Poor Vs. Rich Debate

Major flaws in the thinking of conservatives here (which they tend to exploit in their constituents and Fox viewers):

1.     Each dollar that a rich person has was earned through effort just as each dollar that I have was earned through effort, and if those poor people just worked harder, they could have as much money as I do.

Let’s consider this with some simple algebra. If I make $50,000, then under this assumption someone making $25,000 just needs to double his efforts. He needs to exert 50 units instead of only 25 units of effort. Those who use this logic never consider what is then needed for me (who makes $50,000) to earn $100,000, $500,000, or even $1 million (the actual people we are usually talking about). Well, I already work pretty hard for what I have, but for me to increase my effort from 50 units ($50,000 worth of effort) to 1,000 units ($1 million worth of effort) I would need to work 20 times harder. That means working an 800-hour week instead of a 40-hour week, lifting 1,000-lb UPS packages instead of 50-lb UPS packages, and walking 100 miles instead of 5 miles per day to deliver mail. People who argue that raising taxes on the rich is punishing success believe that the rich earned all of their money. This is because for the low/middle class (i.e., us), every dollar we have is, in fact, a dollar that we earned, but this isn’t the case for the filthy rich (or they’d be dead).

2.     The rich (i.e., top 2%) should be labeled as job creators.

There is no evidence to support that decreasing a CEO’s personal income tax leads him to invest more into his business. Influences of the industry (supply and demand) mostly drive whether a business owner hires more people, not how much money he has. He is not going to hire more workers if his product isn’t selling. He will only hire more workers if people are buying his product. In other words, he will not hire people if they're just going to sit around. His personal take-home income is mostly irrelevant here. There are even several examples of companies laying off workers despite tax breaks and increased revenue. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maddow-draws-contrast-between-kochs-record-revenue-and-kochs-declining-work-force/).

3.     Taxing the rich decreases incentives.

This stems from the flaws in assuming that every dollar a rich person has is a dollar they earned and in assuming each dollar increase equals a unit increase in happiness. Are you telling me that if we limit Donovan McNabb’s salary to $1 million instead of $6 million, he’ll find another job to make more money? (I don’t think he’s capable of being a hedge fund manager.) High-paid individuals will continue to do exactly what they’re doing because they are just as happy at $1 million as they are at $6 million. Again, for the low/middle class, each dollar more usually does mean more happiness. However, research is consistent in showing that once our physiological needs are met, money has much less of an effect on our happiness.

 

Many strategically believe that this is the relationship between money and happiness.

As income increases, so does happiness in the same way at all levels of income.

 

 

However, it is actually more like this.

   

As income increases, so does happiness, but less so among higher incomes than lower incomes. So if you're poor, a little money makes you really happy. However, if you're rich, that same amount of money has a very little effect on your happiness. (This is why Donovan McNabb would be just as willing to play football for $1 million as he is for $6 million. In regards to happiness, $1 million to $6 million is much less of a difference than $10,000 to $50,000.)

Self-fulfilling education problem

There’s this self-fulfilling and self-propagating problem wehave in our society right now where poorly educated people value educationless. And so they support the defunding of educational and scientific programs leadingto less educated people who value education even less. For this reason thecurrent generation is the first generation in the history of our country to beless equipped for the real world than their parents.

"Thank God for dead soldiers."

“Thank God for dead soldiers.” –Westboro Baptist Church

 We limit individual liberties all the time. If you commitmurder or steal, you will be forced into prison. If you organize a rally thatinfluences hate crimes, you will be silenced. The aim seems to be to preventsome from injuring others by limiting their liberties (i.e., limiting theirability to injure others). This is an interesting case because thesefundamentalists are not injuring anyone; they’re just stressing thememotionally. (And the fine line emerges.) If you interpret public mourning to bea protected liberty, or having emotional stress as an infringement on one’sliberty, then these fundamentalists would be committing a crime. However, if inother cases you would interpret the receiving party as just being overlysensitive, then how is that any different than this?

 

Why I despise religion.

Evolution is so clear. We are attracted to foods that arefatty, salty, and sweet. We evolved to have these tastes because these types offood are rich in nutrients and will help us live through the famine. We avoidfoods that are bitter or sour. These tastes tend to represent toxins that areharmful. It is so easy. I look at everything around me and it all makes sense.If I were religious, I would not have this insight. Instead, when even in theface of such obvious facts, I would strive to find a way to refute it. I wouldlie to myself, only listen to others who tell me what I want to hear, andmaintain my ignorance. I could never see something for what it truly is.

I don’t despise all who are religious. I just despise thepeople who pick and choose their religion. The people who say they’re Catholic,will fight someone who speaks out against Christianity, but don’t even go tochurch every Sunday. That confuses me. I hate people in power who use religionto take advantage of others. And I especially hate how religion teaches peopleto not ask questions, to not question authority, and rely on faith, which wasinvented by someone else for some purposeful reason, over logic and reason.

Perception of Public Issues

What should be done to enhance our understanding of publicissues? Part of it is caused by a difference in perception when considering them.

Both you and I look at a tree. What do we see?

I see a wide trunk covered with bark. It is approximately 20feet tall with four or five main branches covered very densely with skinny,long leaves.

You see a tree that if the trunk were just a little shorter,you could climb that tree like when you were younger. It’s an excellentclimbing tree. The branches are close enough and thick enough to support eachstep to the very top. However, once the top was reached, you would probablysway back and forth a little because those branches are not as thick.

Someone from the “cut down trees and turn them into paper”industry might take a look at the tree and immediately see the potential for5000 lbs of paper.

The tree in each of these instances is exactly the same. Itis the lens with which the tree was viewed that is different. And when thiscommunication reaches others, it is communicated with respect to the templatethat it was originally seen. If the goal is to tell others what I saw, thenthat is perfectly fine. To me, I saw a tree that would be nice to climb (forexample). However, it becomes problematic if my goal is to tell others of atree in a way that would allow them to see it for themselves (as you and Idid).

The tree that exists there is a good climbing tree. That ishow I describe it to others, and that is all of the information that they receive.But what about the bark and density of the leaves? What about how much papercan be made from the tree? All of this information gets lost in thecommunication. It is not just important for the communicator to be aware ofthese biases (to enhance the message). It is also important for the receiver tobe aware of these biases so that they demand a cleaner message. However, inorder to be aware of these biases, each of us must be aware of these processeswith us that lead to the biases. Achieving this awareness will require effortand energy and will not likely lead to a positive view of the self, which are the two combative forces preventing thisawareness.

God in the Pledge of Allegiance

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 

 

 Schools across the U.S. continue to focus on political correctness. In an attempt to avoid future conflict, they become more sensitive. For this reason, they now allow students to refrain from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or schools even choose not to recite it at all. All over that little line, "one nation under God."

 

"I grew up reciting this every morning in school; it is a shame we no longer do that for fear of...offending someone."

 

A typical from-the-gut response. Who are these people (presumably non-Christian God believers or even atheists) to tell us what to do, especially if it's something that we've always done. It's not like anything the majority has agreed to be the norm has ever been incorrect in the past (like racial segregation).

 

You may have recited the Pledge of Allegiance that way, but your father and his father and forever before that never did. It was purposely left out. It was purposely avoided, as religion should be in government. 

From 1924 to 1954, it was worded:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It was not until a group of fanatical Christians got a hold of it, and by using fear (as usual), persuaded the majority to believe something that just was not true—that this is a Christian or ever was a Christian country. People use that line “One land under God. It says it right there!” as an argument for that, but it was entirely a political ploy to rally citizens against the evil, atheist, Russia during the Cold War. 

So when people use this as an argument for "They are taking our rights away from us." "They" are actually those self-centered religious folk who took it away from us. If I do not practice a particular religion, why must I see "In God We Trust" on every dollar bill? Could you imagine the Christian response if the decision was to replace that with "In Allah We Trust" or "In Dionysus We Trust?" They would be outraged. So, I ask: How is that any different than how I should feel to "In God We Trust" if I do not believe in your Christian God? I say to all the religious individuals who choose to go against our great Constitution: Go somewhere else. Move to a place where your egocentric views can flourish. Let me assure you that this is not that place. The protection of liberty was established long before "In God We Trust."