Depends on what we mean by "middle class" and "poverty." It can be as misleading as the unemployment statistic.

Yes, by some agreed income cutoff, following those three things probably does make it less likely that you fall below that cutoff.

Personal responsibility and choices you make in life are indeed important. You don't "need to explain this" because no one is arguing against it. You continue to devise Scarcrows.

The point I'm making is a simple one: your emphasis, when looking at class, poverty, income, etc., tends to be the personal responsibility of the poor and working classes. You place the onus on them while largely ignoring (but not denying) the role of the system in which they live, learn and grow. But that's a very narrow analysis.

Did slaves have some personal responsibility? Sure. They could have tried to escape, tried an uprising, killed themselves, etc. The factory girls of the 1800s -- they had personal choices too.

Everyone has some responsibility for their lives. Today's wage slaves, like yourself, have many options and choices. As do I. Others are less fortunate not only in the class they were born into, but in the social and material environments in which they developed, the time they got to dedicate to educating themselves, the availability and affordability of healthcare, libraries, etc.
and so on. In some parts of some states, there are things called "food deserts" and "pharmacy deserts" and, if you don't have a car, you're stuck.

If you're raised in severe poverty, can't focus in school and so drop out, have parents that are abusive drug addicts, surrounded by gang violence and police discrimination, etc., do you have a level of personal responsibility? Absolutely. Even here. And it's also important to say, because it's not about convincing people they're helpless or that they're victims. But again, these factors aren't simply "excuses" either.

You get my point, I hope. There are multifarious, complex reasons for why people live the way they do. A major predictor of teenager pregnancy is level of education. As education increases, unwanted pregnancies go down. That pertains to #2 on your list, for example.

So in that case, should it be any wonder that those with less educational resources have higher rates of unwanted teenage pregnancy? Should we, as fellow citizens -- if we care at all -- simply say it's a matter of choice and personal responsibility, case closed? Or do we have an obligation to at least improve the environment and institutions?

I feel we do have that obligation, and that's it's in our rational self-interest to care about these problems. The world is connected, and as trite as it sounds "We're all in it together." This can't be more true these days. What happens in poor inner city communities, or what happens in Wuhan, China, may seem easy to ignore or easy to dismiss with superficial analyses and platitudes about personal choice, but as we see over and over again, we end up paying a price as well -- whether in tax dollars or contagion.

The fact that you minimize these other factors is itself revealing of your psychology. That was my point.

And the principle of really existing free market theory is: free markets are fine for you, but not for me. That’s, again, near a universal. So you — whoever you may be — you have to learn responsibility, and be subjected to market discipline, it’s good for your character, it’s tough love, and so on, and so forth. But me, I need the nanny State, to protect me from market discipline, so that I’ll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I’m getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State. And also, this has to be risk-free. So I’m perfectly willing to make profits, but I don’t want to take risks. If anything goes wrong, you bail me out.

(Chomsky)

What the fuck is that? The markets are manipulated to the extreme by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. There is no such thing as a free market. — creativesoul

Ding ding ding. Winner!

It's an abstraction, an ideal that people refuse to let go of. Usually used to justify the neoliberal agenda (i.e., giving everything away to private power, thus into the hands of a very small ruling class).

Again I point to Chomsky's "Free Market fantasies" lecture.

https://chomsky.info/19960413/

You really ought to get your priorities straight. Talk about GPD or debt or stocks or anything else is completely useless if we're heading towards disaster. If you don't believe me, take a look at how something like the coronavirus is effecting the markets. That's peanuts compared to the upcoming wildfires, floods, sea rise, mass migrations, and food and water shortages.
— Xtrix
What effects? You think that market going down is a source of trouble? Perhaps you should read what you write yourself. — ssu

What effects? The Dow just had it's worst day since 2008. Yes, the market going down is a source of trouble. Remember -- we share the burden when things fail. We do not, however, share in the profits. This isn't hard to see or understand.

Climate change? How wouldn't the climate change discussion be something else than talking about the economy, if it's fossil fuel you want to replace? — ssu

We're talking priorities. Economic growth, as you highlighted, should be very low on the list, in any rational world, when facing an existential threat. How much is too much when you're heading for disaster?

The economic question has been answered. The Green New Deal will create many jobs, and will also cost a lot of money. Trillions of dollars. It will also save us money in the long run. The details can be hammered out, but let's at least first admit something MAJOR must be done, and quickly. If you can't admit that, there's no sense talking to you. If you can, and you simply don't agree with the proposal, then by all means come up with something better.

So the real issue would be how to get there. That's where you have to do something with the economy. — ssu

OK. And your suggestions are what? If you believe in them, fight for them. Otherwise you're simply dead wood -- an obstacle, and I would recommend simply getting out of the way. Perhaps get together with others who believe nothing can or should be done.

I'm a big fan of Chomsky. Many of his positions I disagree with. On foreign policy I'm a Chomskyite all the way. And when it comes to knocking the New York Times, Chomsky is the one who's spent decades meticulously documenting their ruling class, warmongering soul. — fishfry

Yes of course, but he's also one of the press's biggest defenders. Criticizing our country or our press doesn't mean one hates or wants to destroy either. In fact, you criticize the things you love, especially when they start making huge mistakes.

:)

Or write too much anyway.

A deeply disingenuous point, which you'd understand if you knew the first thing about Medicare.

Medicare is a public/private partnership. Private insurance companies offer Medicare drug programs, Medicare supplemental insurance, and Medicare advantage. Those programs add flexibility and individual choice to Medicare. — fishfry

I think this response is disingenuous. I was illustrating that not everything the government does is awful, nor do the public view it that way. Now you want to say that the reason it's popular is because of the private aspect of it, or otherwise "people would hate it." Heads I win, tails you lose.

Nearly everything is mixed. So you can say it about anything: People like roads not because the government builds them but because they contract with private companies, etc.

Libraries are popular, too. So I guess that must be due to some private element as well?

The government is funded largely by taxes, which in a working society would be spent in ways that benefit the vast majority of Americans: public transportation, infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc. The basics. It's true that there's plenty to complain about, but the answer isn't to privatize everything. The push for privatization has in fact led to disasters.

The reasons our roads and bridges are falling apart, for example, isn't because it's government-run, but because it's underfunded. Which is a common tactic used by those who want to privatize an industry -- underfund it, watch it fail, then point to that failure and say "See, the government can't do anything right -- better give it over to private, unaccountable companies."

That strategy has succeeded. We're living the results. Meanwhile the neoliberal philosophy trickles down to working and middle class people like you, who continue to promote it with vigor. In this sense, one has to be in awe of the private sector.

The articles can barely even be called opinions. It's just speculation based on comments made by a long-term Clinton adviser (who obviously benefits from having his boss be talked about in the news) written-up and published as click-bait so that these publications can sell advertising space at a competitive rate, and Fishfry actually believes it. — Maw

You're obviously correct. This is a very scary phenomenon, too. The question is: How do we deal with it when we see it, and in what way?



Why is it that someone else's being wrong brings out this childish behavior in us? Is it that it's an online forum? Because I'm often the same way, and it's never done me any good.

Well, did you know lobbyists and lawyers of corporations can write bills? What would you expect to find within those bills?
— Xtrix

Laws written by unelected officials. People who are knowingly writing pieces of legislation which err on the side of major corporations' profit margins, and in doing so against everyday Americans...

Speeches as well are written by people who are not a candidate/public official.

These sorts of things are wrong on all sorts of levels. — creativesoul

Exactly right.



Sometimes it's OK to just say "Yeah, that was silly." This is an online forum - no need to save face. Why go on defending the indefensible? Because I can't get myself to believe you actually believe what you're saying. You're smarter than that.

Look at the consequences of these policies. It's been around 40 years or so, since Reagan and the beginning of the "neoliberal" era, and had run though every administration. We're living with the results.
— Xtrix
One thing you should remember. The US has also done well. That it has avoided the ugly side of socialism has it's positive side too. Don't think that things couldn't be worse! They surely could. — ssu

You're projecting, again. Notice I didn't say the US was doing good or bad. I said we're living with the consequences.

Now when you say the "US has done well," you're not saying much at all. First you have to clarify what you mean by the US. If by the US you mean PEOPLE of the US, then no, we haven't done "well" at all by historical standards. We've declined. If by the US you mean the corporate sector, then yes things are amazing indeed -- no question. They'll probably continue getting better, too.

Saying things can get worse is fatuous. Things can always get worse.



Notice that the media isn't picking this endorsement up as much as Harris, Booker, etc.

It's a definite possibility. — fishfry

No, it isn't. You keep making statements like this and you lose a little credibility each time. I don't believe it's because you're stupid; I'd prefer to believe you do some kind of critical thinking about these topics.

Asking yourself some questions is helpful. Remember that the DNC are full of real people making real, calculated decisions. Do we think it's even remotely likely that -- out of the blue -- they nominate Hillary Clinton? Really think about it.

The only thing is that Green New Deal will create jobs and free trade has to be curbed. And that's basically it with Bernie. — ssu

What good is an economy if you're under water? Or dead? Or having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on environmental disasters? It's true that the Green New Deal will create jobs, but even if infinite growth isn't in our future, it'll still save us money and lives and help mitigate the yearly disasters we're already seeing.

You really ought to get your priorities straight. Talk about GDP or debt or stocks or anything else is completely useless if we're heading towards disaster. If you don't believe me, take a look at how something like the coronavirus is effecting the markets. That's peanuts compared to the upcoming wildfires, floods, sea rise, mass migrations, and food and water shortages.

When you say "rigged" I think casino games. — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, ok. Thank you. Yes, that comes to mind for me as well and definitely has that connotation, but in this context I don't mean a conspiracy or anything as dramatic or blatant as rigging a Roulette table or slot machine or something like that.

When I use "rigged" I mean legislation and policies (e.g. deregulation) that get proposed and passed based not on what the majority of people are demanding, but what serves the interests of only a small portion of society -- call them the plutocratic class or the "the wealthy elites." That's not to say that the population at large don't get some of what they want, as they still have the power of the vote and the politicians know that, but if you watch the values and interests of the classes (the top .01% vs 20% vs 80%), it's the donor class -- those who can afford to spend extra money on campaign contributions, sometimes very large -- which gets closer to 100% of what they want. As you go up the amount scale, you find a stronger correlation.

This is exactly what we would expect, too, given that those who get elected are those with the funds to buy advertising, hire consultation and staff, rent a campaign office, etc. The more powerful the positions, the more money is usually required. And most of them aren't millionaires or billionaires, although most of them come from wealthier backgrounds who could afford to attend Harvard and Yale.

If the money to become a senator is large, the only people who have the means to meet that amount of money are "special interest groups," and this in turn can buy a seat at the table and a sympathetic ear for lobbyists. Lobbyists are representatives of the special interest that contributed money to the campaign. The larger the contribution, the more important it is to listen to what they want.

All of this is basic and obvious. Takes no genius to figure out. So how is any of this related to what's meant by a "rigged economy"?

Well, did you know lobbyists and lawyers of corporations can write bills? What would you expect to find within those bills?

Very favorable terms. What legislation would we expect to come out of this lobbying from the corporate (big business) world? Exactly what we see in both party's administrations: favorable trade deals (NAFTA under Clinton), tax cuts (Reagan, Bush II and Trump), deregulation (Trump, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Obama), bailouts, maintaining the status quo, large subsidies (grants -- free money given to big business to help keep their prices low, particularly in agriculture and energy), union busting, corporate personhood, unlimited corporate spending, etc. The last few were favorable court rulings, but just as relevant as they deal with laws as well.

Look at the consequences of these policies. It's been around 40 years or so, since Reagan and the beginning of the "neoliberal" era, and had run though every administration. We're living with the results.

If you are OK with all of this because you happen to be happy where you are in life right now, or had a run of luck, or were born into a family that was fairly well-off, etc., then it's worth remembering how interconnected we are (and everything is) in today's world. The coronavirus spread is a good topical example. I don't like the hysteria, of course, but even give all these precautions it still spreads. Look at the economic domino effect as well.

The same is true of ideas, of environmental degradation, of nuclear radiation, of popular movements. They can be good or bad, but there's no running away to a desert island or burying yourself in your personal life anymore. We're at a time when we're being forced to become global-minded. You can choose to ignore it or sit it out, I suppose. I have done and continue to do too much of that. But I'm reminded every day that there is a world outside my room, filled with all kinds of people just like me. To at least acknowledge that fact is a start.

I needed to lay it all out like this, because there's no sense going back and forth with snippets.

I'm politicked out for the moment. Health care policy is very wonky, I only get into it to a certain level. — fishfry

No kidding.

In general I favor liberty and individual choice, so instinctively I push back on any kind of one-size-fits-all system imposed from the top down by a government that does not exactly have a good track record for competence. — fishfry

People overwhelmingly like medicare, actually. This belief that everything the government does is terrible or incompetent is old and boring.

I'm in favor of choices too. If given the choice between giving my money to private corporate tyrannies whose ultimate purpose is to turn a profit, or a system run by my tax dollars, I'm ready to give the latter a chance. But suit yourself.

You prefer collective solutions and I prefer individual ones. We're not going to resolve that difference by looking at data. — fishfry

How else do we have conversations and solve problems? Our feelings?

Creationists use this argument a lot, actually. They claim the geologic data can be interpreted as evidence for Noah's flood. Just a different scientific model from "evolutionism." So they deserve equal time in schools. Do you accept this?

If not, why take that very same attitude towards healthcare or anything else? It's citizens identifying and discussing problems, and generating sensible solutions, that move this country forward. Not by throwing up their hands and saying "Well it's all a matter of opinion anyway, so why bother?"

This attitude is very revealing and exposes a general lack of knowledge and lack of effort to gain knowledge. It's at the heart of these arguments from anti-vaxers, climate "skeptics," 9/11 truthers, etc. They don't believe there's such a thing as expertise. Or they do, but just not in this particular domain. Why? Because it's either been politicized (deliberately, in the media) and so they've been essentially brainwashed through misinformation, or because they've taken a few minutes to read something on the Internet about it and bam, they know just as much as anyone else and their position is just as valid.

It's nonsense. I suspect you wouldn't accept those positions. So why do it here?

You're overreacting to a figure of speech. Let me rephrase.

I am not the person you need to be arguing with. It's your fellow Democrats who soundly rejected Bernie on Super Tuesday. Your political argument is with them, not me.

Is that a more clear representation of what I'm saying? — fishfry

Yes. But since I don't have Tom Perez in front of me, you'll have to do.

(That was a joke.)

So it's ok. You think I'm wrong to want to make my own health care decisions; and that I must not be allowed to do so? — fishfry

Of course not.

The New York Times is the enemy of us all. It represents the forces that Trump and Bernie alike are fighting. — fishfry

You have to read the NYT with a critical and skeptical eye, yes. To say it's an enemy is too dramatic. It's very important to have newspapers and journalism in this country. the NYT still have many good journalists doing very good work.

To say Trump is fighting the forces like Sanders is a joke. Trump attacks the NYT whenever there's something he doesn't like or when he perceives it makes him look bad (maybe a redundancy). He's not interested in whether they're telling the truth or not.

But when you presume to tell me that you demand and insist to make my health care decisions for me. I will always push back on authoritarianism. — fishfry

You're welcome to keep fighting the good fight against a scarecrow. I want no part in it.

Choice, remember? I thought your side was all into Choice. Free markets give consumers choices. I stand with free markets as the most effective means of delivering goods and services to the greatest number of people. If you don't believe me, drop in to your local grocery store. — fishfry

Yes, the magical free markets. If you're open to changing your positions, read the following with an open mind. If not, ignore it. But it's a very good analysis.

https://chomsky.info/19960413/

Are you saying that people are poor because they are not financially responsible?

Not necessarily, but this is the case for some people. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, and for many others it isn't. They work very hard and are still screwed. To highlight and rail on one and not the other, particularly when there's far more evidence to support the latter, exposes your own prejudices.

I'm sure plenty of people do it, as I've stated before. Many more try very hard and fail to do so.

I just can't believe you when you say that the American dream is a myth or like winning the lottery when I grew up in a neighborhood where most people were maybe 1st or 2nd generation immigration who came over to the US with not much money and yet here we are in a decent neighborhood. You make out economic mobility to be a myth when I just don't think that's the case. — BitconnectCarlos

Where do I say that in the above quotation? I'll repeat: plenty of people do it.

Now look at the second sentence, because it's here that the issue lies. Given your use of standard talking points about personal responsibility, hard work, upward mobility, excuses, and "blaming the system," it seems to me you believe we're not in fact living in a rigged economy and plutocracy, and that systemic biases either don't exist or are minimal. If this isn't your position, you're certainly not acknowledging or highlighting these factors. And they are real and powerful.

"Probably right." I love this. I guess you're a true believer in the American dream. Fine. Don't let me disillusion you if it makes you happy. But in my view, it's a complete delusion

Then why has my family done it? Why did I grow up around people who also did it? Apparently none of us exist in your world. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure plenty of people do it, as I've stated before. Many more try very hard and fail to do so. This doesn't say anything about the economy being rigged for the wealthy, who own and control it. It's like saying we're a democracy because we get the option to push a button every four years, and if you criticize it you're "anti-democracy."

The bottom line is to drop the capitalist indoctrination in which we're all raised. That includes notions of an "American dream" and "rugged individualism."

I honestly don't even care what people do or how much they earn, but if someone is going to do nothing to even attempt to get their situation in order and then blame the system on it I'm so done with them.
— BitconnectCarlos

Here is the relevant part of your response. It's exactly this sentiment that's wrong. It's in the same group as the old "Welfare Queen" belief, which still persists. Why? Because this is very rare. You can always find outliers to justify your general attitude, but it ignores the wider and much more important data. — Xtrix

Escaping poverty is very rare? I don't think so. — BitconnectCarlos

No, Welfare queens and other outlier examples, which are used to justify cutting funding and a general hatred towards the poor, are rare. I put the entire context in -- in case it was an accident that you left it out.

"If."

That issue is retirement. Shouldn't be too hard to recognize. If someone is earning decent money and does not save any of it and wakes up at age 65 one day and is annoyed that they have to keep working then I'm sorry but you've made your own bed. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. What's your point?

Your attitude contributes to your problem. Wealth isn't made in a day, it's often made through generations. Just upping yourself by one class and being able to raise your children in that class is a huge accomplishment. It's sad that you don't see this. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe if you worked harder, you could up it even more. I'm so done with people like you who "blame the system" for where you are.

The above is satire. But my point is this: you'll never be a CEO not because you don't work hard enough or don't "want" it, etc. It's the same reason kids you are more than capable of getting into Havard don't get accepted but a "legacy" kid will. Is that just a matter of merit and hard work, too?

You can't possibly believe this isn't a rigged economy in many ways. You can't possibly NOT see that rich people get preferential treatment from the judicial system, etc. It's simply a matter of statistics. OK, so once you admit that, the question becomes how prevalent it is. Turns out, very much so. More than I ever thought when I was a teenager believing precisely as you do, that anyone who blamed other people or the "system" was like the kid who always blamed his bad shots on the rim. But then I really looked around, listened to people's stories, surveyed the data, etc., and quickly realized my assumptions were dead wrong.

So I don't approach this as a victim and, in fact, I'm very happy with where I am. Likewise with living in this country. To criticize this economy and this country does not mean I hate it or I feel I'm a victim. It's acknowledging reality, of which there's overwhelming evidence that shows it's almost all tilted to the wealthy and the powerful. Which shouldn't be surpassing to anyone who's studied history or who puts down their indoctrination and looks around honestly.

Well since you yourself are one of these "people," do you consider yourself helpless? OK then, neither to they. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm dealing with facts, on which we presumably agree: one group of people do not have access to the same resources and do not get the same opportunities as another group of people. You, for example, will never be a general or a CEO. Never.

I would never want to be a general, — BitconnectCarlos

No. It's not a matter of wanting. It will never happen, period. Ever. End of story. Whether you want it or not. I may have wanted to play in the NBA, but I wasn't tall enough. People seem fine with things like that, but when it comes to the American Dream of "if you just work hard enough, sky's the limit," we all have to become delusional.

Yes, some people get out of poverty. Some people win the lottery. That's not the point.

They have zero privacy. They need a caravan of security and other high ranking officers around them at all times. God, what a terrible life. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, and those grapes they eat are probably sour anyway.

You're also probably right that I'll never be a CEO of some big company, — BitconnectCarlos

"Probably right." I love this. I guess you're a true believer in the American dream. Fine. Don't let me disillusion you if it makes you happy. But in my view, it's a complete delusion. And when used to justify the condemnation of others for their poverty, it's harmful.

I'm also a bit of a mover and a shaker, by the way. My salary is not my only form of income. I'm a semi-professional poker player (live near a casino), pretty decent investor/trader, and churning credit cards has netted me a few extra grand here and there. But I suppose none of this stability "really" matters because I'll never be a fortune 500 CEO or a billionaire. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, I guess the guy struggling to feed his kids by working three jobs also doesn't "really" matter because he hasn't yet bought a house, joined the military, etc., like some others who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps with good ol'-fashioned hard work.

It's funny you get defensive and start justifying yourself with a list of your perceived accomplishments. That was precisely the reason for saying what I did. I don't consider you a loser because you're not a CEO, nor do I think it's because you haven't worked hard enough, nor do I think it's because you couldn't do the job or don't have the intelligence or work ethic, etc. You see the relevance?

I honestly don't even care what people do or how much they earn, but if someone is going to do nothing to even attempt to get their situation in order and then blame the system on it I'm so done with them. — BitconnectCarlos

Here is the relevant part of your response. It's exactly this sentiment that's wrong. It's in the same group as the old "Welfare Queen" belief, which still persists. Why? Because this is very rare. You can always find outliers to justify your general attitude, but it ignores the wider and much more important data.

But yes, I'm done with those people too. I'm not arguing in favor of gaming the system or capable (but lazy) people wanting a free ride. I'm sure that happens. But again, look at the numbers. And even if the numbers aren't all that clear, it's hard to argue that it's a common occurrence. If that's all you see, it's because that's all you want to see. And it's that fact that I'm talking about -- the attitude or belief held prior to approaching a subject. How did it develop, etc. It's what I was talking about before with irrationality.

If someone is able to foresee a problem 40-50 years away and proceeds to ignore it and then finds themselves in dire straits, well, maybe look to yourself first before blaming the entire system. — BitconnectCarlos

"If."

That's because you give us softballs. Some bright children could notice and correct where you've gone wrong, hence why you get so many mentions and responses -- because it's open to so many.

Incidentally, that should tell you something about your beliefs. Are you open to changing some of them, or do you hold them as objective absolutes?

Exactly right.

You know there are plenty of examples of people who simply don't get the opportunities or resources that other people do.

People are just a helpless bunch, aren't they? — BitconnectCarlos

Well since you yourself are one of these "people," do you consider yourself helpless? OK then, neither to they. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm dealing with facts, on which we presumably agree: one group of people do not have access to the same resources and do not get the same opportunities as another group of people. You, for example, will never be a general or a CEO. Never.

There are all kinds of gradations, but it's true. When discussing the wealthiest people -- the people with real power in this country -- this "group" now includes nearly everyone, including you. So while you may feel very proud with your position, remember that you are still one of the 80% - sorry to break it to you. Thus to pick on the percentile below you is like a guy living off of $900 disability checks lecturing a homeless guy about his lack of work ethic.

The idea that you can "move upwards" is an illusion.

Then why do I - someone who is enlisted military - work around plenty of people who were born into poverty and are now middle class and able to afford homes? Some service members own several homes. This is just not true. — BitconnectCarlos

Going from working class to middle class may be considered "upward mobility," I suppose. But, like I said, that's really an illusion. You have as much power in this country as myself or a janitor.

In fact it's interesting you mention the military -- it's a fairly good deal for a lot of poor kids who can't afford or don't want to go the college route and who can't find a decent job. I know plenty of people who did just that. I'm sure you feel proud about it, to the point where you can now look down on the people making less money than you or not taken care of by the government as you are, as simply weak and lazy and stupid. It's a very self-serving position: I got to where I am because of hard work and merit, and anyone else can as well if they weren't so lazy and didn't choose to be coddled. It's an old conservative/capitalist mantra. I'd recommend seriously questioning that assessment of things.

I also, like you, know many people who have worked their way up from poverty to own a home and get a good-paying job, etc. But all of us are in the same class. In fact, we do not know anyone who isn't. They exist, but they aren't us. It's kind of funny, in fact, that you think you've moved from one class to the other, and the this entitles you to give lectures about poor and working class ambition.

...I don't want to call you crazy, because I feel more sympathy than anything else toward you, but yeah that seems crazy to me. — Pfhorrest

You shouldn't feel pity for me, I'm quite happy with my choices. They're deliberate.

What strikes me as sad, however, is this:

I am sacrificing and postponing major things to safeguard my future, yes. Mostly, I'm living in a much smaller space than many people would accept, and consequently can't live with the woman who would be my wife if only we could live together. — Pfhorrest

If by "major things" you mean things that are very important to you, but you choose to sacrifice for something less important, than that's crazy. But I assume this isn't the case, and that you have rationally concluded that saving money is of greater importance than getting married and living with your girlfriend. In which case I just don't agree. I've come to the opposite conclusion. While you're young enough, healthy enough, strong enough, resourceful enough, etc., to live your life, you should. It doesn't mean being reckless -- I believe in living within your means and not creating problems for yourself. But to postpone things like relationships and projects simply to make your life a little easier when you're older is crazy. Why is living a long time of greater value than living for fully for a short time?And this is not to say one shouldn't' plan ahead and all that, but not at the price of the important things in your youth. Life then becomes work and sacrifice and grind during your 20s and 30s and 40s, when you're at peak creative and physical strength, and a life full of ease and regret later on.

Worth considering. I wouldn't tell anyone how to live, but the logic behind these choices -- and the general sentiment behind them -- is not something I understand or agree with.

I used to be of the mindset that I was fine not worrying about money, going broke was no big deal, etc, back when all going broke meant was not eating for a while, because I had a free roof over my head (the roof my the tool shed next to my dad's trailer, but still). Ever since that got taken away, my top priority became to get back to a place where I could stop worrying about money like that again, where going broke wouldn't mean I would lose absolutely everything, because if I didn't constantly pay someone else for a right to exist somewhere, I would lose any right to exist anywhere. That seems like it should be the most basic of things a human being is entitled to, but apparently we're expected to fight our entire lives just to try to attain it and even then it may all be for nothing. — Pfhorrest

I didn't read this before responding above, but I'll let it stay as I wrote it.

Your choices make much more sense now. Were you poor growing up? I always considered my family as poor, or at least working class, but maybe we would have been considered middle class. In any case, it really does change one's entire perception of life and work. I can't fully empathize with your rationale, perhaps, as I didn't experience the same level of insecurity.

No, they don't. Not if you make an attempt at understanding Bernie, of course. If you're not willing to understand his position, fine. In that case, refrain from "translating" until you do or simply don't talk about it.
— Xtrix

I've noted several times that I perused his latest plan on his website and consulted several sources who analyzed the probable costs, the spending ramifications, and the dubiosity of his revenue projections. — fishfry

Great, then let's have a discussion about those plans and numbers. I'd be happy to. Simply waving your hand and dismissing it all as USSR-style "socialism," however, is a bore to me. It's something your average YouTube commenter would say. Be better than that.

I've made these points several times. If you want to claim, after the posts I've written recently, that I make no attempt to understand Bernie, I'm not interested in further conversation. — fishfry

Fine with me.

She's a Dem by the way so I'm just stooping to the latest socially acceptable parlance used by your side. — fishfry

And this is exactly why you're a waste of time. I'm not a Democrat and never once claimed to be. Never. Not once. Exactly like Bernie never claimed he admired or wanted to implement Soviet policies, which you've also stated and, when pointed out by me, ignored. If you stopped your own childish projections and stopped trying to force-fit everything you read into your silly boxes, you'll learn something new. I, for example, am not a Democrat nor a socialist. Yet I argue for Bernie Sanders' policies and have voted Democratic for years. If you struggle with these facts, that's your problem.

I guess it's all a matter of you being too "clear and consistent" for me.

Bottom line is I've made substantive posts repeatedly recently on this subject and all you've got is a totally unfounded and untrue personal attack. Have a nice day. — fishfry

Ok, bye....

Oh wait, he's back:

Oh and also when it comes to Bernie, I'm not your enemy. I like him a lot better than I like Biden. Your beef is with the DNC and the media, with Obama working in the background, who just knifed Bernie in the back. You did notice that I hope. Liz stayed in long enough to hurt Bernie on Super Tuesday then dropped out without endorsing anyone. — fishfry

I never once said you're my "enemy." Not once, not ever. I'm sure you're a good person. I wish you no harm. I am frustrated and repulsed by your argumentation. Again, if it's a struggle to square these two things, then I can't help that. I make the assumption that people who show up on a philosophy forum are fairly resilient, educated adults.

If I were to stipulate that Bernie doesn't want the US to be the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and Mao's China rolled up in one; wouldn't you at least agree that this is a credible charge that he will be accused of anyway? His record on this is terrible. He's made many public statements and has many political alliances that argue my side of the proposition and not yours. — fishfry

No, they don't. Not if you make an attempt at understanding Bernie, of course. If you're not willing to understand his position, fine. In that case, refrain from "translating" until you do or simply don't talk about it.

Bernie has never -- not once, not ever -- claimed he wants the US to be like China or Cuba or the USSR or wants to turn them into that. You won't find one statement of his that suggests this. Not one -- in 50 years. That's such a preposterous claim, and it's shocking you don't recognize it. Yet you want me to take you seriously regarding your analysis?

I skipped the rest of your post after this. Not interesting until you show you've at least understood Bernie's brand of Democratic Socialism. It's not hard to do, he's had a decades-long record which, approached without your inherited, preconceived notions, is easy to comprehend.

I have little sympathy for people who can see a problem coming, oh, 40-50 years in the future and not do anything about it. If you don't take care of your life that's not my problem. Get a side hustle. Get a better job. Train as a welder or an electrician. Move to a cheaper area. It's not someone's fault for being into poverty, but it is their fault if they die poor. Plenty of people don't care to try to advance. Not my problem. — BitconnectCarlos

This is terrible philosophy, and very damaging. Think through what you're saying. You know there are plenty of examples of people who simply don't get the opportunities or resources that other people do. There's a reason rich people serve less time in jail than poor people (white or black), get into the "best" schools, get higher paying jobs, etc. To argue this is all merit-based, simply a matter of proper work ethic or motivation, is simply not true.

Class matters. More so than race, even. Throughout history, those who are in a more powerful class --whether in the aristocratic or noble or monarchic or cleric or warrior or Brahmin class -- simply live in a different world than those of a less powerful class. The idea that you can "move upwards" is an illusion. It's like arguing the exception proves the rule.

In the past seven years since I last went flat broke, I have saved up about two years worth of my current living expenses. At that rate, if nothing catastrophic ruins my life again, and I keep living how I live now in this tiny trailer, by myself, never getting married, then I could retire at 65 with about ten years expenses saved up. But I hope to live past 75, so... — Pfhorrest

I just caught this. Let me add my $0.02.

All that planning is fine and good, provided that your saving for old age isn't at the expense of your present happiness. I suspect that that may be the case, but correct me if I'm misreading you.

If you're sacrificing or postponing some high value of yours simply because you're scared to be broke or homeless, I think a better balance is needed.

However, if you manage to do everything else you want to do, while also saving a bit of money, then I'm envious indeed! I have no savings for the future, no 401K, nothing. I don't have health insurance, and for years I had no car insurance (my car was fully paid, now I finance so I am required to have it). Maybe this is all very "risky," I don't know. I guess I figure there's social security and medicare, or else family and friends, and I'm confident in my resourcefulness. I don't require much materialistically in order to live well. That may change when I'm an older or elderly man, I don't know. Plenty of government help you can get, and if you live within your means that's generally good enough. If not, and I end up going bankrupt or accumulating a lot of debt that I'll never pay off, so be it. What do you make of this? Does this seem crazy to you?

Some people just love things that I don't. I recently talked to a guy that loved drag racing. Is that irrational given the risk? You tell me (I personally think it's insane but I don't know the kind of pleasure he gets from it.) Personally, I love poker and I've been playing for a while which also entails a degree of risk. Am I irrational? — BitconnectCarlos

Depends on your hierarchy of values; your priorities. If poker is a top value of yours, then giving it the according amount of care, time, energy, and attention is perfectly rational. I think ultimately we all want to be "happy" (a pop-culture type word, but good enough for now), so hopefully poker plays some kind of role in your life towards that ultimate end, or maybe you consider it an end in itself. Either way, nothing irrational about that. (Incidentally, I played poker professionally for 1 year, 6 months at home and 6 months actually living in the casino [given where I lived, there was no way to make a living or progress in bankroll without putting in more hours, and that required moving there]. I think there's actually many parallels between poker and life.)

I had a friend who grew up poor his entire life and had finally attained some degree of financial stability blow his savings on an expensive car. Am I - who grew up in a very different environment - going to label his action "irrational?" Yes, financially, I think we would both agree that the action was irrational but from his perspective owning a nice car finally means one "made it" or had attained a certain status - something that I wouldn't be conscious of owing to my class upbringing. — BitconnectCarlos

You answered your own question: yes, it is. Unless, of course, he believes it's the right choice to own a car for status but have no money for anything else. You've also identified why he's acting irrationally: he's acting out of an emotional need for status because of deprivation of youth. This happens often in psychology -- a person growing up "food insecure" will often, as adults, gorge themselves when food is available, long after the insecurity is there. There's all kinds of things like that, and it's studied in psychology. But whether or not it's rational is fairly easy to see, given my (and others') definition of rationality.

If you have a more full proof, all-encompassing method of determining which goals are rational then let me know. — BitconnectCarlos

Ratonality, in terms of the state of a human being I like calling the "theoretical," and when discussing action it's based on goals. Goals are based on values and beliefs, which is a matter of ethics and morals. Here we get into the related issue of "will," "desire," "care," and general motivation. It's also leads to the question of "What is good?" or "What is the good life"?

All very interesting. So it's a good question, and we could pursue that if you like. I still feel, though, that it's a diversion, but if you feel it'd be illuminating in some way I'm happy to talk about it. Full disclosure: I'm influenced heavily by the thinking of Nietzsche in this case.

If, however, for the sake of political discussion, we simply assume the standard thing that most people in this country would say, something like "I want to be happy" when pressed about what their greatest good and ultimate end is, then we can talk about whether an act is rational or moral in this context (political action).

a) We're hopefully both hoping to discuss the issue and flush out the other person's ideas as opposed to challenging them on every aspect and just hoping to beat them (i.e. we are engaging in good faith.) Another reason we're able to have the conversation is that we both share common assumptions. — BitconnectCarlos

Exactly. I think in this case, both are true. I assert it for myself and bring myself to take as a given that you do as well, until proven otherwise.

I believe that we're molded by our own unique psychological characteristics to a considerable extent, and for that reason I am extremely wary about me - with my own weird psychological quirks and weird experiences - laying down that phrase "irrational" on others when rationality, by its very nature, is universal. It would basically be me claiming that I can stand outside my own body and experiences so it's a very strong claim. — BitconnectCarlos

Not necessarily "outside," no. Rather to observe phenomenologically -- objectively, is possible but rare indeed. So you're right, it is universally available to human beings. The fact that most of us don't use this "mode of our being" (rationality) all that often in our lives isn't even a "bad" thing, either. By extension, irrationality is really free from moral judgment also; it's simply a fact -- after all, it's where most of us dwell most of the time, for "better" for "worse" (value judgments based only in terms of our stated goals).

If I ever come down hard on irrational behavior, it's probably because I'm doing so in the context of political action (or inaction) where it's very important to make the correct choices given a goal or goals, which are in turn are born out of a certain system of beliefs and values. Especially true at this point in human history.

In a way, it is this "system of beliefs and values" -- call it a philosophy, theory, framework, worldview, analysis, interpretation, etc. -- I assume we all hold.

I do this for two reasons: 1) I assume my fellow interlocutors are themselves rational and 2) because we all profess the same values, at heart.

Even if someone is conversing with me that holds an apparently antagonistic worldview, it's been my experience that there are commonalities even here, which usually reside somewhere in the person's semantic system -- in other words, using different words to express the same truth. -- all other differences aside, there's almost always this commonality, down to even "pathological" levels. No man is truly without a philosophy or religion.

To name "two" examples: ideas about being and human being (or human "nature"). Concepts like God, Allah, Brahman, spirit, soul, Ahura Mazda, or whatever, have all described "being" in a sense, interpreting it and our place "in" it or "of" it. In my view, it's all various interpretations, conceptualizations, and semantics. The words, meanings, definitions, descriptions, etc., certainly do matter and are all very interesting in their differences, but all roughly getting at the same truth. (I do not believe this makes everything equally supported, useful, "correct," "right," or "good," necessarily -- those are value judgments based on our own perspective.)

That's a lot of words, but it feel getting to the bedrock frees us up for more pragmatic considerations, like "What do we do about it?"

Given my above statement, I return to the initial question:

Why do conservatives vote against their own (economic) interests? I add "economic" so we don't get caught up in social issues, which I realize is often used as justification for voting Republican but which is precisely why I believe they're being irrational, as I maintain that it is precisely these social issues that have been manufactured through years of manipulation and propaganda. While there had to be some sentiment already there, the media has been used in the service of drawing out and intensifying these sentiments.

Look at the current Republican coalition. Their demographics are: older people, Whites, males, evangelicals, gun rights advocates, pro-life advocates, etc. Breaking each demographic down, one could trace much of this to values and morals based on religious beliefs, specifically a Protestant Christian philosophy of which the US is unique. Our Puritanical heritage remains today. But it's also -- and there's much overlap -- racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia and, increasingly, anti-intellectualism. Above all else, a great deal of the voting, I suspect, and certainly behavior, is a result of absolute hatred for liberals. Liberals are now seen as the enemy: anti-American, anti-Christian. Homosexual atheists who want to open the country to everyone else and create a communistic dystopia.

The Republican establishment has, over the last 40 years or so (maybe more if you count the roots of this in Barry Goldwater), have adapted their agenda to bring in these groups. Reagan and Bush were pro-choice, remember.

Through their media -- talk radio and Fox News -- they've shaped the minds of millions of Americans to the point we see today. It's extremely dangerous.

Frankly, I don't see any easy way to resolve this. I mean don't get me wrong there there are insane religious extremists who would really highly value, say, sanctity and in group loyalty but I have no idea how I would go about convincing them that it's "rational" to adopt a more balanced view when their beliefs are tied up in their scriptures and weird psychological quirks. I just don't know. — BitconnectCarlos

You've touched, I think, on the heart of the issue. But again, I don't accept the idea that because neither you nor I have a foolproof way of convincing people to change their minds or that they're being irrational, that this somehow makes us wrong in our assessment that they are being irrational (in the sense I meant above).

I don't think that truth, moral or otherwise, is always equal. I do believe there are many truths, just as there are many philosophies, religions, and scientific theories throughout history. There's perspective and interpretation, etc. But it is possible to judge these things concretely. They stick around for long enough and exert the influence they do in the world to this very day (Aristotle, Jesus, Newton, etc) because there's something fundamentally right about all of them. Other perspectives and variations, less so or completely bogus. The question in the latter case becomes, Why do people believe weird things?

That, ultimately, is what I was getting at. You and I, and hopefully others, who show up for this conversation, on this forum, with the assumption that many people are acting irrationally, against their interests, can then have a more fruitful conversation -- cooperatively trying to figure out that question. If we get too stuck on words, the project can't get off the ground. I don't think it's wrong to engage in the philosophy, of course, especially given this is a philosophy forum, but given we're in a political thread it has the potential to slow things down to a crawl.

Not exactly. Either choice is, was, and will always be a rational one, if and only if, it followed from what they already believed to be the case. When someone makes a choice that makes perfect sense in light of many or most of their pre-existing beliefs, then they are involved in rational thinking. That's just how it works. — creativesoul

Not to me. Just because a decision is internally consistent with one's belief system does not make the decision, nor the belief system itself, rational.

If someone thought that getting rid of career politicians like Hillary Clinton was better than having someone like Trump in office, then it would be perfectly consistent and thus rational for them to vote Trump. — creativesoul

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with you. Like I said above, it's really not a matter of consistency.

A child believes he can fly and jumps out a window. The action was consistent with his worldview and his beliefs and, thus, rational. According to you.

What counts as "the rational choice" is always and forever more determined solely and exclusively by virtue of what the individual already believes to be the case.
— creativesoul

The rational choice is whatever the person believes to be the case?
— Xtrix

No, the rational choice is not merely whatever the person believes to be the case. The rational choice is whatever choice follows from those beliefs. — creativesoul

A choice that follows from "those beliefs" is a rational choice. Any beliefs?

It's not about making decisions based upon true belief. — creativesoul

I think this does have something to do with rationality, yes, although I'm not sure about "true belief." If decisions are made in pursuit of some goal because you have determined, based on available evidence and information, that this is the best way of achieving your goal, then that's rational -- in my view.

It could turn out that you've made a blunder, that your premises were false, that you overlooked something, etc. -- in which case the question becomes whether that was avoidable or not, about effort, about intention, etc. Or that there simply wasn't enough information. I would still count the choice as a rational one, because at the time it was.

If a decision was determined to be the best -- or even "believed" to be the correct one given your goal -- but was based simply on things like intuition, gut feeling, emotion, whim, habit, reaction, reflex, etc. -- it's irrational. That's not using reason to make decisions, it's using other factors. I assume you agree with this?


_________
As a digression, I want to be clear about one thing: I'm not some kind of Ayn Rand-esque "rationalist." I think we use what's called reason and logic very rarely, in fact. And that this is generally a good thing.

We're usually doing things in the world, and if you look at what we do (including thinking), much of it is "default." Stop and take a look some time (it's getting less likely to observe these days, as we're overstimulated 24/7). This is the realm of automaticity, habit, custom, etc., in which we all seem to live most of the time.

The point, to me, is to get that "irrational" and habitual aspect in line with, or used in the service of, one's goals and ultimate plans for one's life, decided rationally. Human action can be cultivated and shaped, as is well known, and we see the results in the great masters of various skills and domains. None of this implies we walk around in a theoretical or "rational" state or anything like that. We're only philosophers and scientists some of the time.

But I do indeed digress.

What if the conservative's goal is "preserve traditional marriage" or "have more money in my pocket by paying less taxes." How are their decisions irrational? — BitconnectCarlos

What decisions?

It's useless to talk about things like this in too general terms. I'm not advocating for an algorithm or a rule that will work in any given situation, which is why I try using specific examples. So regarding what I was saying earlier, if "preserve traditional marriage" is a goal of theirs, fine. We can argue about why they have this goal, as I want to do and in which there's interesting research about, but what's more important is:

1) The manufactured irrationality of their hierarchy. Meaning sacrificing all other values, which are in themselves (or collectively) of greater importance and greater benefit, for one value -- like transgender bathroom rights or traditional marriage or anything like that -- because you "feel" like it, is not only a mistake but an irrational choice. (To argue the 9/11 hijackers were acting irrationally, despite them clearly placing ultimate importance on and acting on one particular goal, isn't improper.)

2) The fact that even their choices made for their stated goals often have the opposite effect. By this I mean: polling will indicate that healthcare is a top concern, that people are aware that medicare expansion would directly improve their healthcare, yet they vote for a candidate who does not want to expand medicare because he promises less gun restriction, strict immigration laws, and perserving traditional marriage. That's still irrational. Most of the time, however, it's simply because someone has an "R" or a "D" next to their names.

To discuss Democrats -- they act irrationally too, when they're given a choice of two candidates and opt for one of them based solely on "electability."

Irrationality abounds.

Sounds like you're arguing that electing Donald Trump was a rational choice. The rational choice was Clinton.
— Xtrix

What counts as "the rational choice" is always and forever more determined solely and exclusively by virtue of what the individual already believes to be the case. — creativesoul

The rational choice is whatever the person believes to be the case? I don't really follow you here. Are you arguing, therefore, that either choice was rational if the person making the choice believed it to be?

I agree.

I'm beginning to get the impression that the claim "people vote against their own interests" is always levied against people who vote differently than the claimant. He voted differently than me, therefor he voted against his own interests. I could easily claim the same of you, for example. So I think it's more of a condescending accusation rather than useful comment. — NOS4A2

It's not intended to be condescending. I'm exploring the factors that account for irrational choices. They're made all the time. Conservative minded people do not have a monopoly on it, nor did I claim that. And it's not simply "you don't agree with me, therefore you're irrational."

People make irrational choices all the time, for many reasons. If you decide on a goal and to your best ability, given the available evidence, make a choice which you've concluded is in service of that goal, then you're being rational. There's always a chance you're wrong, of course. Mistakes happen, etc.

That’s not what I said, but I doubt accuracy is paramount here. It’s my money; I earned it; I know best what to do with it. It’s really that simple. If you cannot explain how that is irrational or don’t want to answer or cannot say how that is against my best interest, that’s fine, but just know that I was genuinely curious. — NOS4A2

You know what best to do with it, that's fine. Then are you against taxes altogether? Why not keep all of it, ideally, since you know how best to use it?

If that's not the case, and you simply prefer paying less, then why? Is it too much of a burden, or do you not agree with where the money goes?

What if by lowering state taxes, there's less revenue and cuts need to be made to social services, education, infrastructure, etc. Are those things not a priority for you? Should it all be privatized, in that case?

What if it's proven to you that raising taxes would have improved your life dramatically, and by voting for lower taxes you ended up screwing yourself over. Were you simply wrong, or were you irrational?