Military Industrial Complex: Bush and Halliburton

[Craig Lamson]

Perhaps the real reason American have "not followed Europes lead" is that some of us can see the utter failure of the "welfare state". I for one am very happy we have not gotten into the sewer of socialism. YMMV.

The welfare state in this country is financed through a system of National insurance. Every adult in employment pays a small percentage of their salary into this scheme. In return they recieve, Health care, at the point of need, The biulding of social housing(although this has all but ceased in recent years) unemployment income, a small percentage of their in work income, Education is also partly funded by the charge. Can the system be misused, yes, would I be without it, No, Has it ever prevented me from working hard, and being ambitious in my chosen field? no, and nor does it with most people. I strongly suspect that it is because it is partly socialistic in nature that you hate, and fear it.

Is it any wonder that a welfare state is popular? Why not. The burden of making good perspnal choices and having personal responsibility has been lifted. People are free to toally screw up their lives with no cares. Don't work, no problem, make someone else pay. No apartment, no problem, the rich can pay your way. Lotta babies and not dad...no problem. Yep that looks like the ideal system to build a stong country. Thanks but no thanks.

You really dont have a very high opinion of your fellow Humans do you Craig? Every single one of them out to screw you, do you down, live the high life on your precious tax Dollars. Given the precarious nature of Capitalism I am very glad we have a safety net, (imperfect as it is) Long may it continue to offer basic protection to me and my children. and by extention everybody else's children as well.

No I have a VERY high opinion of my fellow human beings. I WANT them to succeed. I want to EMPOWER them, not destroy thier will, which is what happens to those in a welfare state.

Your "safety net" is a direct result of capitalism. Exactly where do you think the money comes from? The Socialist fairy? What will you do when those who create the weath you gladly steal decide enough is enough? You are the perfect example of the failure of socialism. Instead of taking the personal responsibality to provide for the "basic protection" of you and your children, you expect SOMEONE ELSE to surrender their person property to support you! You are the perfect political pawn....beholden to others, not responsibile for yourself. How sad. And on the government dole to boot!

No wonder you like the system...it frees you from personal responsibilty and frees you from being a failure.

Socialism has always been a failure. It will fail for you too.

.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Perhaps the real reason American have "not followed Europes lead" is that some of us can see the utter failure of the "welfare state". I for one am very happy we have not gotten into the sewer of socialism. YMMV.

The welfare state in this country is financed through a system of National insurance. Every adult in employment pays a small percentage of their salary into this scheme. In return they recieve, Health care, at the point of need, The biulding of social housing(although this has all but ceased in recent years) unemployment income, a small percentage of their in work income, Education is also partly funded by the charge. Can the system be misused, yes, would I be without it, No, Has it ever prevented me from working hard, and being ambitious in my chosen field? no, and nor does it with most people. I strongly suspect that it is because it is partly socialistic in nature that you hate, and fear it.

Is it any wonder that a welfare state is popular? Why not. The burden of making good perspnal choices and having personal responsibility has been lifted. People are free to toally screw up their lives with no cares. Don't work, no problem, make someone else pay. No apartment, no problem, the rich can pay your way. Lotta babies and not dad...no problem. Yep that looks like the ideal system to build a stong country. Thanks but no thanks.

You really dont have a very high opinion of your fellow Humans do you Craig? Every single one of them out to screw you, do you down, live the high life on your precious tax Dollars. Given the precarious nature of Capitalism I am very glad we have a safety net, (imperfect as it is) Long may it continue to offer basic protection to me and my children. and by extention everybody else's children as well.

No I have a VERY high opinion of my fellow human beings. I WANT them to succeed. I want to EMPOWER them, not destroy thier will, which is what happens to those in a welfare state.

Your "safety net" is a direct result of capitalism. Exactly where do you think the money comes from? The Socialist fairy? What will you do when those who create the weath you gladly steal decide enough is enough? You are the perfect example of the failure of socialism. Instead of taking the personal responsibality to provide for the "basic protection" of you and your children, you expect SOMEONE ELSE to surrender their person property to support you! You are the perfect political pawn....beholden to others, not responsibile for yourself. How sad. And on the government dole to boot!

It is not a direct result of capitalism you bonehead, it is a dirct result of workers agreeing to support each other through insurance donations. Whose wealth am I stealing, I have worked bloody hard for more than 35 years, and brought up two children who now in their turn work bloody hard. Oh am fed up argueing the toss with a neathandal like you.

No wonder you like the system...it frees you from personal responsibilty and frees you from being a failure.

What are you so scared of Craig. You reek of it from every pore.

Socialism has always been a failure. It will fail for you too.

As I dont live in a Socialist country I guess I will never find out. What kind of ultra right winger actually thinks Britains political system is Socialist, Blair worships at the cradle of the Market almost as much as Bush. Do your homework

.

[Craig Lamson]

It is not a direct result of capitalism you bonehead, it is a dirct result of workers agreeing to support each other through insurance donations. Whose wealth am I stealing, I have worked bloody hard for more than 35 years, and brought up two children who now in their turn work bloody hard. Oh am fed up argueing the toss with a neathandal like you.

What horsehockey. Who and what provides the JOBS for those workers. WHO or WHAT risked personal capital to CREATE to companies and products that provides the WORKERS A PLACE TO WORK! Sheesh..its capitalism. I''m having a ball watching "the progressives like you "stick you foot in you mouth". Whos wealth are you stealing? Those you have forced to pay against their will. Or are you going to try and tell me EVERYONE agrees?

What are you so scared of Craig. You reek of it from every pore.

Scared? of what. A failed way of life? Not hardly. Its you who should be scared of of your mind.

As I dont live in a Socialist country I guess I will never find out. What kind of ultra right winger actually thinks Britains political system is Socialist, Blair worships at the cradle of the Market almost as much as Bush. Do your homework

Oh there is PLENTY of socialism in your country. You should be very happy Blair understands the value of the market...after all its the fuel for your socialist "safety net". Without it your net is gone.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Mark Stapleton]

Perhaps the real reason American have "not followed Europes lead" is that some of us can see the utter failure of the "welfare state". I for one am very happy we have not gotten into the sewer of socialism. YMMV.

The welfare state in this country is financed through a system of National insurance. Every adult in employment pays a small percentage of their salary into this scheme. In return they recieve, Health care, at the point of need, The biulding of social housing(although this has all but ceased in recent years) unemployment income, a small percentage of their in work income, Education is also partly funded by the charge. Can the system be misused, yes, would I be without it, No, Has it ever prevented me from working hard, and being ambitious in my chosen field? no, and nor does it with most people. I strongly suspect that it is because it is partly socialistic in nature that you hate, and fear it.

Is it any wonder that a welfare state is popular? Why not. The burden of making good perspnal choices and having personal responsibility has been lifted. People are free to toally screw up their lives with no cares. Don't work, no problem, make someone else pay. No apartment, no problem, the rich can pay your way. Lotta babies and not dad...no problem. Yep that looks like the ideal system to build a stong country. Thanks but no thanks.

You really dont have a very high opinion of your fellow Humans do you Craig? Every single one of them out to screw you, do you down, live the high life on your precious tax Dollars. Given the precarious nature of Capitalism I am very glad we have a safety net, (imperfect as it is) Long may it continue to offer basic protection to me and my children. and by extention everybody else's children as well.

No I have a VERY high opinion of my fellow human beings. I WANT them to succeed. I want to EMPOWER them, not destroy thier will, which is what happens to those in a welfare state.

Your "safety net" is a direct result of capitalism. Exactly where do you think the money comes from? The Socialist fairy? What will you do when those who create the weath you gladly steal decide enough is enough? You are the perfect example of the failure of socialism. Instead of taking the personal responsibality to provide for the "basic protection" of you and your children, you expect SOMEONE ELSE to surrender their person property to support you! You are the perfect political pawn....beholden to others, not responsibile for yourself. How sad. And on the government dole to boot!

No wonder you like the system...it frees you from personal responsibilty and frees you from being a failure.

Socialism has always been a failure. It will fail for you too.

.

Craig,

I'm glad you stated that you want to empower us to succeed. That's great. Thanks.

I have a question for you. I don't like putting Forum members on the spot like this. One can usually guess where someone stands on the larger question of who killed JFK by the tone and content of their posts over a given period of time but I've never read any substantive post from you indicating where you stand on this larger question. You seem to play your cards close to your chest. Lots of put downs of other members, but nothing indicating where you stand.

Well, what's your opinion? This is an assassination forum, after all. Personal responsibilty for your own carefully considered opinion is what it's all about, not a free ride on the back of the opinion of others. My current position is that I believe US armaments manufacturers, LBJ and US and Israeli military intelligence conspired to kill JFK, with possible assistance from moneyed interests, maybe even Howard Hughes. I take personal responsibilty for this view. Who do you think killed JFK?

Edited July 19, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Craig Lamson]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

"Craig,

I'm glad you stated that you want to empower us to succeed. That's great. Thanks.

I have a question for you. I don't like putting Forum members on the spot like this. One can usually guess where someone stands on the larger question of who killed JFK by the tone and content of their posts over a given period of time but I've never read any substantive post from you indicating where you stand on this larger question. You seem to play your cards close to your chest. Lots of put downs of other members, but nothing indicating where you stand.

Well, what's your opinion? This is an assassination forum, after all. Personal responsibilty for your own carefully considered opinion is what it's all about, not a free ride on the back of the opinion of others. My current position is that I believe US armaments manufacturers, LBJ and US and Israeli military intelligence conspired to kill JFK, with possible assistance from moneyed interests, maybe even Howard Hughes. I take personal responsibilty for this view. Who do you think killed JFK?"

Actually I've made statements similar to this one on this forum when asked.

I don't really have an opinion on who killed JFK. If I had to lean one way or the other I'd put my money on Oswald but I've not spent enough time dealing with all the crap to have developed an informed opinion. I'm not actually all that concerned with the continuing investigation as to who "might" have done it because I don't think it has any real relevance anymore. I also believe that if it somehow it was proven that the government/military/big oil/ castro/etc were the real killers nothing would change.

My interest in JFK is the photos, since photography is my background. I find it simulating and very entertaining. I actually was "forced" to deal with the JFK images due to my past membership at the DellaRosa Forum. I joined that forum to deal with the sillyness of the "Apollo was faked " works of Jack White. Needless to say they were not too thrilled that I and a few others were poking holes in their man White's BS. So it was deal with JFK or leave, so I took a look at the "photo research" in the JFK case. In the process I became involved with a number of other JFK researchers from both sides of the case and we did some projects togeter, which have been published on the web.

Beyond I find reading the daily fare here is amusing to say the least.

I take personal responsibility for this view.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

"Craig,

I'm glad you stated that you want to empower us to succeed. That's great. Thanks.

I have a question for you. I don't like putting Forum members on the spot like this. One can usually guess where someone stands on the larger question of who killed JFK by the tone and content of their posts over a given period of time but I've never read any substantive post from you indicating where you stand on this larger question. You seem to play your cards close to your chest. Lots of put downs of other members, but nothing indicating where you stand.

Well, what's your opinion? This is an assassination forum, after all. Personal responsibilty for your own carefully considered opinion is what it's all about, not a free ride on the back of the opinion of others. My current position is that I believe US armaments manufacturers, LBJ and US and Israeli military intelligence conspired to kill JFK, with possible assistance from moneyed interests, maybe even Howard Hughes. I take personal responsibilty for this view. Who do you think killed JFK?"

Actually I've made statements similar to this one on this forum when asked.

I don't really have an opinion on who killed JFK. If I had to lean one way or the other I'd put my money on Oswald but I've not spent enough time dealing with all the crap to have developed an informed opinion. I'm not actually all that concerned with the continuing investigation as to who "might" have done it because I don't think it has any real relevance anymore. I also believe that if it somehow it was proven that the government/military/big oil/ castro/etc were the real killers nothing would change.

My interest in JFK is the photos, since photography is my background. I find it simulating and very entertaining. I actually was "forced" to deal with the JFK images due to my past membership at the DellaRosa Forum. I joined that forum to deal with the sillyness of the "Apollo was faked " works of Jack White. Needless to say they were not too thrilled that I and a few others were poking holes in their man White's BS. So it was deal with JFK or leave, so I took a look at the "photo research" in the JFK case. In the process I became involved with a number of other JFK researchers from both sides of the case and we did some projects togeter, which have been published on the web.

Beyond I find reading the daily fare here is amusing to say the least.

I take personal responsibility for this view.

Thanks for that. The major point of disagreement I have with your post is your assertion that solving the crime of JFK's assassination has no relevance. I disagree.

p.s. you should visit the political debates section sometimes. Plenty of left leaning historians and journalists there to amuse you. Just because a person is left leaning ie. may advocate universal health care or other social reforms, doesn't necessarily make them dangerous lefties hellbent on destroying America.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[John Simkin]

I doubt if you could find many people in the world outside America expressing such views as Craig Lamson. It just goes to show just how different America is to the rest of the world. I expect it is because they have never experienced life in a welfare state. No doubt there are probably extremely rich people in the UK who might think like this, but they are highly unlikely to express it in public.

John and Steve (and Craig and Peter and Mark and....),

I have to take issue with the contention of "how different America is to the rest of the world." It's too easy to lump all Americans in via the expressions of conservatism as provided by Messrs. Lamson, Slattery, etc. As good historians, you should recognize that we wage an ongoing struggle here against the troglodytes with regressive agendas, a struggle we constantly seem to be losing due to the concentration of interest in terms of wealth, political influence, media influence, "religious" influence, etc, etc. (Power, in other words.)

I thought I made it clear that I did not lump all Americans together. I know from my many friends in the United States that there is a considerable number of people willing to resist the ideas of Craig Lamson and Brendan Slattery. My point was that I made was “I doubt if you could find many people in the world outside America expressing such views as Craig Lamson”. This is a comment about right-wing conservatives, not the whole of the population.

In his postings, Craig Lamson reveals that he is not a supporter of democracy. He accepts that a large percentage of the American population would favour the kind of welfare state that exists in Europe. He is therefore grateful to the American undemocratic system that stops this from happening.

D. H. Lawrence once said that every philosopher ends at his fingertips. This is definitely true of Craig. He assumes that everybody is lazy and does not want to work. He thinks this is the natural reaction to the introduction of the welfare state. This is of course not true. Only a very small minority chose not to work. In reality, people get pleasure from working for a living. In fact, it helps give life meaning.

It might be true that Craig is lazy and therefore needs the fear of poverty to motivate him. However, it is not true of most people.

Craig has claimed he has got his money by working hard. Does he not realize that people in low paid jobs also work very hard? Sociological research shows there is little evidence to suggest a link between wealth and “working hard”. Craig probably believes the “log cabin to president myth”. In modern times, all US presidents have either been very rich or willing to do the bidding of rich sponsors. It even seems to help if you are the son of a president (maybe there is a president gene).

Recent research shows that it is more difficult to obtain upward social mobility in the United States than any other advanced industrial society. This is not surprising as the quality of state education is the main determinant of upward social mobility. A good state education is an important ingredient of the welfare state.

[Craig Lamson]

I don't really have an opinion on who killed JFK. If I had to lean one way or the other I'd put my money on Oswald but I've not spent enough time dealing with all the crap to have developed an informed opinion. I'm not actually all that concerned with the continuing investigation as to who "might" have done it because I don't think it has any real relevance anymore. I also believe that if it somehow it was proven that the government/military/big oil/ castro/etc were the real killers nothing would change.

No further comment necessary......except nothing in this surprises me. Some expert, and some 'moral stand' on the murder of the chief of state. Nothing matters but greed, money, power. Nothing would change? Ever heard of evolution or revolution, political change, social progress? You only don't want it to change. Your views fly in the face of history, science, medicine, progress, humankind. Again, I'd ask who you work for being here....would it be the Big Boys behind Halliburton with the three letter abreviation perchance....? They don't think it has no further relevance, as their continued coverup demonstrates. They also know who did it - its called first hand knowledge. Everything would change if the public really felt they knew. If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem. Your ideas and presence here are part of the cover-up and the problem IMO

No further comments, LOL! ...and then as usual you rant on...what a joke you are Peter. A paranoid little fool.

There will be no "revolution", no "political change", no "social progress". Why? Because aside from some misguided idealists, NO ONE CARES! The best you could ever hope for is a fewd days of TV and print coverage and then the public will want to know who won the latest game, what is on sale at the market, and what does gas cost today. That Peter is REALITY! No one cares anymore.

I'm sure my presence here is a problem for some of you. You act all high and mighty about seeking the truth, but thats not what you are looking for. I've no side to protect, only the truith about the photography...you and others just don't want to hear the truth.

Enjoy your little fantasy world Peter, I'm sure it is much more pleasant for you that living in reality.

[Craig Lamson]

I doubt if you could find many people in the world outside America expressing such views as Craig Lamson. It just goes to show just how different America is to the rest of the world. I expect it is because they have never experienced life in a welfare state. No doubt there are probably extremely rich people in the UK who might think like this, but they are highly unlikely to express it in public.

John and Steve (and Craig and Peter and Mark and....),

I have to take issue with the contention of "how different America is to the rest of the world." It's too easy to lump all Americans in via the expressions of conservatism as provided by Messrs. Lamson, Slattery, etc. As good historians, you should recognize that we wage an ongoing struggle here against the troglodytes with regressive agendas, a struggle we constantly seem to be losing due to the concentration of interest in terms of wealth, political influence, media influence, "religious" influence, etc, etc. (Power, in other words.)

I thought I made it clear that I did not lump all Americans together. I know from my many friends in the United States that there is a considerable number of people willing to resist the ideas of Craig Lamson and Brendan Slattery. My point was that I made was “I doubt if you could find many people in the world outside America expressing such views as Craig Lamson”. This is a comment about right-wing conservatives, not the whole of the population.

In his postings, Craig Lamson reveals that he is not a supporter of democracy. He accepts that a large percentage of the American population would favour the kind of welfare state that exists in Europe. He is therefore grateful to the American undemocratic system that stops this from happening.

D. H. Lawrence once said that every philosopher ends at his fingertips. This is definitely true of Craig. He assumes that everybody is lazy and does not want to work. He thinks this is the natural reaction to the introduction of the welfare state. This is of course not true. Only a very small minority chose not to work. In reality, people get pleasure from working for a living. In fact, it helps give life meaning.

It might be true that Craig is lazy and therefore needs the fear of poverty to motivate him. However, it is not true of most people.

Craig has claimed he has got his money by working hard. Does he not realize that people in low paid jobs also work very hard? Sociological research shows there is little evidence to suggest a link between wealth and “working hard”. Craig probably believes the “log cabin to president myth”. In modern times, all US presidents have either been very rich or willing to do the bidding of rich sponsors. It even seems to help if you are the son of a president (maybe there is a president gene).

Recent research shows that it is more difficult to obtain upward social mobility in the United States than any other advanced industrial society. This is not surprising as the quality of state education is the main determinant of upward social mobility. A good state education is an important ingredient of the welfare state.

John you are quite correct, I am a a supporter of a representative republic form of government, which is what we have in America.. I am shocked that a man of your educational standing would make such a huge mistake. Makes one wonder.

As such the people in this country have voted for representatives who oppose a "system like that in Europe" Good for us. That is a representative republic in action. What a great system!

Poverty provides wonderful motivation. What motivation does the welfare state provide? If we look to the example of Sweden, the answer is pretty clear...not much. You want people to be motivated....they NEED ownership, not handouts. The joys of working! What a laugh.

Do you think there is a difference between "working hard" and doing the "hard work"?

Why not post the links to that "research" on upward mobility. I'd love to check it out.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[John Simkin]

Why not post the links to that "research" on upward mobility. I'd love to check it out.

By Peter Daniels

20 May 2006

Several recent studies have punctured the conception, assiduously fostered by the media and political defenders of the profit system, that American capitalism makes possible the rapid acquisition of wealth for anyone motivated to work for it.

The truth is very different. A study by economist Tom Hertz of American University, “Understanding Mobility in America”, finds that a child born into a poor family, defined as the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, has an infinitesimal one-in-a-hundred chance of making it into the top five percent income level.

Hertz’s report, issued by the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress (CAP), studied both “intergenerational mobility” and “short-term mobility.” Intergenerational mobility, comparing an individual’s economic status with that of his or her parents, is taken as a measure of equality of opportunity, since economic success independent of the status of one’s family would seem to indicate that merit and work are the principal sources of material rewards.

As far as intergenerational mobility is concerned, it is not only the children of the poor in the US who have little chance of becoming wealthy. Children born in the middle quintile (the 40-60th percentile of incomes in the country, $42,000 to $54,300) also have only a 1.8 percent chance of reaching the top five percent, a likelihood not much higher than in poor families. These findings were based on a study of over 4,000 children whose parents’ income was determined in 1968 and whose own income was then reviewed as adults in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999.

Breaking the data down by race showed that, within the framework of increasing pressure on the working class as a whole, black families continue to face higher burdens. While 47 percent of poor families remain poor in subsequent generations, this figure is 32 percent for whites and 63 percent for blacks. Only 3 percent of African-Americans jump from the bottom quarter of the income distribution to the top 25 percent, while for whites this number, still small, is 14 percent.

The second feature of the study focuses on short-term mobility, which is a measure of annual income volatility. Large changes in annual income correlate with economic instability and insecurity.

On the subject of income volatility, the report’s findings also contradict the claim of equal opportunity and rewards for hard work. Those in the middle income levels—the majority of whom consist of both industrial and service sector workers who are commonly lumped together and labeled “middle class” based on their income level—experienced increased “insecurity of income” between 1997 and 2004, compared to 1990. Downward short-term mobility—an annual income decline of $20,000 or more—rose from 13.0 percent of the population in 1990 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 and 16.6 percent in 2003-04.

This downward mobility was concentrated among those earning between $34,500 and $89,300 a year, while those in the top 10 percent of income earners ($122,880 or more) saw less negative shocks during this same period. Moreover, the middle income household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04 than it was in 1990-91, although the early nineties was a period of recession and the more recent years were ones of officially strong economic growth.

Hertz’s findings parallel those contained in a number of similar recent studies. A report prepared by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon for the National Bureau of Economic Research in December 2005 shows that those in the top 10 percent income bracket received 49 percent of the growth in wages and salaries in the period between 1997 and 2001, while the bottom 50 percent received less than 13 percent.

Dew-Becker and Gordon explain that whereas in the past there was some modest improvement in real wages for the lower-paid as a result of productivity gains, that is no longer the case. While there was either decline or virtually no gain for the vast majority of working people, between 1996 and 2001 the earnings at the 90th percentile (10 percent from the top) increased 58 percent, those at the 99th percentile by 121 percent, the top tenth of one percentile by 236 percent, and the top one-hundredth of one percentile by 617 percent.

These statistics reflect the reality of a new gilded age, more extreme in terms of social inequality and concentration of wealth than that of a century ago.

Another paper published by the NBER in January 2006 shows that the polarization between the super-rich and the poor is returning to early 20th century levels. In the mid-20th century, partly in response to the explosive growth of trade unionism during the Great Depression as well as the threat of socialism embodied in the example of the Russian Revolution, reformist policies led to a rapid fall in the share of the top 0.01 percent of US earners of total income—from 4.5 percent in 1916 to “only” 0.5 percent in 1971. This latter figure was still 50 times what it would have been under conditions of complete income equality.

In the last three decades, however, this trend has been sharply reversed again. By 1998 the share of the top 0.01 percent had risen in little more than a quarter century as rapidly as it had fallen in the previous 50 years, reaching 3 percent of total income. A major component of this is compensation for top corporate executives. The ratio of the pay of CEOs to average wages rose from 27 in 1973 to 300 in 2000, and it has continued to climb since.

“Understanding Mobility in America” contains a number of other significant findings. It presents comparisons between US intergenerational mobility and existing trends in other advanced capitalist economies, especially in Europe. It finds that mobility is lower in the US than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among the major wealthy countries, only Britain has a lower rate of mobility than the US.

This is particularly noteworthy, given the incessant claims—repeated most recently in comments by various media pundits on the mass struggle of French students and youth against the government’s plans to attack the rights of young workers—that European workers and youth, by fighting to defend past social gains, are foolishly forfeiting the chance to strike it rich, a chance which is allegedly greater in the United States.

Even as American society has become more unequal and social mobility has declined, the myth of mobility maintains its strength. A recent survey in the New York Times showed that 80 percent of Americans polled believe it is possible for anyone to move from poverty to great wealth. The same question posed in 1983 produced an affirmative answer from less than 60 percent.

The extent of these illusions is no doubt overstated in polls that tend to register the most immediate impressions of individuals who repeat what they have heard endlessly on radio, television and the rest of the media. Moreover the ideological role of individualism in America, along with the influence of advertising and the media, is not new. Even so, the apparent disconnect between these conceptions of social mobility and a reality that moving in the opposite direction is significant.

The last few decades have seen the collapse of all varieties of national reformism, and in the absence of any genuine political alternative, many workers have become increasingly susceptible to this kind of outlook.

The gulf between the actual conditions of life and these illusions cannot continue to grow indefinitely, however, without producing a social explosion and creating the conditions for a new period of ... political struggle.

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives...rts_expose.html

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Just got back from a 24 hour work stertch at the hospital, (stealing the rich mans money no doubt) to find Lamson's latest anal outpouring.

Its the workers who produce all goods, and services and therefore any value, both used, and surplus that attaches to this activity. Imagine,if you will, a world where the owning class didn't turn up, result? no difference, all goods, and services produced as normal. Now imagine a world where the producers of this wealth didn't show, i am sure you get the picture. The next "world turned upside down" Lamson statement is that the Capitalists provide us with work, out of the goodness of their hearts no doubt, and risk personal capital to do it. This is the oldest trick in the book, it claims that without capital there would be no work, when in truth the reverse is true, without work there would be no capital, and hense no surplus value (that, that is stolen from the producers in the form of profit) The only obligation a Company has, as I am sure craig would agree, is to its shareholders, if greater profits can be made by shutting production in America, Britain etc, and moving it to a sweatshop in Outer mongolia guess what happens, so much for providing us with work. In truth very few Major Capitalist concerns ever risk their money, and the idea that they would do so to provide us with work is laughable, prefering to merge with rival companies(count the job loses), indulge in a hostile takeover, and asset strip(oops, there go more jobs)or, as stated above, move the operation to a lower cost base( Buddy can you spare a dime?) whilst rigging the Stock exchange for all their worth, through false share inflation/deflation, or insider dealing. All this activitity does is to rob surplus value, which in truth belongs to the wider society.

Lamson asks "Are you going to try and tell me everyone agrees." (to national insurance contributions) YES CRAIG I AM, or at least the overwhelming majority( a few rich bastards winge, but we all get a good laugh out of that) I know in your dog-eat-dog little heart that thats very hard to believe, but most people see it as very good value, Free health service-unemployment insurance-disability allowance-education-old age pension, and to think last month I payed the princely sum of £139-38p for all this. How much would I have to pay per month for full medical insurance in the US Craig? Yeah funnily enough most people see the value of it. AND GOD HELP THE POLITICAL PARTY THAT TRIES TO TAKE IT FROM US.

Lamson "Its the fuel for your Socialist safety net" (The market) More world turned upside down nonsense, its the Market that threatens to take it away. Have a guess how many well paid manufacturing/support jobs have been lost in this country over the last 20 years, all at the whim of the free market( read big business) These were not lazy, idol people, they worked harder, produced more, took wage cuts but in the end nothing could save them, not when you can produce in the third world for a fraction of the cost, (watch them profits soar, its a f*****g bananza for the rich pigs) This means less money going in , therefore it becomes harder to fund all services, Thanks to your wonderful "Free Market" my Daughter will have to work at least 7 years longer to qualify for her pension than me, and my wife will, Capitalism, making life better for all LOL.

And as regards my pension fund, I want you friggin free market shysters as far away from it as possible, Millions here have lost company pensions, AS THE RICH HAVE SIMPLY STOLEN IT FROM THEM, AND WALKED AWAY, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Oh, and BTW you dont get to claim you won the debate, others will decide that.....

[Craig Lamson]

Why not post the links to that "research" on upward mobility. I'd love to check it out.

By Peter Daniels

20 May 2006

Several recent studies have punctured the conception, assiduously fostered by the media and political defenders of the profit system, that American capitalism makes possible the rapid acquisition of wealth for anyone motivated to work for it.

The truth is very different. A study by economist Tom Hertz of American University, “Understanding Mobility in America”, finds that a child born into a poor family, defined as the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, has an infinitesimal one-in-a-hundred chance of making it into the top five percent income level.

Hertz’s report, issued by the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress (CAP), studied both “intergenerational mobility” and “short-term mobility.” Intergenerational mobility, comparing an individual’s economic status with that of his or her parents, is taken as a measure of equality of opportunity, since economic success independent of the status of one’s family would seem to indicate that merit and work are the principal sources of material rewards.

(snip)

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives...rts_expose.html

Thank you John,

I would not disagree with the major thrust of this research, (after I actually read the report and not the spin from your leftist article). I do disagree however with a few of the conclusions.

First while I agree that the lack of education is factor, its not because the schools are that bad but rather its the lack of desire by the students. I've seen this first hand. They don't care. The schools are partly to blame, they just pass these kids along rather than keep them back until they actually learn. Did I mention our schools are mostly run and staffed by leftists?

Second, we are a nation in flux. We are moving away from the industrial era to the post industrial era. As such the manual labor factory jobs that absorbed the folks who shunned their education are gone. Its similar to when we moved from a rural/farming era to the industrial era.

Third, we have CREATED a class of people in this country that has for generations simply decided to live off the public dole rather than work to create a better life. The wonders of the welfare state.

You can still better yourself in this country. I see it everyday, I work for and with those you have made it, not because they had a superior education ( though some do) or because their family had money, or they got some special breaks along the way (quite a few failed at least once). The reason they made it was DESIRE and the guts to take a risk. If you don't give a crap and are only interested in a paycheck, you will have little chance for upward mobility

Edited July 21, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Just got back from a 24 hour work stertch at the hospital, (stealing the rich mans money no doubt) to find Lamson's latest anal outpouring.

Its the workers who produce all goods, and services and therefore any value, both used, and surplus that attaches to this activity. Imagine,if you will, a world where the owning class didn't turn up, result? no difference, all goods, and services produced as normal. Now imagine a world where the producers of this wealth didn't show, i am sure you get the picture. The next "world turned upside down" Lamson statement is that the Capitalists provide us with work, out of the goodness of their hearts no doubt, and risk personal capital to do it. This is the oldest trick in the book, it claims that without capital there would be no work, when in truth the reverse is true, without work there would be no capital, and hense no surplus value (that, that is stolen from the producers in the form of profit) The only obligation a Company has, as I am sure craig would agree, is to its shareholders, if greater profits can be made by shutting production in America, Britain etc, and moving it to a sweatshop in Outer mongolia guess what happens, so much for providing us with work. In truth very few Major Capitalist concerns ever risk their money, and the idea that they would do so to provide us with work is laughable, prefering to merge with rival companies(count the job loses), indulge in a hostile takeover, and asset strip(oops, there go more jobs)or, as stated above, move the operation to a lower cost base( Buddy can you spare a dime?) whilst rigging the Stock exchange for all their worth, through false share inflation/deflation, or insider dealing. All this activitity does is to rob surplus value, which in truth belongs to the wider society.

Lamson asks "Are you going to try and tell me everyone agrees." (to national insurance contributions) YES CRAIG I AM, or at least the overwhelming majority( a few rich bastards winge, but we all get a good laugh out of that) I know in your dog-eat-dog little heart that thats very hard to believe, but most people see it as very good value, Free health service-unemployment insurance-disability allowance-education-old age pension, and to think last month I payed the princely sum of £139-38p for all this. How much would I have to pay per month for full medical insurance in the US Craig? Yeah funnily enough most people see the value of it. AND GOD HELP THE POLITICAL PARTY THAT TRIES TO TAKE IT FROM US.

Lamson "Its the fuel for your Socialist safety net" (The market) More world turned upside down nonsense, its the Market that threatens to take it away. Have a guess how many well paid manufacturing/support jobs have been lost in this country over the last 20 years, all at the whim of the free market( read big business) These were not lazy, idol people, they worked harder, produced more, took wage cuts but in the end nothing could save them, not when you can produce in the third world for a fraction of the cost, (watch them profits soar, its a f*****g bananza for the rich pigs) This means less money going in , therefore it becomes harder to fund all services, Thanks to your wonderful "Free Market" my Daughter will have to work at least 7 years longer to qualify for her pension than me, and my wife will, Capitalism, making life better for all LOL.

And as regards my pension fund, I want you friggin free market shysters as far away from it as possible, Millions here have lost company pensions, AS THE RICH HAVE SIMPLY STOLEN IT FROM THEM, AND WALKED AWAY, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Oh, and BTW you dont get to claim you won the debate, others will decide that.....

Nice rant Karl...

No wonder the world seems upside down to you. It's the perspective from which you view it.

Amazing eh, that the very act of taking a job by a worker is an act of capitalism...you sell your time for the most money possible....capitalism, what a concept.

Recent research shows that it is more difficult to obtain upward social mobility in the United States than any other advanced industrial society. This is not surprising as the quality of state education is the main determinant of upward social mobility. A good state education is an important ingredient of the welfare state.

Looks like you are right...seems there are those here in the good old USA who really do want to be like YO UP.

(satire alert for the humor challenged)

AMERICANS WITH NO ABILITIES ACT

WASHINGTON, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation, which

provides new benefits for many Americans.

The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major

legislation by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real

skills or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and

drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in

society," said Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow

people of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this

legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to

a small group of workers, simply because they do a better job, or have

some idea of what they are doing."

The President pointed to the success of the US Postal Service, which

has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to

performance.

Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack job skills, making

this agency the single largest US employer of Persons of Inability.

Private sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination

against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry

(68%),and home improvement "warehouse" stores (65%). The DMV also has a

great record of hiring Persons of Inability. (63%)

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million "middle

man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but

little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose

and performance. Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions

will be given, to guarantee upward mobility for even the most

unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks

to corporations which maintain a significant level of Persons of

Inability in middle positions, and gives a tax credit to small and

medium businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two

talented hires.

Finally, the AWNA ACT contains tough new measures to make it more

difficult to discriminate against the Nonabled, banning discriminatory

interview questions such as "Do you have any goals for the future?" or

"Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?"

"As a Nonabled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who

have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her

position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, MI due to her

lack of notable job skills. "This new law should really help people like

me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other

untalented citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Ted Kennedy, "It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each

and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some

sort of space to take up in this great nation."

Edited July 21, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Mark Stapleton]

Gee, Craig. It must be tough living in a world where so many people lack your obvious ability and boundless talents. I don't know how you put up with it. You're a real trooper. And to think, some of these talentless cretins have the temerity to ask for a paycheck. It's disgraceful! Try to soldier on, old fella.

[Craig Lamson]

Gee, Craig. It must be tough living in a world where so many people lack your obvious ability and boundless talents. I don't know how you put up with it. You're a real trooper. And to think, some of these talentless cretins have the temerity to ask for a paycheck. It's disgraceful! Try to soldier on, old fella.

Yea Mark thats the problem all right, they ask for that paycheck rather than earn it.....

Edited July 22, 2006 by Craig Lamson