Dutch/Swiss health care, then no American, regardless of family situation, would be more than a minimum wage job away from being above the poverty line. The argument against this has always been that there would be people who would stay home, and below the poverty line, rather than going out and getting that job. Fine. Let them.

Do I want to help the downtrodden? Yes, I do. And I put my money where my mouth is. As I think I said before, the last couple of years, I have given more to charity than my gross income. I can do that because I am "rich" but make a lot less than $200,000, the false negative that disproves BO's "test" for "rich." Am I going to continue that? No, the prospect that this economy and this country might totally crater, and I might have to get out in a hurry, have me sufficiently worried that I am pulling back from that. I simply don't see how any of this will--or even can--work. Color me very fearful. Poke fun if you wish. But until you can explain how this can work (and contrary to the street spin, CBO identified more reasons to believe Obamacare won't work than to believe it will), you should be worried, too. Let's see, we're going to cover more people, we're going to maintain quality, we're going to maintain timeliness, and we're going to do it for less money because all the government bureaucracies we are adding are going to improve efficiency? Yeah, sure.

I don't support the current welfare scheme, not because I don't want to help, but because I'm quite certain that it does more harm than good. Throwing good money after bad is not the solution.