PDA

View Full Version : Language is important



David G
03-24-2016, 10:49 AM
I agree with Confucius... and with Orwell --

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/v/t1.0-0/p235x350/537809_10150630827756275_1495517080_n.jpg?oh=67423 94b91e3434192bb49f37cb2f031&oe=5798B889

bobbys
03-24-2016, 11:03 AM
I dunno ,Im on the lower Oregon minimum wage scale in my county.

liberals don't believe we should make as much as people in Portland..

Or maybe the employees are not worth as much..

CWSmith
03-24-2016, 11:12 AM
I dunno ,Im on the lower Oregon minimum wage scale in my county.

liberals don't believe we should make as much as people in Portland..

Or maybe the employees are not worth as much..

You have liberals setting your pay scale? I thought it was the free market economy. (That is a very popular concept among Republicans.)

Ian McColgin
03-24-2016, 11:40 AM
Having lived on the Oregon coast myself, I remember Portland area and north coast and high desert employers being mostly Republican. But I don't blame their party affiliation for the low wages.

switters
03-24-2016, 11:44 AM
automobile accident
automobile crash

Canoeyawl
03-24-2016, 11:53 AM
I dunno ,Im on the lower Oregon minimum wage scale in my county.

liberals don't believe we should make as much as people in Portland..

Or maybe the employees are not worth as much..

Is this confusion, ignorance or lies?
Here is your Oregon political map...

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width620/img/mapes/photo/govenorsracepng-1257c87c290589b1.png

elf
03-24-2016, 11:56 AM
Interesting. Astoria's not blue.

David G
03-24-2016, 12:04 PM
Interesting. Astoria's not blue.

No... it's more like the rest of rural Oregon. But it's more evenly split, iirc.

Canoeyawl - His own idiosyncratic mixture of #2 & #3... which, so long marinated, results in almost total #1.

Canoeyawl
03-24-2016, 12:13 PM
Having sailed out of there for a couple of years, I know enough about Astoria to give it a wide berth..
Returning home from a pipeline related gig, I damn near bought a house there, they were so cheap I had the cash in my pocket. Right on the river, that was a very close call.

David G
03-24-2016, 12:21 PM
So did I - back in the 70's. My life would have been much different. It's a lovely town now, but the economy has a far larger tourist & entertainment sector than ever before. When I was growing up there, it was almost totally Resource Extraction: fish; timber. My family was partners in a plywood mill. Good economy, excellent wages. A lovely Scandahoovian 'live and let live' undercurrent.

Too Little Time
03-24-2016, 06:01 PM
Entitlements; earned benefits
My first thought is of a forum member remarking: "I am middle class and entitled to 2 homes, a new Lexis every couple years, health insurance ..."

My second thought is that Social Security is neither an entitlement nor an earned benefit. It is part of the social safety net.

skuthorp
03-24-2016, 06:06 PM
Adequate social security is also a great preventer of crime. Desperate people do desperate things. It's also cheaper thn policing and lawyers, but the private prison system makes bigger profits.

Peerie Maa
03-24-2016, 06:07 PM
My second thought is that Social Security is neither an entitlement nor an earned benefit. It is part of the social safety net.

Just So.
it is what society is for.

skuthorp
03-24-2016, 06:21 PM
Just So.
it is what society is for.
Thatcher and Reagan didn't believe in 'society', only self interest.

Peerie Maa
03-24-2016, 06:23 PM
Thatcher and Reagan didn't believe in 'society', only self interest.

Yep, and Cameron is suffering the aftermath of some of her daft policies as well. Housing is still a mess.

Breakaway
03-24-2016, 06:35 PM
Beasts consume one another with tooth and claw; man tears man apart by words and law. (Apologies to Tennyson)

Kevin

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Jim Mahan
03-24-2016, 10:22 PM
Social Security is neither an entitlement nor an earned benefit. It is part of the social safety net.

I have paid into Social Security for four decades and more; I am entitled to it because it's mine already, and the country I live in has voted to have the SS in force for the people, I'm one of the people, and so yes, it actually is exactly a benefit that I earned. So all three of the things you've stated are wrong. Nice.

'Some member feels entitled because his quality of life choices go along with his economic status, how is that a problem? If you are middle class and want to own two homes, you probably can afford and why not. So how is your first thought germane?

David G
03-24-2016, 11:35 PM
But language is the issue here. We need to start calling a spade a spade. That's part of Bernie's appeal. And the faux version of it... the appearance of it... blunt, even rude, without the accuracty or truth... without the substance, is enough to make Trump attractive to some.

skuthorp
03-24-2016, 11:50 PM
People are used to politician's words having no substance, in fact they expect it. All but the rusted on's I suppose.
So when Trump mouths a mixture of lies, platitudes and extremism well, it's just politi-speak and though it stirs the crowd up it doesn't have any more substance than the rest of the BS polies have been mouthing for the last 50 years. And when the press get's on it's faux high horse well we know that's just about selling something and ratings just like always isn't it?
The political class have no one to blame but themselves as the voters all know that whoever their 'representative' represents, it's not them and hasn'r been for a long time.
Trump is just a vehicle for the voter's frustration and cynicism, well marketed and promoted as one should expect from such a seasoned performer, and now an expression of the voter's revenge. In many ways the TP was a precursor and Donald saw the opening in the market.
NB: Voter, citizen, etc all apply.

Peerie Maa
03-25-2016, 03:20 AM
I have paid into Social Security for four decades and more; I am entitled to it because it's mine already, and the country I live in has voted to have the SS in force for the people, I'm one of the people, and so yes, it actually is exactly a benefit that I earned. So all three of the things you've stated are wrong. Nice.


Follow your logic and it is only an entitlement for those who have paid in to the scheme, but not for all. TLT and I are referring to its being a Social Safety Net, that is facilitated by a system of taxes so that it can be provided to all, whether they pay in or no.

Jim Mahan
03-25-2016, 06:38 AM
^ And it's a social safety net. As it should be. That is the whole part that trogs are against, that someone might get something and without having paid in. Both things, making contributions and being taken care of for simply being a person of the society in need, are appropriate and the one doesn't negate the other. It isn't about being one or the other. Maybe I got all bristly and didn't need to... Nice. [rolleyes]

Peerie Maa
03-25-2016, 07:56 AM
^No wukkas.
We are in agreement on the principle.

Too Little Time
03-25-2016, 08:38 AM
I have paid into Social Security for four decades and more; I am entitled to it because it's mine already, and the country I live in has voted to have the SS in force for the people, I'm one of the people, and so yes, it actually is exactly a benefit that I earned. So all three of the things you've stated are wrong. Nice.
I understand your usage of the words. David G's point was that people with different political interests use those words to express different meanings. I added my comments to indicate that I disagree with the meanings that those political interests want to attribute those words.

As for your specific comment: I am sure you will always get your Social Security benefits regardless of how they is characterized. But you should understand that each of the three characterizations has a different meaning.



'Some member feels entitled because his quality of life choices go along with his economic status, how is that a problem? If you are middle class and want to own two homes, you probably can afford and why not. So how is your first thought germane?

Because it is another example where misuse of language is used to achieve a goal.

Nicholas Scheuer
03-25-2016, 08:42 AM
We csall the USA a "Christian" or "Christian-Judeo" country, however, there seems to be a significant lack of Christian principles expressed here, perhaps by Trump's constituency, a group who usually behaves in a very Unchristian way.

Too Little Time
03-25-2016, 08:47 AM
^ And it's a social safety net. As it should be. That is the whole part that trogs are against, that someone might get something and without having paid in. Both things, making contributions and being taken care of for simply being a person of the society in need, are appropriate and the one doesn't negate the other. It isn't about being one or the other. Maybe I got all bristly and didn't need to... Nice. [rolleyes]
I have to disagree somewhat (perhaps a lot) on the point I bolded.

It should be a social safety net, but for people in my position - it is simply money I should not be getting. It is hard to justify giving $50K/year to people who are in the top 10%.

Peerie Maa
03-25-2016, 09:01 AM
I have to disagree somewhat (perhaps a lot) on the point I bolded.

It should be a social safety net, but for people in my position - it is simply money I should not be getting. It is hard to justify giving $50K/year to people who are in the top 10%.
There is a problem with that, good though it sounds. When you decide that some are too well off to be eligible you open an entire can of worms about where to draw the cut off line, and how. Family size?Should it be a hard cut off or a soft graduated one? Sometimes it is better to keep it simple especially when the cost savings are lost to the cost of administering the eligibility decision.

Canoeyawl
03-25-2016, 10:30 AM
I have to disagree somewhat (perhaps a lot) on the point I bolded.

It should be a social safety net, but for people in my position - it is simply money I should not be getting. It is hard to justify giving $50K/year to people who are in the top 10%.

Why is it important for you to announce your income?

elf
03-25-2016, 11:07 AM
I have to disagree somewhat (perhaps a lot) on the point I bolded.

It should be a social safety net, but for people in my position - it is simply money I should not be getting. It is hard to justify giving $50K/year to people who are in the top 10%.

Give it away. As long as you're getting it, and not needing it in any conceivable way, give it away. There are mobs of people and organizations who can use it. Support a musician in the local orchestra, fund a part of a drug treatment program or an effort to legalize all drugs, support a family through Big Brothers/Big Sisters.

Jeez. If my SS check came to half that I'd be able to give some of it away.

Too Little Time
03-25-2016, 11:45 AM
There is a problem with that, good though it sounds. When you decide that some are too well off to be eligible you open an entire can of worms about where to draw the cut off line, and how. Family size?Should it be a hard cut off or a soft graduated one? Sometimes it is better to keep it simple especially when the cost savings are lost to the cost of administering the eligibility decision.
You might notice that my Social Security is about the same as the median income. It is hard to argue that the social safety net should provide the median income to anyone.


Why is it important for you to announce your income?
I think it is important for people to disclose their economic condition when they make economic statements. For example, it might be reasonable for a person below the median to argue for full replacement of their income from Social Security. In this case I was arguing that the safety net should not provide income to those who are rich.


Give it away. As long as you're getting it, and not needing it in any conceivable way, give it away.
That is essentially what we do.

Peerie Maa
03-25-2016, 12:09 PM
You might notice that my Social Security is about the same as the median income. It is hard to argue that the social safety net should provide the median income to anyone.

The safety net should provide for a families needs. If the family is large then may the the "median income" is what is needed. That does imply that the US wage structure is too low though.

bobbys
03-25-2016, 02:01 PM
No... it's more like the rest of rural Oregon. But it's more evenly split, iirc.

Canoeyawl - His own idiosyncratic mixture of #2 & #3... which, so long marinated, results in almost total #1.
.

clatsop county as a democrat majority.

astoria, Cannon beach Lean way more towards democrats.

odd you do not know this.

bobbys
03-25-2016, 02:06 PM
Is this confusion, ignorance or lies?
Here is your Oregon political map... .



http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width620/img/mapes/photo/govenorsracepng-1257c87c290589b1.png.

The Fact is Governer Brown set up a 3 tier minimum wage system with Portland getting the higher rate, Suburbia ,Then rural the lowest.

how this makes me Ignorant , a liar or confused is beyond me.....

I never thought of applying these ad hominums towards you for stating a wage scale .

So much for liberals distaste for laws applied equally.