Younger voters might not be enough to elect Barack Obama this year, but they will soon have a major impact on elections and politics — and it likely won’t be favorable for the GOP.
“The number of young people in the millennial generation (loosely defined as those born in the 1980s and 1990s) is somewhere between 80 million and 95 million,†columnist Bob Herbert wrote. “That represents a ton of potential votes — in this election and years to come. And the (Center for) American Progress study shows that those young people do not feel they have been treated kindly by conservative policies or principles.â€
According to the study: “Millennials mostly reject the conservative viewpoint that government is the problem, and that free markets always produce the best results for society. Indeed, millennials’ views are more progressive than those of other age groups today, and are more progressive than previous generations when they were younger.â€
131 Comments
The class of 2012 is the 1st generation of the new age that is dawning.
The last time there was a crossover vote was when Bill Clinton ran for President. I don’t think there was a huge push forward by youth as there was a disatisfaction of George Bush the First’s promise of “no new taxes” which he broke.
This time around, it’s the Iraq war more than anything else that will influence the vote. Secondary reasons may be the economy and the spiraling rise of petroleum.
Huckabee, Romney, Paul and Edwards are looking to be much better choices than the current lot.
What we have left are a product of media blitzing and not the will of the people.
It’s a time for change alright, but in the process of how we choose candidates for the office of President. The elitist rich and those darling’d by the press is not reflecting the values of the nation.
I can’t blame them for being dissatisfied. When American workers are competing for jobs with a giant pool of third world folks who barely eke out an existence, we lose. There are no easy answers that I see.
…and the majority of millenials support gay marriage.
That is the ONLY freakin’ thing that gives me hope. However, it will be years before they really get to the polls, and the levers of power.
Conventional wisdom is that if your campaign depends on the youth vote, yer screwed. It was true in 2000 and 2004.
We’ll see this year. I bet they get to the polls in better numbers this year, but it wont be the youthful landslide obama is hoping for.
I’m gonna repeat the Drew Carey joke about why marijuana isnt legal.
“Because pot smokers just dont seem to get to the polls as often as they would like…”
Same with the youth vote.
The ‘millennial generation’ are too young and inexperienced to know much of anything. Little mush brains at this point. They’ll have time to gain experience and wise up hopefully and not remain little socialists.
“When American workers are competing for jobs with a giant pool of third world folks who barely eke out an existence, we lose.”
Ya know outlander, after almost 20 years in the mainstream of national economic development, I found when I came back to Kansas that I was a lone voice in the wilderness when I said something similar.
Kansans, particularly out here behind the grain curtain, were just mystified why businesses wouldnt move here when supposedly, we were such a low cost (read low wage) place to do business.
Heheheheh. My comment at the time was “you are NOT gonna out cheap China and India. And would you want to if you could?”
I was just about run out of the state for saying such.
Sometimes, it’s small comfort to be right…
And I’m STILL waiting for bonbon huy and kkk oconnor to provide the list of ALL those companies that moved to Kansas because the hate amendment was passed.
(crickets chirping)
They’ll grow up.
If you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative when you’re old, you have no brain.
Human nature never changes.
This is WONDERFUL news!
We will have a new group of young people to whom America’s best moments (the 60’s) will be only something they read about in history books.
They’ll want to make their mark.
They will look at an aging Donald Trump and not wonder how they can become his protege.
They’ll be indignant and ask just how many toys he needs.
It’s gonna be a long hard slog. But the materialism and greed of the last 25 years is going to be wiped away with a new and shared commitment to economic and social justice.
That the next President will be either a black man or a woman is a great place to start.
GMC70
Posted May 16, 2008 at 8:18 am | Permalink
They’ll grow up.
If you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative when you’re old, you have no brain.
Human nature never changes.
____________________________________________
Well, you got that right, but every generation does improve things, it will just take another 20 years for this generation to grow up enough to see those changes.
maybe this generation doesn’t like bush et al for putting them in debt the rest of their lives [to red china] and sending jobs by the thousands out of america. maybe they liked the idea of habeus corpus….who knows.
“But the materialism and greed of the last 25 years is going to be wiped away with a new and shared commitment to economic and social justice.”
I do wish that were true, but I bet when they move up the economic ladder and start making real money, they’ll be co-opted and move to the dark side.
It isnt maturity that makes people conservative. It’s money.
“maybe this generation doesn’t like bush et al for putting them in debt the rest of their lives”
We should be so proud of ourselves for leaving these millennials a nation in such fine financial shape that the deficit will not be dealt with even in THEIR lifetimes.
What a proud legacy.
Not to mention the fine clean environment we are leaving them. At least they dont think environmentalism is some communist plot.
Hell, they dont even know what a “communist plot” would be.
I think this generation will try for the center more. Centrists seems to know that all of the political spectrum has something good and bad to offer.
Oh I think they will vote this election. It is their classmates going to war, it’s their classmates who are struggling to find affordable college and decent jobs. They’re coming into the world at a bad time.
Bad time for them, Pmom, but a good time for us.
Real Americans could use the Cavalry right now.
Human nature never changes–until it does.Don’t have much use for evolution, now do you, GMC70?
As for the ‘liberals = youth’ / ‘reactionaries = experience,’ is there a sorrier, more quiescent self-justification than Churchill’s quote? I prefer Sartre on this matter, thanks, as to why reactionary thinking–exhibited here by GMC70, Boxlock, and others–abdicates its responsibility and the possibility of change or transformation.
This is from “Existentialism is a Humanism.”
“Those who appeal to the wisdom of the people – which is a sad wisdom – find ours sadder still. And yet, what could be more disillusioned than such sayings as “Charity begins at home” or “Promote a rogue and he’ll sue you for damage, knock him down and he’ll do you homage”? We all know how many common sayings can be quoted to this effect, and they all mean much the same – that you must not oppose the powers that be; that you must not fight against superior force; must not meddle in matters that are above your station. Or that any action not in accordance with some tradition is mere romanticism; or that any undertaking which has not the support of proven experience is foredoomed to frustration; and that since experience has shown men to be invariably inclined to evil, there must be firm rules to restrain them, otherwise we shall have anarchy.
It is, however, the people who are forever mouthing these dismal proverbs and, whenever they are told of some more or less repulsive action, say “How like human nature!” – it is these very people, always harping upon realism, who complain that existentialism is too gloomy a view of things. Indeed their excessive protests make me suspect that what is annoying them is not so much our pessimism, but, much more likely, our optimism. For at bottom, what is alarming in the doctrine that I am about to try to explain to you is – is it not? – that it confronts man with a possibility of choice.”
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm
You can keep Winston: I’ll take Jean-Paul, thanks. As Pete Townsend said, “the kids are alright.”
Word.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz……
Heheheheh. Is it any surprise that Sartre puts outie to sleep?
ksfarmgrrl,
Yeah; confronting man with “a possibility of choice” is guaranteed to send reactionaries scurrying for whatever they construe as their safe place.
Time to pass the torch to the next generation.
Those who are in the age group to have to do the fighting need to make the decisions.
CF -
You want to provide ANY evidence that human nature has EVER changed? EVER?
Technology? Sure. Social mores, yup. But our essential natures, who we are, what drives us? Never. Not this side of heaven. If Sartre - or anyone else - thinks otherwise, he is, bluntly, a fool.
If democrats get the presidency this year, voters will be sorry. We cannot afford every social program increase and to play kissy face with terrorists.
ksfarmgrrl posts;
“…but I bet when they move up the economic ladder and start making real money, they’ll be co-opted and move to the dark side.”
I think you mean the ’smart’ side don’t you, NOT the ‘dark’ side?
About the only life experiences the Millennials have yet is from living off their parents, and school from usually a liberal faculty, and minor job and work experience.
You can bet they wouldn’t readily give up their grade point average to share it with someone else that didn’t study, work and earn it on their own, and when they start working to actually make a living and a life for themselves and a family they love and want the best for they won’t readily give away the fruits of their hard labor to those that don’t earn it either.
Well CF, you and I have discussed how I feel about choice and possibility. Without choice, there IS no possibility.
…and I think it is possibility that scares the hell out of them.
Adding to the Sartre discussion, I have to take issue with Barnie’s observation that “every generation does improve things.”
This is another traditional bromide that a close look at history does not bear out.
Why did “the Dark Ages” happen after the fall of Rome, for instance?
The early Saxon yeomanly farmers in England were must healthier and better fed under their egalitarian government in 800 than they were under feudalism in 1200.
Closer to home, the early American settlers were saved from starvation by native Indians, but in later generations tried and in large part succeeded in exterminating those Indians.
African-Americans after the Civil War were treated with far more equality than they were from the late 1800’s until World War 2.
Real Jim Crow type discrimination didn’t emerge nation-wide until a generation after the Emancipation of slaves. Far more blacks were lynched in 1920 than were after the Civil War.
In our own day, we see wealth inequality at levels it hasn’t been since 1930. This clearly represents a step backwards and not forwards in creating a middle-class society with opportunity for all.
The idea that the passage of time alone moves human progress inevitably forward from barbarity to civilized society cannot be supported from the historical record.
GMC70,
If there is a more question-begging term than “human nature,” it would be hard to identify. And it’s indicative of your indefensible argumentative ground that you feel the need to indirectly call me a “fool.”
“Human nature” would have to mean one of two things: DNA or human social organization. Both of these have changed MANIFESTLY, the first over the 200,000 or so years of homo sapiens, the second over the last 7,000 years or so of human civilization.
Capitalist apologists–because that’s, at bottom, the grounds from which you argue, GMC70–always hypostatize the current ensemble of competitive / self-interested, over-individuated subjectivity, and retroactively reimpose it as the model of human nature. In other words, GMC70, you ignore the anthropological and genetic data that contradict your ideological insistence on a static notion of “human nature.” And this version of “human nature, oddly enough, is the very one most compatible with a certain economic construction.
Or, alternatively, one could, as Hannah Arendt did, periodize “human nature” according to the changing modes of doing engaged in by human beings from the ancient to the modern eras. If you want to claim these are extrinsic to “human nature,” GMC70, then you have stepped off the plank into metaphysical positing.
“The rise of the social refers to the expansion of the market economy from the early modern period and the ever increasing accumulation of capital and social wealth. With the rise of the social everything has become an object of production and consumption, of acquisition and exchange; moreover, its constant expansion has resulted in the blurring of the distinction between the private and the public. The victory of animal laborans refers to the triumph of the values of labor over those of homo faber and of man as zoon politikon. All the values characteristic of the world of fabrication — permanence, stability, durability — as well as those characteristic of the world of action and speech — freedom, plurality, solidarity — are sacrificed in favor of of the values of life, productivity and abundance.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arendt/
If, after all that, you still want to insist on some nebulous, historically untethered version of “human nature” that reinforces your ideological convictions, be my guest. But given your thin account of it and unwillingness to defend it, don’t expect me to take it–or YOU, GMC70–seriously. At all.
Perhaps one of the biggest impacts is that due to the internet things like race and gender become less important. The anonymity of the net makes it impossible to even know those things about a eprson; then when you do meet face-to-face your ‘first impression’ has already been set.
GMC asks, “You want to provide ANY evidence that human nature has EVER changed? EVER?”
Let me try that one.
“Human nature” is such a broad abstraction that it makes it hard to prove anything about it.
One could argue that anything any human does is an example of “human nature,” because their human nature compells them to do it.
So BTK slowly strangling some twenty women so he could achieve sexual climax? Yup. Human nature.
So you’ve set up a tautology: “human nature is anything that motivates humans” and since humans are always motivated to do something, you can say that is human nature, which doesn’t change.
The real question is have human beliefs changed and have the civilizations based on those beliefs changed?
And the answer to that question can only be yes, of course.
Cap’N,
Indeed: atavism is always a possibility. As social conditions go, so goes “human nature.” It is as apt to DE-volve as it is to E-volve. Hence the need for just political systems.
CF2K–
Wow. Well done.
Hadn’t thought about Hannah Arnedt for awhile, heh . . . Makes me want to re-read The Origins of Totalitarianism in light of the last seven years of the Bush Administration.
The ‘millennial generation’ are too young and inexperienced to know much of anything. Little mush brains at this point.
Not so true, Boxlock. All four of my kids are in the front of that group, the first born in 1980 and the last in 1989. They are far and above what I was at their ages about being well-informed. The two oldest are married and own their own, very nice, homes. Even their “Republican” husbands agree with the girls’ liberal views and will vote that way in November. That’s 6 votes the conservatives won’t be getting from the Millennials.
Mush-brained? I think not. They all stay interested in current events, even those that don’t directly affect them.
Yup. You are a fool, CF.
“Human nature” is neither DNA, nor social organization. And it’s both. It is who we are, and what drives us to do what we do. You too, though you are lothe to admit it.
It makes no difference what the social organization is. People are always - always - primarily driven by the same things: Sex, Power, Material goods; i.e., self interest. More mature individuals, and societies, have a wider view of “self,” but the fundamental truth is still the same. A child sees self as only self; as we grow, and learn, we see others self interest is intertwined with our own, and our view of “self-interest” gets wider: our families, our community, our nation, etc. But it is still, always, ultimately self-interest. Call it enlightened self-interest, if you like, but the ultimate question is always the same: “What’s in it for me?”
Given different periods of human history, and different technologies, those manifested themselves differently, but the drives were no different. Organizations which emphasized the social over the individual mandated participation in the social order, because an individual’s self-interest was intertwined in the social order. And those who participate do so because it is in their interest to do so.
If I participate fully in a social order, “setting aside” my interests, I do so because it is in my interest, given the available alternatives, to do so. I am part of the whole because it is my interest to do so.
The illusion that humanity’s basic nature can be changed, molded, shaped, is one of the great reasons for the abject failure of Marxism. Russia tried for 70 years to create the “new Soviet man.” Failure.
Capn and I don’t agree much, but he’s exactly right at 9:50:
“The idea that the passage of time alone moves human progress inevitably forward from barbarity to civilized society cannot be supported from the historical record.”
Bingo. Capitalism isn’t so much ideology as it as recognition of human nature. It works because it takes advantage of that nature rather than attempts to stifle it.
Let me guess: you buy into the mythology of the noble savage?
Well said CF. The inevitable entropy from all systems is inarguable. Social systems being no exception. In my opinion however, said entropy from the superior social system will be more likely to result in evolution rather than regression.
Predestined,
At the moment, Boxlock can’t hear you; he’s storming around his front yard, shaking his fist at a cloud.
should be “loath” Yeesh. bad spelling . . .
The millenialists I’ve spoken with to date, aren’t interested in voting yet. Unfortunately, most, due to their age, are more interested in partying when class is over.
Although the prof’s try to instill accountability by practicing the vote, most think of government as an extension of their studies and as such, it isn’t too lucrative a draw.
Until they experience the actual result of a bill passed that they personally oppose, it doesn’t dawn on them.
That’s just life.
There are a handful of students and young adults who do get involved but that’s typically a low number.
Someone else mentioned a more conservative position as one ages. This is true, too. Or perhaps it just appears to be so because what we, in our youth, deemed liberal is often conservative by the standards society lives by when we’re adults.
That’s just progress. The day will come when a conservative won’t give gay marriages a second thought, just as conservatives now wouldn’t think of stoning a child for disobedience.
What is liberal becomes conservative and what is conservative becomes antiquated.
LLTVET
Posted May 16, 2008 at 10:20 am | Permalink
Well said CF. The inevitable entropy from all systems is inarguable. Social systems being no exception. In my opinion however, said entropy from the superior social system will be more likely to result in evolution rather than regression.
—————————————-
Entropy in natural systems is randomness of order. There are no neat piles of stuff due to a contrived system.
Capitalism represents free market and free will and is more indicative of how real life works.
Socialism is a contrived system of artificial constructs hoping that dumping a box of rocks on the floor will all be perfectly stacked, when in fact the opposite is true, random order prevails.
Constructing social structure within Capitalism is more natural, because it avails itself to the benefits of free will with out the oppression of the state.
Socialism is for the “nanny state of mind” and those who have not grown out of their juvenile needs to suckle from a maternal substitute.
Just as in nature, there is a time to suckle and there is a time to be independent and exert free will.
Socialism does not allow free will, it stifles it and smothers the true nature of the mind of man.
Predestined,
Please don’t take my comments personally as directed toward your family or anyone’s in particular, including my own. But it is interesting to see how my children, now both married, and with very good careers, have become more conservative as they have become more responsible for themselves and their families, and more responsible contributers to society.
I find most liberals calling for economic equality are usually talking of giving other people’s money and are no more, if not less, giving than conservatives.
My comments about mush brains are directed to those with little life experience and think the world operates universally as they’re limited experience has taught them.
Congratulations on your fine family, and to me on mine.
GMC70,
And you’re both ignorant with regard to the questionability of your own premises, and too intellectually shallow to follow an argument. Predictably, I might add.
To be specific, “self-interest” is absolutely NOT an eternal constant as you would have it. It is socially constructed, and a fairly recent social construction at that. Your ethnocentric and ideological beliefs render you incapable of seeing it.
Your claim remind me of a sophomore I knew back when I was an undergraduate–which is appropriate, I guess, since I find your theorizing sophomoric at best. Briefly, her argument was your argument: that at bottom, everything we do is motivated by self-interest, and that even altruistic actions are motivated by some secret, stealthy, self-interest. The problem, of course, is that such a thesis can never be disproven: and any thesis that can’t be disproven is no thesis at all.
Do ALL cultures share the same notion of “self” that you attribute to them, GMC70? Do human persons of different genders operate equally according to the same logic of “enlightened self-interest” you impute to them, GMC70?
Your intellectual vapidity, GMC70, rests squarely in your willful de-historicization of human personhood, and your retroactive imposition of a particular juridical notion of ’self’ back onto the rest of the human species.
Bottom line, GMC70: you are manifestly unqualified to make the claims you are making, and your historical/anthropological ignorance and ethnocentrism have blended perfectly in the trite and empty claims you try to hurl at me.
It is a sign of how far out of your league you are, GMC70, that you try to corner some sort of Rousseauian Romantic. Good luck with that. And your account of Marx is every bit as inept and facile as your account of “human nature.”
2FCK’ed,
Crawl back under your rock, you slimy invertebrate.
Very good regular. You presented your argument on how capitalism is (in your opinion) the superior social system. Good for you. That’s nice.
GMC. The question I might ask is this: Your rightly acknowledge that societies and people mature, hence gain a different awareness the “wider view of self” Wouldn’t this change in awareness also equate to a change in Human Nature?
I go out to feed the chickens and look what happens. CF, ya beat me to the punch.
“Call it enlightened self-interest, if you like, but the ultimate question is always the same: “What’s in it for me?”
I was going to say that just sounds like GMC projecting his OWN values on to others. If EVERYONE is motivated by self interest, then it justifies his own obsession with his own self interests.
But, CF said it better than I could ever say it by posting” “Bottom line, GMC70: you are manifestly unqualified to make the claims you are making”
Heheheh. I bet he thinks he is in the same league as Sartre.
Boxlock,
Taking a break from trying to coerce people into buying things they don’t need by venting your flaccid, impotent rage at me, I see.
“Do ALL cultures share the same notion of “self” that you attribute to them, GMC70? Do human persons of different genders operate equally according to the same logic of “enlightened self-interest” you impute to them, GMC70?”
Yes. It’s every bit that simple. Wanna call me simple? Be my guest. But we are what we are, and we always will be.
Wrap your foolishness up in all the quotes, all the “authority,” all the complexity you like. It changes nothing. The primary motivation of human beings is self-interest. It’s not a thesis, it is a conclusion. It is a conclusion borne of long, usually sad, human history and experience. Indeed, it is reflected in the construction of our own constitution. There is nothing new under the sun.
And I do want to apologize, CF, for making the “fool” label personal. I do not intend it to be so. Yes, I do indeed believe that those that think that if we could just reform, just re-educate, just “fix” society we could create some utopia are indeed foolish. Human history would bear that out, as Capn notes. Such thinking is a foolishness that has been a streak of human history from the beginning, to seek some form of communalism. Ultimately, it always fails, at least, if expanded beyond small voluntary communities (those who join those communities do so, of course, because they believe it is in their best interests to do so, though they would generally explain their decision on other terms. :-)). It always fails because such utopias rely on a view of human nature contrary to our basic natures. So I indeed think such thinking is foolish.
However, ultimately this is a question that has no “right” answer. I’m a realist, CF. You’d probably refer to me as a cynic, and you’d be right. And human history has provided every reason to be cynical. It is reflected, I suppose, in part in the job I have.
But cynics like me need fools and dreamers like you to remind us of what may be possible, and to push us to not stagnate into accepting things to always be as they are. While human nature may never change, we can make the world a better place.
And fools and dreamers need cynics like me to keep them grounded in the possible, not chasing the impossible. We compliment each other, CF. Ultimately, we need each other.
Jean Paul Sarte was an impotent philosopher. In his middle years, he consorted with Communists like Castro and radicals like Che Guevarra. Sarte did not have a clue that to be agressive and dictatorial like Castro and Guevarra, one had to selfishly and ruthlessly accumulate wealth and power around themselves regardless of who got in their way, they would be crushed.
The paper scissor concept of Sarter was also unrealistic. We live in a world full of hardwood trees with some of them being in a petrified state. Some things can be altered by toil, while others must employ the use of technology and free will thinking to change.
Sarte was also confused about his status of being atheist or agnostic. He would commit intellectually to atheism, but then in moments of tender reflection would waffle towards agnosticism even to the point to the possibility of a Supreme Being.
In short, Sarte was a failed philosopher whose life had no center, because he kept moving the target. It is ironic that Sarte doomed himself with his failure to understand that establishing goals and allowing himself to participate in the celebration of human success. Rather, Sarte joined the dead absent of any victory and claimed a cold stone as his reward.
2FCK’ed,
I’m not venting rage…far from it. I am having a great time making fun of a person, you, I consider quite in need to be made fun of because of your ridiculous opinions and expressive skills, or more correctly lack thereof.
And I think it interesting you make the claim I am “trying to coerce people into buying things they don’t need”, when I have simply sat here TAKING calls and selling quite a lot of medical equipment to those practitioners needing me and what I have to help them in knowledge, experience and equipment. I’m quite a happy camper today.
“The primary motivation of human beings is self-interest. It’s not a thesis, it is a conclusion.”
That is YOUR conclusion gmc. Not a conclusion that is universal.
“Wrap your foolishness up in all the quotes, all the “authority,” all the complexity you like. It changes nothing.”
Damned intellectuals. Citing sources and all. GMC dont need no stinkin’ authority. He IS the authority.
“But we are what we are, and we always will be.”
Jesus WEPT! How do you get out of bed every day with that attitude? That is the very antithesis of possibility.
“Yes, I do indeed believe that those that think that if we could just reform, just re-educate, just “fix” society we could create some utopia are indeed foolish.”
Nice straw man. I didnt hear CF OR captain say that. Nice projection too. Yer on a roll today with projection.
DING! DING! DING!
I think the decision goes to CF. Actually, it was a knock out, not a decision.
LLVET asks: Your rightly acknowledge that societies and people mature, hence gain a different awareness the “wider view of self” Wouldn’t this change in awareness also equate to a change in Human Nature?
I don’t think so. What it really reflects is a maturity that recognizes that my self-interest is inextricably tied to the interests of a broader community. As we grow, our recognition of that community grows. Some, of course, never grow beyond naked and immediate self-interest; the very worst of those we label as sociopaths. But most of us want what is best for our families, or our communities. We recognize, inately, that our interest is tied to that broader interest.
That doesn’t change our natures, just broadens our view. And the more interconnected our society is, the more that is true.
CF, I think when boxlick comments on your “expressive skills” he/she is really saying…
You use too many big words for me to understand!
Listen to Reguliar passing on Sartre’s failure.
Compare his legacy to yours, Reguliar, and despair.
KFG
It is indeed my conclusion. And given human history, I have every reason to believe it is a correct one.
You are, of course, entitled to disagree. It’s not personal.
I get out of bed fine, KFG. I just have no illusions when I do. “Possibility” doesn’t pay the bills. Lots of things may be possible; I just always have to be mindful of essential truths when I seek those possibilies.
The fact that you and CF refuse to recognize those essential truths does not make them less true, of course. In my opinion.
And despite our different views of the world, we need not be personally hostile. The friends I have enjoyed being around the most, KFG, are those I disagree with. I enjoy the challenge, the stimulation, the diversity of opinion. I gues one thing I’ve never understood is why so many make political/social/religious disagreements into personal animosity.
If I’ve been hostile today, I’ll apologize now. I did not intend so.
Kudos to CF and FrmGrrl for smaking down GMC’s specious arguments.
He writes, “Given different periods of human history, and different technologies, those manifested themselves differently, but the drives were no different. Organizations which emphasized the social over the individual mandated participation in the social order, because an individual’s self-interest was intertwined in the social order. And those who participate do so because it is in their interest to do so.”
To which CF points out that a theory worded so that it cannot be disproven cannot never be proven, and that’s what this is.
People willingly sacrifice themselves all the time for others, sometimes to the point of their own death.
GMC would have us believe that the unknown and unsung Dutchman who kept a family of Jews in his attic at peril to his own life, indeed the Dutchman who was sometimes killed for doing it, simply acted out an intrinsic sense of “human nature.”
Strangly, the Nazis hunting the Jews and their protectors were also simply following “human nature.”
This is so stupid, it hurts one’s head to believe it.
And no matter how many times you repeat your same argument–the unprovable one–it’s still not going to be provable.
smaking down = smacking down
Perhaps GM. But such a maturity is only achieved through a process. An Evolution if you will. Now, I used the example of Prigonine’s views on the Chaos theorys. Crudely stated. Prigonine said that entropy in a closed system (like a motor engine) would result in the systems distruction whereas entropy in an open system brings re-organization. Now given the evolution of that awareness. You rightly said that one’s interest becomes more intwined in the broader interest. Ergo, the broader interest becomes their interest. This would be an argument for the “open system” The interests appear to have changed. In my view, that would argue a change in Nature.
CapnAmerica
Posted May 16, 2008 at 11:22 am | Permalink
Listen to Reguliar passing on Sartre’s failure.
Compare his legacy to yours, Reguliar, and despair.
——————————
Sarte was a communist in his mind and a socialist in his heart.
However, when Sarte turned down the Nobel Prize, it was his undoing of intellectual egotism.
Sarte later realize he needed money to survive and maintain his lifestyle. So Jean Paul went back to the Nobel Prize Committee to beg for the prize money and was refused flat out.
Sarte had once again moved the target on his theory of “there is no center” and missed out on what would obvious to those who had established principles with intellect early in life.
Sarte missed the boat and was rewarded with a cold stone.
Too bad for Sartre, eh, ReguLiar?
He should have got on the public dole like you.
There’s nothing wrong with voting for self interests.
I vote to prevent the government from trying to take care of me because I know that I can take care of myself and my family better than a faceless taxing government bureaucracy. The same is true for every American citizen.
The most important thing I want government to do is to enforce laws that protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When those rights are preserved, we have nothing to worry about but working in a manner that is conducive to our own sustenance.
However, taking money from the productive and giving it to the unproductive, is stealing. Also, it encourages unproductive activity and penalizes productive activity. It is in our own self interest to remain a merit based society and not a class warfare socialistic one where having wealth is equated with injustice.
The pursuit of wealth by adding value to your community is the ultimate act of altruism. Government can not create value but it can provide the environment for bright ideas to flourish.
GMC, you realize you are arguing with an Elitist who believes that He Himself and a few other most gifted and privileged have risen above the ‘barbarian’ self-interest or human nature that you describe.
And in His Rising above the rest of us, he demonstrates exactly your point GMC, in that His self-interest is reflected in his arrogance and condescending tone with you, in order to perpetuate his inflated ego.
If He had truly Risen above self-interest, I’m sure he would have a most agreeable argument, possibly even containing a shred or two of logic. Instead, his pathetic Id side has taken over, and gives away the fact that he has not Risen. And neither have any of the rest of us.
I believe He has fooled himself, and a few others into thinking himself into an evolved higher being. Given enough time, He may even think himself into being a God over all the rest of us. The evidence is all around us, that He is wrong. And the final evidence will be the dust that he will become.
“The fact that you and CF refuse to recognize those essential truths does not make them less true, of course. In my opinion.”
I didnt take it personally gmc. But to quote st. ronnie raygun…There you go again.
It isnt THE TRUTH. It’s your opinion. Whether anything is “the truth” or not can not depend on who does or doesnt believe it.
If a thing is real, it does not need you to believe in it to be real. If it needs you to believe in it in order to BE real, it isnt real.
Generic “you” of course.
And btw, Sartre’s apartment building was bombed twice by the Regulars of his day, in opposition to his support for Algerian independence, heigh ho.
CapnAmerica
Posted May 16, 2008 at 11:38 am | Permalink
Too bad for Sartre, eh, ReguLiar?
He should have got on the public dole like you.
————————
Yeah that’s right Capn. Sarte should have put in a couple of decades of hardwork and dedication with a mission to protect, preserve and defend his country.
The difference between you and Sarte, there Capn, is that Jean Paul actually served his country during WWII.
You, on the other hand Capn, have served no one but your own selfish interest.
Even Sarte participated in the defense of Liberty which is more than you have Capn.
You are living freely trampling on the graves and sacrifices of Veterans and you will remain eternally ungrateful because your mindset is “me first and always” to the detriment of others.
“The pursuit of wealth by adding value to your community is the ultimate act of altruism.”
WTF???????????????????????
hehehehe. Not all wealth adds “value” to the “community”.
Wow. The captialist manual must have that in it somewhere.
Heheheheheheh!
Still laughing at this:
““The pursuit of wealth by adding value to your community is the ultimate act of altruism.”
THAT is the fallacy of economic development as it is practiced in Kansas. And the nutzoid neufeld has really proven it with the holcomb plant and his bleating about “economic development”.
Economic development, as it is practiced in Kansas, is the BIGGEST hoax EVER perpetrated on the American taxpayer.
Except for the “war on terra” of course….
Capn -
“It’s unprovable”
Of course it’s unprovable.
Ultimately a view of human nature can never be “proven,” whether one I have, or you. It is inherently unprovable.
It’s interesting you cite the example of the soldier. It’s been said that a soldier is the highest form of maturity, willing to sacrifice himself for others he doesn’t even know. That may be true, but he’s there because he views it as in his interest to be there, given the alternatives. He may have been drafted, and chose to serve as a lesser bad alternative than jail or being a fugative or expatriot. He may be there because he sees a duty to his community or his country, and sees his nation’s interests as his own. In combat, of course, all that is balderdash; soldiers fight for their own survival and their buddies in the foxholes, and philosophies of interest or national goals mean nothing. In that, all soldiers are universal.
It’s not personal attack on you, or anyone else. I don’t need to “prove” it; I don’t have any great need to be recognized as “right.” I don’t need to “smack” anyone down (well, except Chas on occasion, but that’s different!), nor do I particularly care if you agree with me or not. It’s my view of the world, and one which is amply supported by human history. But it is, indeed, ultimately unprovable. As is your apparantly somewhat different view of human nature.
The most important things in life are “unprovable,” Capn. But they still are.
RFL writes, “I vote to prevent the government from trying to take care of me because I know that I can take care of myself and my family better than a faceless taxing government bureaucracy.”
Really? Well good for you, but that isn’t the case for a lot of people.
Before the “faceless taxing government bureaucracy” set up Social Security, 40 percent of old people lived in poverty. SS reduced that to less than 10 percent. Without SS today, that same 40 percent would live in poverty.
Also why do you trust for-profit health-care, which only makes money by not giving treatment over an elected government official answerable to the people?
I trust an elected government a lot more than I trust a faceless corporation whose only goal–stated by law in fact–is in making money for its shareholders.
“Instead, his pathetic Id side has taken over, and gives away the fact that he has not Risen. And neither have any of the rest of us.
I believe He has fooled himself, and a few others into thinking himself into an evolved higher being.”
Reminds me of what Rita Mae Brown said about crabs in a bucket. You never have to put a lid on a bucket of crabs because if one crab tries to climb out, the other crabs will pull him back down.
Nice job crabmax. Just because you cant rise to CF’s level doesnt mean you have to try to drag him back down to YOURS!
“Whether anything is “the truth” or not can not depend on who does or doesnt believe it.”
Indeed.
your right farmgirl, not all wealth adds value one’s community which is why I wrote:
“The pursuit of wealth BY ADDING VALUE TO YOUR COMMUNITY is the ultimate act of altruism” end quote.
It’s this same Elite group, who would claim to be the ruling class. They become the Government overseers who know best for us. They make all the rules, and divinely so. They pass a law, and truly believe that by passing a law and imprinting it in ink on paper, that that law will make it so - that paper will somehow alter the real, physical world.
Thus the Elitists pass countless benevolent laws, though they may sacrifice Freedom of individuals, the new reality will be better for all of us. And that is how we will all evolve upwards to a higher plane, being led by those who have already evolved ahead of us. THEY will lift us up, because we cannot lift up ourselves. We need help. And THEY are just the ones to help us.
Of course by helping us, they must extract a certain amount of labor and financial support, in order that All may be lifted up. So open your wallets folks, at least you lowly ones. For the hard work and efforts of a few, will be able to uplift all of us, to the next level next to God himself. Nirvana shall be had by all.
Could ReguLiar be so stupid as to believe what he wrote that “You are living freely trampling on the graves and sacrifices of Veterans” or was he only trying to score points on the blog?
I’m thinking it’s got to be the latter, but who knows, maybe it’s the former.
That level of willful stupidity is scary.
It’s Nathan scary . . .
Very well said KFG. It was Thoreau who eloquently spoke of the richest man not have the most but rather needing the least. When the monetary value of Dennis Rodman is more within our society than that of any Doctor, then value can’t be used as an argument very well. My opinion of course. I could be wrong.
Rise to CF’s level?
Have no desire to sink to his level. The Socialists are the crabs pulling back the ones who are able to climb.
The Captialist crabs are the ones racing each other to the top.
GMC70,
I accept your retraction, and withdraw my own imprecations.
But I regard your case as no less question-begging than it was when you first offered it, as well as demonstrably and manifestly wrong on factual grounds. I also regard my primary objections as unanswered in the latest version of your answer.
Though you are not the first, GMC70, to refer to me as a “dreamer,” you are among the few who sees himself as more cynical (as if that were possible!) than CF2K. That must count for something, though I cannot say quite what. And as you say, for better or worse, I suspect your line of work has more than a little to do with it.
oops. having the most.
I must admit that Max’s little world is consistent, like the madman who thinks he Napoleon.
Every refutation thrown up just shows him even more conclusively that he really is Napoleon.
Dear Nazi,
Thanks for demonstrating, once again, why I am on solid ground in addressing you as “Dear Nazi.”
CF, I’ll see your cynical and raise you some too!
I like to think of myself as pragmatic, as only a farm girl can be. But possibility IS pragmatic. Otherwise?
It’s fantasy.
I dont truck much with fantasy, but I do with possibility. What is possible isnt a dream. And not all dreams are without possibility. Of course, if there is an element of possibility, maybe it’s not a dream.
If a dream is really a vision, then possibility is how it becomes real.
CFUK,
Thanks for proving that you indeed are in the bottom of the same bucket with the rest of us.
Max’s vision of a socialist under every tea cup is also nathan scary.
How often DO you pee your pants max?
Have you all seen the commercial with the Boston Terrier and the family watching a horror movie, and during a particularly horrifying scene, the dog piddles on the floor in fear and then slinks away?
That is the vision I have about max everytime the “s” word comes up.
I guess maxie just proved he has NOT reached that higher state of seeing the self interest of others as being in his own self interest.
It’s all just socialism to him. In max’s world, a rising tide does NOT lift all boats.
It’s just a clever manipulation of the water by socialists…
Sigh. I shoulda known it was scroll over territory…
“Before the “faceless taxing government bureaucracy” set up Social Security, 40 percent of old people lived in poverty. SS reduced that to less than 10 percent. Without SS today, that same 40 percent would live in poverty.”
Before the 1900 100% percent of people lived in poverty compared to today’s American standards. What’s your standard of defining poverty? If you definition of poverty is some arbitrary number that does not represent equitable living standards from generation to generation than you need to refine your definition.
A little ingenuity and techonological innovation, and even today’s poor in America have running water, electricity, heated homes in the winter, efficient transportation, etc…SS did nothing to bring that about.
And by the way, SS is going bust if you haven’t noticed. Nobody in the millenial generation is counting on it. Which is a good thing since they might actually be motivated to engage in value adding careers. Value which will ultimately result in even more mitigation or real poverty.
CF -
This, then, is one of those things on which we disagree. I think I’ve met your every objection, and more. And I’ve got history on my side.
But we’ll disagree on that too, and agreeably so.
Have a great weekend. Go out and enjoy the last weekend of Riverfest, if that is your want; I’ll be around the Food court this evening. If not, then enjoy your weekend pursuing whatever you have your own “interest” in.
The government doesn’t look to be doing a good job of fighting terror. Perhaps the government shouldn’t fight terror. Perhaps the free market should fight terror now. We wouldn’t want to be socialists.
LLTVET
Posted May 16, 2008 at 12:19 pm | Permalink
The government doesn’t look to be doing a good job of fighting terror. Perhaps the government shouldn’t fight terror. Perhaps the free market should fight terror now. We wouldn’t want to be socialists.
———————–
Please list the terror attacks on the continental United States and it’s outlying states since 911.
“I believe He has fooled himself, and a few others into thinking himself into an evolved higher being.”
Max, isn’t that the characteristic mental illness with all liberal socialist. I think so.
In actuality they themselves know they are unable to successfully prosper without the help of a nanny government equalizing what they can not do on their own.
*hands boxlick a box of pee pads*
You seeing socialists under every tea cup too?
Must be hard being so paranoid all the time.
BOO!
And they’re coming to take yer guns, too!
No need to Regular. We are too far in debt. They are not being “cost-efficient” in their endeavors. The government needs to be replaced with a market driven war on terror. Then the costs will come back to within the market guidelines. (sarcasm off)
Please stop trying to find the red hearing. I am exagerating your argument against government. Dear heaven, I hope you already knew that. While we are at it. Let’s make sure the government doesn’t bring their inefficiency into managing prostitution, gambling, drugs.
RFL, there aren’t enough careers to offer every person in American stability for retirement. SO right there, you’re advocating leaving a good many people behind.
How about we just take care of the ones who need it with social security instead of giving it to everyone? I notice, that often it is the ones who vote along with the GOP who rely the heaviest on this program anyway. I already know they aren’t willing to put their money where their mouth is.
“MaxGrobnik,” pushed into a corner, resorts to CONservative boilerplate with –
“It’s this same Elite group, who would claim to be the ruling class. They become the Government overseers who know best for us. They make all the rules, and divinely so. They pass a law, and truly believe that by passing a law and imprinting it in ink on paper, that that law will make it so - that paper will somehow alter the real, physical world.
Thus the Elitists pass countless benevolent laws, though they may sacrifice Freedom of individuals, the new reality will be better for all of us. And that is how we will all evolve upwards to a higher plane, being led by those who have already evolved ahead of us. THEY will lift us up, because we cannot lift up ourselves. We need help. And THEY are just the ones to help us.
Of course by helping us, they must extract a certain amount of labor and financial support, in order that All may be lifted up. So open your wallets folks, at least you lowly ones. For the hard work and efforts of a few, will be able to uplift all of us, to the next level next to God himself. Nirvana shall be had by all.”
I saved it all because it’s all so un-American.
Ever here of government of, by,and FOR the PEOPLE?!” It’s kinda what we’re supposed to be all about here in America.
Not “of, by and for the corporations,” not “of, by, and for capitalism,” it’s “of, by, and for the people.” Even if that sounds a bit “socialistic” for your tastes.
I’m from the Millennial generation. 1981.
I’ve been on here as WhiteElephant, BucKCorvus, Kctocho, and now Barnie since they switched the format over a couple months ago. I think grouping us into generations dosen’t do anyone a whole lot of justice. I think we’re individuals with all different ideals, and for every step backwards this country takes, theres two steps forward, and people don’t notice the good because we have to focus on the bad if we want to continue to improve. The failures and mistakes are nothing but fuel for change.
here/hear
Homonym problems.
“You seeing socialists under every tea cup too?
Must be hard being so paranoid all the time.”
It’s NOT being paranoid when they ARE IN FACT after what is rightfully yours. And all one has to do is be mildly conscious listening to the Dem/liberals to realize that, let alone all those things they try to get passed.
“How about we just take care of the ones who need it with social security instead of giving it to everyone?”
Because everyone that works pays into it you imbecile, and they have the right to get it back if they live to do so.
They are legions of folks, unfortunately, that would, and do, simply exist as ‘porch monkeys’ and are content with living off other’s labors. The incentive for them to work and contribute like the rest of us is poverty otherwise.
What no one is mentioning is the social difference of the Millennials than our generation(s). Technology is shrinking the world, and the majority of the Mills have more information at their fingertips than most of us ever dreamed of. Not only information, but contact with others through email, blogs, chat rooms, and everything in between. Guess who introduced me to the Yahoo poli chat rooms? My kids. They “talk” politics with people around the world.
Some of you are focusing too much on college kids. Believe me, that isn’t the majority, and even if it was, not every college kid is out partying his/her life away. They are aware and active in what’s going on in this country. And a lot of them are PO’d at the current state of it. They’re looking and talking about answers and (dare I say it?) changes.
Political Mom says
“How about we just take care of the ones who need it with social security instead of giving it to everyone?”
How about because everyone, at least everyone who has worked pays into it.?
“I already know they aren’t willing to put their money where their mouth is.”
And how have they gotten out of paying for it, or putting THEIR money where their mouth is.
LLTVET
Posted May 16, 2008 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
Please stop trying to find the red hearing. I am exagerating your argument against government. Dear heaven, I hope you already knew that. While we are at it. Let’s make sure the government doesn’t bring their inefficiency into managing prostitution, gambling, drugs.
——————————-
Too late for all of that.
The government as we speak is deciding on the best location for a State owned Casino in Sumner County. Drugs, well we know the story on that.
As far as prostitution, that’s why we have lobbyists at the beckon call of elected representatives.
Or, I have have gotten that last one backwards?
Actually Farmgirl, Capitalism IS in everyone’s best interests.
Capitalism encourages exactly the kind of productive behavior any nation needs in order to survive and prosper.
Socialism, in the guise of being somehow able to lift all people to a higher plane, rewards those who are least productive and penalizes those who are most productive. Unproductive behavior is ENCOURAGED. And somehow, forcing one group to support another group is considered less selfish?
Boxlock
Posted May 16, 2008 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
“I believe He has fooled himself, and a few others into thinking himself into an evolved higher being.”
Max, isn’t that the characteristic mental illness with all liberal socialist. I think so.
In actuality they themselves know they are unable to successfully prosper without the help of a nanny government equalizing what they can not do on their own.
————————————————-
And also a demonstration of their elitism. Nowhere did I claim to be able to dictate to others what they should be allowed to earn and keep. THEY are the ones who would direct the flow of wealth as THEY desire, even when they themselves have done nothing to create wealth or earn income.
Political_mama
Posted May 16, 2008 at 12:33 pm | Permalink
RFL, there aren’t enough careers to offer every person in American stability for retirement. SO right there, you’re advocating leaving a good many people behind.
How about we just take care of the ones who need it with social security instead of giving it to everyone? I notice, that often it is the ones who vote along with the GOP who rely the heaviest on this program anyway. I already know they aren’t willing to put their money where their mouth is.
————————————————-
Boxlock, PMom makes your point too.
The self-proclaimed underpaid nurse, who chose not to get her degree, is the one now crying that she doesn’t earn enough and that they are not enough opportunities for everybody.
She’ll get her wish though. Social Security is already means tested for those who continue to earn income after retirement. Imagine that, our Government taking benefits away from someone who works beyond retirement age.
In the near future, both Income and Asset tests will be used to reduce and/or eliminate Social Security benefits. The $102,000 earnings cap on taxes will be eliminated. And oh, the retirement age will be raised.
PMom could only be more of a Socialist if she simply quit working today.
Capitalism IS in everyone’s best interests.
In moderation, yes. But runaway capitalism isn’t in anyone’s interest except a few. And that doesn’t include you, Max. Sorry to disappoint.
Socialism is the same, which is why our government was set up for everyone, not just the rich landowners of the time.
If I have to be honest, I will be and take whatever criticism y’all dish out, which I’m sure you will.
It takes some of both capitalism and socialism to make a country worth living in. I doubt any of us common folk (yes, that means Max and even Hank) would be happy with a completely capitalistic country OR a socialist country. Either way, we’re all screwed. A good balance of the two is not only fair, but needed. The extremes will literally kill us.
Boxlock sells medical equipment? No wonder he doesn’t want to change the status quo. Just like the guy that charged my health insurance $316.00 for an ankle brace that I could have bought for $35.00 at Walgreens.
But yet people like Boxlock think they are morally superior to those they do not agree with?
Good post Pre.
I think we need a safety net for those who can’t. Social security should be a net. I pay into things that I get no benefit from.
Its greed, that is what it is. Plain and simple.
From the greatest generation.
And how am I to play nice when Max posts that kind of crap about me? Lies, and now we know that Max does lie too. Nice.
Great Regular. So can we follow the ideas of Ronald Reagan? No government intervention in business.
We can get the state out of the casino decision. Let the market decide (here’s a little tip, they would choose the bigger city like ………..WICHITA) Please, don’t tell me. You voted NO.
Drugs…Why don’t you tell me the story on that. I’m sitting around the camp fire. It’s Friday. I got nothing better to do. Tax Season is over. Come on. Tell me the story on just say no and the war on drugs. Please.
“Its greed, that is what it is. Plain and simple.
From the greatest generation.
”
SO, receiving a social security check is greed? Just trying to clear up your position.
“Before 1900, 100% percent of people lived in poverty compared to today’s American standards.”
So . . . Queen Victoria and John D. Rockefeller were much worse off than a Wal-Mart cashier is today?
Dude, I got news for you: flush toliets aren’t the be-all and end-all of human achievement.
Obviously, poverty is a term relative to one’s own culture and time. That doesn’t negate the value of the term.
“And by the way, SS is going bust if you haven’t noticed.”
You’re right, I haven’t noticed. What I’ve noticed is that of all the programs the federal government runs–military, health, housing, roads, regulation, etc–the only one that is not going bust is Social Security.
By that I mean that every other program is in deficit–it spends more money than it brings in. Social Security is the lone exception. It actually brings in more than it expends.
It’s untimely death has been predicted many times by the CONs who hate it and have hated it from its very inception. In the 70’s, Bush, the FoolHardy, said that SS would go bankrupt in 1988.
Wrong then. Wrong now.
Maybe the millennials are learning from the mistakes of the past. The free market has shown time and time again it cannot police itself. Much of what the Republicans preach is just the opposite. There can be balance with both free market and government, but not as both reside today. Free market has brought down many politicians, and there are many to follow. Maybe the so-called millennial generation can break the cycle.
good article
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
lucee Posted May 16, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“Boxlock sells medical equipment? No wonder he doesn’t want to change the status quo. Just like the guy that charged my health insurance $316.00 for an ankle brace that I could have bought for $35.00 at Walgreens.”
For one, I doubt the truthfulness of your statement that your insurance company would pay $316.00 for something if they, or you, could have gotten the same thing at Walgreens for $35.
And two, why would a ‘bright boy’(?) like you tolerate your insurance company paying that price if you could have walked into Walgreens and purchased it yourself for only $35.
I don’t believe any of it, but just to play along and take it at face value, I imagine the reason is because you either aren’t smart enough to do a simple thing like that on your own or you are so cheap you would allow your insurance company to take in the pocket like that to save your cheap hide the measly $35. I’d say you’re a big part of the problem with health care.
lj,
Yes, very interesting article. Kind of sad, too.
(And, yes, you heard a liberal Dem say that!)
I love it! But I don’t feel sad one bit Predestined. Not in the least.
“The Bush White House, faced with the series of losses from 2005 through ‘08, has long claimed the problem is Republicans on the Hill and running for office. They have scandals, bad personalities, don’t stand for anything. That’s why Republicans are losing: because they’re losers.
All true enough!
But this week a House Republican said publicly what many say privately, that there is another truth. “Members and pundits . . . fail to understand the deep seated antipathy toward the president, the war, gas prices, the economy, foreclosures,” said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia in a 20-page memo to House GOP leaders.”
I was totally predestined, but it didn’t work out.
FYI Boxlock - it was my doctor (probably one of your practitioners that you sell to) that did indeed charge my health insurance $316.00 for the brace. I then saw the same brace at Walgreens for $35.00. Do you deny that healthcare practitioners inflate their prices when submitting their claims to health insurance?
After all, health insurance is a racket and everybody knows it.
And please don’t call me a liar when deep down you know the truth about the healthcare business and their practice of charging inflated prices to the healthcare insurance company.
to call me a liar just makes yourself look the fool - Wasn’t it you that was bragging about just sitting around and taking calls from the practitioners you sell your products to? Sounds like a cozy little setup to me.
I teach my son in this every day.
Every day he is required to help me do something for a neighbor or a friend or someone we don’t even know.
For only the compensation of having helped someone.
In this culture? It isn’t easy. But it is a lesson he and the rest of this country and this world needs to learn.
I rarely call on Drs, but occasionally. Mostly I call on those that sell and deliver medical equipment. And do so all over the state, and sometimes out of state.
The government and the legal profession are to large extent responsible for the inflated costs of medical equipment. It all has to be FDA approved and carry extremely high product liability insurance, and the Drs have high professional liability insurance as well. The billing cost and delays in getting paid are high and long.
I drive over 35K to 40K a year in my work and work out of my car and home. So when I say I’m sitting that is true, but till working, so are others at their jobs whatever and wherever that may be.
You ask me not to call you a liar, and I shouldn’t have, yet you insult me by saying, “Boxlock sells medical equipment? No wonder he doesn’t want to change the status quo. Just like the guy that charged my health insurance $316.00 for an ankle brace that I could have bought for $35.00 at Walgreens”. You are inferring I’m the root cause of the expense or fraud. Walgreens has no liability or time involved in selling there product for $35 to you to speak of. Next time you need help, just go to Walgreens and buy what you think you need and forget the Dr, better yet just order it online. Take your chances on getting it right..
And lucee, one works their way into “cozy little setups”, they don’t just happen. It take education and lots experience along with valuable, needed products people need and will pay to have someone come sell and inservice them on. Half or more of my work is in servicing and teaching. If you work hard and work smart and are lucky your work turns into an annuity that continues to pay later.
Since you ask, I would like to retract my comment of not believing you.
Have a good night,
if you dont need it, yeah greed.
Folks,
As I consider myself well read, well educated and “older than dirt”, my only comment about this discourse is to say that this is the BEST, Award whinning, printed version of the “GONG SHOW” I’ve ever read!
GONG!
Looks like Rimshot shot his wad.
Hey, jeenyous?
Why do you lurk and read then?
“Every day he is required to help me do something for a neighbor or a friend or someone we don’t even know.”
What if that person is someone like Hank or Regular, J R?
Isn’t that “working with your enemies?”
All kids need to learn how to give of themselves just for the sake of giving.
I believe there are two kinds of people in this world..ones who give and rarely take and ones who take and rarely give. The population of those who give is getting smaller, while the population of those who take is getting bigger. Someday there won’t be enough people to give to those who only know how to take. I don’t think that day very far away.
“What if that person is someone like Hank or Regular, J R?
Isn’t that “working with your enemies?”
That’s a stretch Capn. But since you asked?
I HAVE passed up helping people when I knew their politics.
That big snowstorm we had? Me and my kid walked to the store. There were several folks having trouble backing up out of the quickly accumulating snow. We helped 4 or 5 people by giving them a push. There was one car we did not help. I just told my son, “Not that one.”
“W” bumper sticker.
I pointed to the sticker “If this guy knew what I think of bush he’d run over us! Let him get some exercise.”
If I refused to help people who’s politics or values I disagreed with, I wouldn’t have many clients.
See JR–
There’s the difference. I am a Republican. Your “sworn enemy”. You would not care if some terorrist blew me away. Me, I don’t care about your politics—You need my help, it’s there. I spend many hours training and serving those of my community, and those who pass through it. Because Americans, no matter their political persuasion, are not my enemy. They are AMericans. And I sir, am a patriot.
Agreed Littlejohn….if I only cared about those who agreed with my politics and values, I’d be pretty damn alone in the world. I’d even have to divorce my husband.
Heh
Well break out the brass band con and convert!
33 Trackbacks