Can the media dictate who wins elections?

[Ramhusker]

And if you had been told that you couldn't go to college because you weren't "gifted" enough and didn't do well enough in high school 15 years before...do you think that would have been right or fair? Is that the type of system you want?

That's my problem with what you're proposing. You accomplished great things in college.(congrats on that!) But if we make college very exclusive, it ends up cutting out potentially successful people.

No doubt that the system needs to change. But, imo, the change isn't to make college more exclusive. It's to make it more cost effective. It'll allow the people capable of succeeding to do that and those that don't care to or aren't capable will be what they are now...without taking on staggering amounts of debt.

I'm not looking or asking for your pity. I want to see a broken system fixed.

And I'm not looking to get into an argument over "white male privilege" but I will point out that it does exist. Life isn't as fair as it should be.

I know things aren't perfect. I know kids get left out but most of those kids find a way, maybe 15 years later, but they find a way. And if you got any of that "white male privilege" laying around, send it my way. I somehow missed out on my share and that's just not fair.

 

[beej]

SO!!! That damn media...

 

[Ramhusker]

Ahh, the smart ass reply. Believe all you want that it's a figment of the imagination, but privilege exists, even if you think it doesn't.

Saw it firsthand in Atlanta. Made me uncomfortable. You see what you thought wasn't there. And I am white myself, so doubly stow the smartass hatery.

But righto. Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities, but social politics pee pee me off, especially the "you ain't trying hard enough BS"

I guess I need an example of this privilege because I've never swam in it. I missed the "hate" thing in my post? Smart ass, yeah, my specialty when my feathers are ruffled but I assure you they are not very delicate, got callouses on those bitches.

 

[beej]

Just for fun

View: https://youtu.be/jw_G3o1pGlY

 

[Athos]

Just being male and white opens more doors than you think it does. It shouldn't in today's age. It's less than in years and decades prior, but it does.

I've known friends changing names to something more palatable on a resume just to get interviews. That shit happens. Don't think it doesn't. No, not every place does it. Many don't. But...when only so many jobs out there...

Just the way cops treated homeless white guys to homeless black males is huge.

Privilege isn't only what you can hold in your hand. And it isn't even easily understood. That's kinda my point. You have to actually think about the privilege you have over others in similar and different circumstances.

And for the record, work I did for a year in Atlanta was with low income elderly African americans. Some vets, some widows of, some just disabled. Having to choose believe food and a healthy place to live is a very real, sad reality. I've seen the pain in them and their gratitude for our help. And many of these and helping heir kids raise their kids...when they have nothing.

That's why I get pissed about this and the not doing enough for themselves spiel. The number of poor gaming the system is nowhere near what people presume it is.

 

[jrry32]

I know things aren't perfect. I know kids get left out but most of those kids find a way, maybe 15 years later, but they find a way. And if you got any of that "white male privilege" laying around, send it my way. I somehow missed out on my share and that's just not fair.

It's there, my friend. It's just not something that stares you in the face. Wage disparities between men and women. Disproportionate sentencing for the same crimes between whites and minorities. And many more inequalities. These things may not be something you notice but they're certainly something that affects the lives of others.

Things aren't perfect. It's why I think we need to fix the system. Yes, there are options for those kids now. But as you said, the system isn't perfect. Might as well try to address the flaws.

 

[PA Ram]

Calling your shots is not an acceptable way to say what you will without response - but ok.

I don't know what that means. I said that I did not want to be involved in a forum political fight. Been there, done that. I know how it goes in circles, how no amount of graphs or numbers really mean anything because anyone can find numbers from another source to support their position and even if those numbers can't be found they will never change anyone's mind. It just gets ugly. I can disagree with you on ten topics but when it comes to politics, people are fixed and emotional and just batting the ball back and forth leaves you both in the same spot.

Care to expound on how we are subsidizing Walmart and what this week's "living wage" means?

We already have safety nets. You want to make it where we keep the safety nets AND give people more money to dick around and buy big screen tvs while still being able to use the safety nets and of course - business and those who earn should have to pay for it all. At no point will the human psychology that relies on others to provide them with a "living wage" be satiated. Go freaking earn it. It's there.

Just a quick link from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...t-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

Again, posting this stuff is useless, I get it. But if people can't make it on the wage Wal-Mart is paying them to the point that they need assistance, I find something wrong with that.

A living wage means different things, of course. Are you talking about a family? A single person? New York? Cleveland? There are calculators per region online. But the thing is that minimum wage doesn't even hit the living wage for single people in most cases. In some cases, it isn't close. And forget about families--if you're supporting one. And yes--young people with these "introductory" jobs sometimes have families to support. Yes--we have safety nets, but like the case of Wal-Mart---why shouldn't a billion dollar company pay before taxpayers? The big screen television thing was just a throwaway thing because I didn't feel like writing all the things they could really use it on, like food, gas, heat, and yes--some luxury stuff, which might lift manufacturing if they had the ability to purchase more. It's easily common sense that one billionaire can't possibly pump that money into the economy. Would a billionaire eat 30 meals a day at your restaurant? How about 30 other people?

Care to show how that is the case? Or when raising the minimum wage has helped in a down economy? Also - do you really think that $10 in Manhattan or Anchorage or Miami is worth the same as it is in most of rural America.

All that raising the minimum wage does is force companies - generally the true small businesses - to figure out ways around having as many employees. But that's ok. The government gets what it wants. More people relying on the government for their check and higher taxes from those that still have jobs. It's a win win for bigger gov't.

If you really want to Google it the whole stagnant wage thing will give you numbers--lots of numbers. And then you'll see other numbers--more exotic calculations that say on "average" that's not true. Most things I've read say it is but more importantly, I see it--I live it. I get a raise. Does it keep up with health care? Nope. Now you can argue about lower inflation but not in health care. And even then, wages fall behind. I could ask you to show me where raising the minimum wage has cost all these businesses and jobs.

I get that a TRUE small business may have a more difficult time with that but there is the argument for less turnover of employees, price adjustments, other factors. And there can always be some sort of tweaks or distinction between a TRUE small business and an S-corp. I mean--if more people are making more money how do you know they aren't pushing more into the economy forcing that struggling business to actually HIRE employees? That extra money in the economy goes somewhere--and on lower wage incomes that is usually back into the economy. Raising minimum wage lifts people OUT of poverty. That's the whole idea. You want less people getting a handout--fine. But they need more money from employers first.

PA Ram said: ↑
There is already a redistribution of wealth--upward.

And it is still available to you. This is coming from someone who provides jobs that pay most of my employees more than I make.

No it isn't. I'm not talking about what you pay your employees. I'm talking about massive wealth--and not for ME----for an entire class of people. This isn't some jealous thing. I have everything I need--and for the record--I make well above 15 bucks an hour. This is a fairness thing.
Check tax rates for the top 1 percent or higher vs. a guy making under a 100,000. Historically they are extremely low.

The chart is from Wikipedia but again, this isn't really news. It's out there.

I thought that was the mantra the last time around with this current Pres.

Not mine--or a lot of progressives. We had a good idea who he was. He surrounded himself with Wall Street.

I don't and the direction he would take the country, if he could, would be devastating and virtually irreversible as we've seen with countless social programs already. Giving him that platform alone would be a huge step in the wrong direction.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

You mean horrible social programs like social security and medicare?

Think I will lose my lunch if Hillary wins. I actually would rather have Bernie if it came down to it. At least he is pretty much out there and saying what he thinks. Hillary wouldn't know the truth if it ran her over.

I see Obama II in Hillary. Take that how you will.

Yeah Dave - I sure miss Rich. We actually used to talk on the phone about some of this stuff. He was an evil business owner too.

For the record--I do not believe you are an EVIL business owner. I respect business owners. I don't respect greed that is happening on a level far above you.

And for the record---I'm not a lazy hippie. You know, liberal stereotype, latte drinking, whatever it is today.

 

[VegasRam]

Who would be the one deciding which people belong in college? Who would decide who the "smart" people are?

It's called aptitude testing. Not rigged. Impartial, and telling. Exactly like they've been doing in Germany for 50 years. Seems they're doing something right.

Obviously not as good as Greece though, where people are rioting because they can't retire on the government tit at age 50.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't know what that means. I said that I did not want to be involved in a forum political fight. Been there, done that. I know how it goes in circles, how no amount of graphs or numbers really mean anything because anyone can find numbers from another source to support their position and even if those numbers can't be found they will never change anyone's mind. It just gets ugly. I can disagree with you on ten topics but when it comes to politics, people are fixed and emotional and just batting the ball back and forth leaves you both in the same spot.



Just a quick link from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...t-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

Again, posting this stuff is useless, I get it. But if people can't make it on the wage Wal-Mart is paying them to the point that they need assistance, I find something wrong with that.

A living wage means different things, of course. Are you talking about a family? A single person? New York? Cleveland? There are calculators per region online. But the thing is that minimum wage doesn't even hit the living wage for single people in most cases. In some cases, it isn't close. And forget about families--if you're supporting one. And yes--young people with these "introductory" jobs sometimes have families to support. Yes--we have safety nets, but like the case of Wal-Mart---why shouldn't a billion dollar company pay before taxpayers? The big screen television thing was just a throwaway thing because I didn't feel like writing all the things they could really use it on, like food, gas, heat, and yes--some luxury stuff, which might lift manufacturing if they had the ability to purchase more. It's easily common sense that one billionaire can't possibly pump that money into the economy. Would a billionaire eat 30 meals a day at your restaurant? How about 30 other people?




If you really want to Google it the whole stagnant wage thing will give you numbers--lots of numbers. And then you'll see other numbers--more exotic calculations that say on "average" that's not true. Most things I've read say it is but more importantly, I see it--I live it. I get a raise. Does it keep up with health care? Nope. Now you can argue about lower inflation but not in health care. And even then, wages fall behind. I could ask you to show me where raising the minimum wage has cost all these businesses and jobs.

I get that a TRUE small business may have a more difficult time with that but there is the argument for less turnover of employees, price adjustments, other factors. And there can always be some sort of tweaks or distinction between a TRUE small business and an S-corp. I mean--if more people are making more money how do you know they aren't pushing more into the economy forcing that struggling business to actually HIRE employees? That extra money in the economy goes somewhere--and on lower wage incomes that is usually back into the economy. Raising minimum wage lifts people OUT of poverty. That's the whole idea. You want less people getting a handout--fine. But they need more money from employers first.

PA Ram said: ↑
There is already a redistribution of wealth--upward.



No it isn't. I'm not talking about what you pay your employees. I'm talking about massive wealth--and not for ME----for an entire class of people. This isn't some jealous thing. I have everything I need--and for the record--I make well above 15 bucks an hour. This is a fairness thing.
Check tax rates for the top 1 percent or higher vs. a guy making under a 100,000. Historically they are extremely low.

The chart is from Wikipedia but again, this isn't really news. It's out there.




Not mine--or a lot of progressives. We had a good idea who he was. He surrounded himself with Wall Street.



We'll have to agree to disagree here.

You mean horrible social programs like social security and medicare?



I see Obama II in Hillary. Take that how you will.



For the record--I do not believe you are an EVIL business owner. I respect business owners. I don't respect greed that is happening on a level far above you.

And for the record---I'm not a lazy hippie. You know, liberal stereotype, latte drinking, whatever it is today.

Hey man. You are right about the whole convincing someone on politics. I'd rather be Rams fans on a forum so we can just acknowledge we don't agree politically and have more important things to discuss as far as this board goes. The Rams are after all what matters here.

I've been involved in politics and grass roots efforts enough to know I can present anything I want and the other guy can counter it and it all just ends up in a big pissy circle jerk. And I can't help it if you're a lazy hippie.

Cheers.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't know your owner's situation. If that is their attitude, they suck as human beings.

I dunno why really, they don't need the money, but they like it. I don't blame them, I'd like that money too. They own one of the biggest shooting venues on the west coast, make a lot of money doing so obviously. They know that they have an endless supply of employees, so I'm guessing that's why they don't feel the need to pay their employees very much, of course that also means there is high turnaround. Part of it is that there are a lot of veterans who work and they're usually transitioning into full time careers (mostly police), and then they stick a lot of either freshly graduated from high school, or still in high school, kids in the trap/skeet department. They're just very stingy with their money because they know if someone doesn't take the job for the lower pay they can get someone else who will without worry.

It's a shame, but it's how they run their business. I put the squeeze on them when they wanted to promote me to run another department, and I'm one of the higher paid persons there now, but it was a fight. My old manager only makes $11.50 (still more than all but a handful) because he stupidly told them they didn't need to worry about him ever leaving, because he had no marketable skills and would stay there until he died. I think he figured out how stupid that was after he found out I now make more than him.

 

[Mackeyser]

I'll be very brief because it's late and I think folks are getting tired in this thread.

I think the thing about the minimum wage that is different now (and why people tend to talk past one another so often these days) is that the wage structure at the lower end of the labor market is MUCH, MUCH flatter than it was decades ago.

What I mean is this: when I was in High School in '84, I worked at pizza joints delivering and making pizzas for minimum wage. I did other jobs for more money on the side like work swap meets and actually dig ditches type stuff, but my tax paying job was a minimum wage job.

When I graduated, I pretty quickly was able to get a job at Bank of America as a teller earning $10/hr as a full time teller.

Now why is that pertinent?

At the lower end of the labor market, it wasn't all that hard to find a job if one had even basic skills that paid above the minimum wage. Back then, you really could make the case that it was either the case that the person was either lazy or that they were being denied opportunities.

Now, that is NOT the case. The lower end of the labor market is significantly compressed. In the 90s, you'd have store managers earning in the 30-40k range for stores like Blockbuster and similar venues. Now, some stores that have similar revenues pay their managers a salary that equates to around $11.50/hr. In such an economy where the lowest level managers have been compressed to what employees used to make after a few years of good reviews and raises are negligible, it's not as simple as using gumption to find that employer who pays a reasonable, let alone a fair wage.

Further, due to how the market operates, most small business operators have had to operate on the margins and have been hemmed in by the bigger employers and often either can't employ full time employees or can't pay full time employees like they did in the past (which is why this recovery hasn't driven wages up as in past recoveries).

It all boils down to most people just want to be middle class...own a decent car...live in decent housing...send their kids to decent schools...eat decent food...breathe decent air...drink decent water... Folks can aspire to the best, but most folks just want middle.

The problem is that systemically, the middle is now out of range for so many Americans that we're losing the very engine that made us the biggest, strongest economy in the world. Without it? Can't afford our military. Without it? Can't afford all those world class universities. Without it? Can't afford all those world class hospitals.

200 Billionaires won't keep the lights on for the biggest economy in the world. They have too much vested interest in NOT paying for that to happen.

So we have folks going to college they can't afford, playing the lottery they can't afford, starting home based business...they can't afford... all in an effort to make up for the systemic and structural deficiencies that so devalue work and wages in this labor market.

This "system" is crumbling like our infrastructure and unless we do something, it will eventually collapse. Disparity this great historically has never stood as an inevitability. And as we saw with both our Great Depression and the Russian Revolution, big changes have big costs...

 

[CGI_Ram]

Let's keep this on the rails, guys, or the mods are going to fire me for starting this thread.

 

[Ramhusker]

Just being male and white opens more doors than you think it does. It shouldn't in today's age. It's less than in years and decades prior, but it does.

I've known friends changing names to something more palatable on a resume just to get interviews. That crap happens. Don't think it doesn't. No, not every place does it. Many don't. But...when only so many jobs out there...

Just the way cops treated homeless white guys to homeless black males is huge.

Privilege isn't only what you can hold in your hand. And it isn't even easily understood. That's kinda my point. You have to actually think about the privilege you have over others in similar and different circumstances.

And for the record, work I did for a year in Atlanta was with low income elderly African americans. Some vets, some widows of, some just disabled. Having to choose believe food and a healthy place to live is a very real, sad reality. I've seen the pain in them and their gratitude for our help. And many of these and helping heir kids raise their kids...when they have nothing.

That's why I get pissed about this and the not doing enough for themselves spiel. The number of poor gaming the system is nowhere near what people presume it is.

I understand poverty well but I get confused when people attach it to a level of melanin a person has in their body. It makes me wonder where you draw the line? What continent? What century? Which group of people do you apply it to? I'd like to think each person is responsible for their own actions and decisions since everybody's path is different. Obstacles are different for every person. It's how that person negotiates what is in front of them. So a term like "white privilege" makes no sense to me.

 

[jrry32]

It's called aptitude testing. Not rigged. Impartial, and telling. Exactly like they've been doing in Germany for 50 years. Seems they're doing something right.

Obviously not as good as Greece though, where people are rioting because they can't retire on the government tit at age 50.

Which still doesn't get the job done. Because aptitude isn't the only thing that factors into success.

 

[jrry32]

I understand poverty well but I get confused when people attach it to a level of melanin a person has in their body. It makes me wonder where you draw the line? What continent? What century? Which group of people do you apply it to? I'd like to think each person is responsible for their own actions and decisions since everybody's path is different. Obstacles are different for every person. It's how that person negotiates what is in front of them. So a term like "white privilege" makes no sense to me.

That's great but it still exists. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence out there. Don't deny its existence because you don't see it in your life. I'm not saying you need to feel guilty for being white. Only that we have to acknowledge it exists in order to fix the problems that come with it.

 

[Ramhusker]

That's great but it still exists. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence out there. Don't deny its existence because you don't see it in your life. I'm not saying you need to feel guilty for being white. Only that we have to acknowledge it exists in order to fix the problems that come with it.

Well that is going to be problematic. When people who are supposed to have something and they don't know what it is, they have no idea on how to go about fixing it. It needs to be well defined before that process can even get off the ground. I can certainly deny something I don't see, feel, or smell? Then we are talking about faith and that's hard to come by in our world. Now I can see privilege when it comes to Vanderbilts, Bloombergs, Soros, Kochs, Rockafellas, Heinz, Gates, Jordans, Johnsons etc. etc. but that's not melanin restricted anymore so I still stand a touch confused.

 

[jrry32]

Well that is going to be problematic. When people who are supposed to have something and they don't know what it is, they have no idea on how to go about fixing it. It needs to be well defined before that process can even get off the ground. I can certainly deny something I don't see, feel, or smell? Then we are talking about faith and that's hard to come by in our world. Now I can see privilege when it comes to Vanderbilts, Bloombergs, Soros, Kochs, Rockafellas, Heinz, Gates, Jordans, Johnsons etc. etc. but that's not melanin restricted anymore so I still stand a touch confused.

You can see it. Here you go:
https://lib.law.washington.edu/content/guides/racecrim

The black drug arrest rate for delivery of a serious drug is more than 21 times higher (in Seattle) than the white arrest rate for the same crime.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002

Prison sentences of black men were nearly 20% longer than those of white men for similar crimes in recent years, an analysis by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found.

In the two years after the Booker ruling, sentences of blacks were on average 15.2% longer than the sentences of similarly situated whites, according to the Sentencing Commission report. Between December 2007 and September 2011, the most recent period covered in the report, sentences of black males were 19.5% longer than those for whites. The analysis also found that black males were 25% less likely than whites in the same period to receive a sentence below the guidelines' range.

The Sentencing Commission released a similar report in 2010. Researchers criticized its analysis for including sentences of probation, which they argued amplified the demographic differences.

In the new study, the Sentencing Commission conducted a separate analysis that excluded sentences of probation. It yielded the same pattern, but the racial disparity was less pronounced. Sentences of black males were 14.5% longer than whites, rather than nearly 20%.

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...or-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/

According to the Human Rights Watch, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they have higher rate of arrests. African Americans comprise 14 percent of regular drug users but are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses. From 1980 to 2007 about one in three of the 25.4 million adults arrested for drugs was African American.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission stated that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes. The Sentencing Project reports that African Americans are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants and are 20 percent more like to be sentenced to prison.

 

[Ramhusker]

You can see it. Here you go:
https://lib.law.washington.edu/content/guides/racecrim


http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002




https://www.americanprogress.org/is...or-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/

Wish those websites would elaborate on their statistics in depth. Are we comparing Apples to Apples? I'm not saying the numbers are not correct but just curious if previous records, extenuating circumstances, etc were taken into account. If accurate, of course that is wrong and needs to be investigated with great scrutiny, especially since they are talking about FEDERAL judges. Now that's damning.

Is that the crux of "white privilege" though? If so, is "white privilege" instituted by the federal government? Who would we point the finger towards? I'd like to get to the heart of the premise.

 

[jrry32]

Wish those websites would elaborate on their statistics in depth. Are we comparing Apples to Apples? I'm not saying the numbers are not correct but just curious if previous records, extenuating circumstances, etc were taken into account. If accurate, of course that is wrong and needs to be investigated with great scrutiny, especially since they are talking about FEDERAL judges. Now that's damning.

Is that the crux of "white privilege" though? If so, is "white privilege" instituted by the federal government? Who would we point the finger towards? I'd like to get to the heart of the premise.

Nope. It's just the tip of the iceberg. Is it instituted by the government? Nope. It's being caused by the people of this country unconsciously.

 

[Ramhusker]

Unconsciously? Yeah, I don't know what to do with that. Sorry.