Top 5 Misconceptions About People Struggling Economically Today

reply to post by undo


reply to post by TKDRL




I'm not griping about the past, but asking for justice in the present.

It seems pretty racist to me when people say "that happened a long time ago, get over it"...the subtext here is "assimilate and forget you were free".

Your refusal to acknowledge the debt and unwillingness to pay it is what creates the conditions for situations like South Africa's.

The US government once paid $5 for each and every Apache child's scalp its authorized scalpers brought in, $15 for every woman's, and $25 for every male's 13 and up. The US owes a debt for that which it hasn't acknowledged and made good on. My people, the Chiricahua, were promised a reservation in exchange for peace; we never got that reservation, what we got was deported, aka ethnic cleansing, for nearly thirty years as prisoners of war. When they finally released the survivors, they simply kicked us out the front gate and told us to go beg shelter from our cousin tribes. To this day we get nothing whatsoever from the US but grief.

You say you want to disown this debt because you are innocent.

I say the debt is still outstanding, and as an American you owe part of it: you can't claim only the good things your country does, you must also acknowledge the ill and work to rectify it. I have worked my entire life towards helping the Nations attain their freedom once more and will continue to do so til my dying breath.It is your personal responsibility to not stand in the way of our freedom but rather let it be known to your politicians that you accept the return of some small portion of the lands that were taken illegally and the return of our full and complete sovereignty. Only then can you say you are innocent of any wrongdoing. But so long as you tell me to "just forget about it", then you are just as guilty as any of your forebears.

We aren't going away, and we won't give up on demanding the treaties be honored in full, not even if it takes another ten generations, or a hundred: some things you don't "just forget about" because they're inconvenient or upset others (just ask the Israelis); the full freedom and sovereignty of the Nations is one of them...but that's another thread and this is straying off-topic.

reply to post by apacheman


perhaps you missed my response to your accusation on the prior page?
here it is again

dude i totally sympathize and empathize with your plight and the plight of other native americans. by all means, if the government promised you something they by all rights should give it to you. don't blame me for things i was not even born to see or effect, if it was even possible to see it or effect it. argh! what don't you understand about this? it's like racism, perpetuated, forever!

as far as the severity of the damage committed, again, i completely empathize with the native american plight and i bet you a thousand bucks right now, there are lots of white people sticking up for native americans, protesting in defense of native americans, who have tried their darndest to help effect change on your behalf. wrote songs about it, books about it, movies about it, bought goods made specifically by native americans in defense and support of your cause. what the hell do you want from me other than to roll over and die? gads i despise being everyone's freakin' scape goat.

there's not much else i can do beyond that, unless you want to insist that i go bang on the doors of the senate and demand it? think i'll live long? think they'll listen? oh hell no, you have a much better chance of getting their attention cause i'm just a white person! would you do that for me, or will i forever be nailed to this generational debt?

apacheman,

here's a prior thread of yours in which you discuss the help you received from other ATSers.
i'm sure some of them were white people. you make it sound like skin color effects charity, compassion
and decency, and you know better than that. if you still need help financially, i'm sure there are more ways
we can help. even us lowly scumbag whities.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by undo


Yeah it sucks, but like I said, living in the past will not help my present. My father's side, the one that owned all the land was actually acadian(exiles from france, some went north and are acadian, some went south and are cajun), my mother's side is my native blood tie. I got cousins in nova scotia living pretty well in the reservation, my cuz gets a check for around 2 grand a month from the government at 17 yrs old. I am glad he is a smart kid, he sees how a lot of them waste away their lives living in the past, and drinking themselves to death off the government dollar.

It's funny how life works, if I hadn't had my life in NY crumble around me, and end up moving to canada, I might have never even met a lot of them. I look forward to many more get togethers with my family up here.


Ok lol, I think apacheman is right, we kinda derailed this thread a bit

Onto the OP:

#5 I'm not in debt so why are you?(My parents have money and I don't have school loans)

I was jealous of a lot of people for that really, having the luxury of their parents paying for college. That was never an option for me, so I did the next best thing, apprenticed and learned a trade. Worked my way from apprentice to full partner. Did great until the real estate bubble exploded, and sent the construction business into a downward spiral.

#4 I have a job so anyone can get a job(The world revolves around me and all is relevant)

Yep, I was guilty of that one, before my world crumbled around me, and for reasons outside my control. When people stop building new houses, and renovating old houses, even the best floorguys in NY don't have enough work coming in to keep the business afloat. We gave our best, in hindsight we should have took all the equity out of the house and headed for the border, but no one thought it would last so long. We have seen slow times before, but never for years, only lasting a few months. Losing a few hundred grand hurts, especially when you busted your ass 6 days a week 10-12 hours a day for 8 years for it. Hindsight is 20x20, we were doing "the right thing" and making the only solid investment we knew of, a house.

#3 Anyone can start a business and make it big(Look at Bill Gates)

Yep, that really is true, but it can also come crashing down around you, even when you do all the right things. What is a solid area for work now, might dry up out of nowhere next year. No one in the construction business would have thought it would stop like it did. People need houses, it was a solid area of work for a long time.

#2 Mcdonalds is always hiring(Work at McDonalds and you'll be able to pay your debt)

Wendy's was a great job, back when I was in high school. Making 100 bucks after taxes was great back then, I got to buy some things for myself. Look up the rent in NY and tell me you can live off of that kind of money. You would have to squish like 6 people into a one room apartment lol.

#1 Make better decisions(Stop buying drugs and TVs and you'll be okay)

A lot of people are guilty there, I see people complaining they don't have spending money, meanwhile they are hitting the club/bar a few nights a week
Hell, I did that back when I was making money, pulling in 600+ a week a night at the bar is chump change. Of course that stopped when I stopped making money.

Another thing I see is morons going out and spending 150 bucks on brand name items of clothing, even when I was pulling in money I was not doing that....

Originally posted by illuminatislave
reply to post by Nkinga

 

So you base your opinion of people down on their on a few louts that you have in your life?

Your world view is hilariously narrow

edit on 19-11-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

I think his post says a lot about the system and how many are manipulating it. And I don't think you needed to be so rude.

reply to post by TKDRL


we learned several ways to cut corners, such as extreme couponing, rolling cigarettes instead of buying them by the pack or carton ( $5 a carton rolling them yourself, vs $50+ a carton already rolled), no booze, shopping for new clothes or other non-food/personal care household items only at second hand stores or yard sales, all appliances energy efficient, energy saving light bulbs. i want to get the house off the grid and unto a solar panel/windmill set up but that stuff is so expensive, it would take years for the savings to materialize and we'd be in even more debt. i share bath tub water with the hubby and only flush once every other in the hubby's bathroom. i don't go out of the house, cause when i do, it costs us money lol

i haven't bought make up, hair care extras (conditioner, hair coloring, bobby pins, or any other cosmetics for the hair), perfume, jewelry, or any other beauty items for years. i look like a homeless person most of the time, combine that with being a breast cancer survivor, with one hump instead of two, and let's just say i wouldn't win any contests for personal beauty

Originally posted by tinker9917
My daughter who is a senior in high school, got her credits done ASAP, and has been taking college courses thru the high school until graduation in the spring. She will have enough college credits to only have to go to college for 6 months to get her 2 year degree. She wanted to go to a university, but chose instead to go a junior college because it will be almost free due to grants and scholarships. She will then possibly transfer to a university, hopefully with alot of scholarships to pave the way. Main thing is, she will have no debt and already have a 2 year degree.

She has a friend who, after her first two years at a university, is already $40k in debt.

edit on 19-11-2011 by tinker9917 because: (no reason given)

Okay, you do realize that for some of us older folks, completing a degree or a year's worth of college coursework wasn't even an option? We didn't have programs like they do now, and some school districts still don't have those options. And there were classes you couldn't get out of no matter what coursework you took or how well you did on your SAT's. Everyone had to take English Comp I and II, no exceptions. You couldn't klep out of that. Scholarships and grants weren't nearly as easy to come by. Even though I didn't live at home and was over 18, I still had to claim my parent's income on my FAFSA. It took 2 years for me to figure out that I was better off lying just so I could get a grant, because my dad made too much money for me to qualify. And then I got married junior year and our combined income was over the limit as well.

All of which adds up to the fact that I ended up with quite a bit in loans. I turned down admission to Carnegie Mellon and opted for a cheaper school because I didn't want to end up over $100K in debt. If I had to do it all over again, I'd pick Carnegie Mellon and the debt--I ended up with it anyway.

Tell me, does your daughter do anything besides study? Does she have a part-time job? Sports? Friends? I worked 50+ hours a week to put myself through school 20 years ago and it still wasn't enough to pay the rent and tuition. And that's another thing--not everyone lives at home or on campus. You still have things like rent, electric, gas. That's not even counting food, which gives the term "poor starving college student" a whole new meaning. I doubt you'd ever allow your daughter to live on mac 'n cheese and Ramen noodles for four years, would you?

reply to post by HappyBunny


same thing happened to me, as well but i had the benefit of already being over 30, married and in a house (wasn't our own house but i didn't have to live on campus). also, i went the community college route and after the first year, started receiving invitations to other colleges because of my grades and awards (dean's list and then after second year, president's list) but opted out because it was so much more expensive. i also got any loans or grants i could qualify for. we're still paying, almost 15 years later, for a 10,000 dollar school loan. dunno how they are doing it, but that bill just never seems to go down. i mean, it's like 4k or so now but seems like we've been paying on it as if it were a house mortgage, it goes down so slowly. the payment is certainly more than 50 bucks a month. they must've tacked some big interest rates on it. i should look at that bill a lttle more carefully

reply to post by liejunkie01


Good for you,

When ever I hire a person to work for me I am always trying to get them to better themselves.

My Ideals are that if you work for me I expect you to leave someday and start your own business.

I have a back hoe and instead of always driving it like most owners I will get on the shovel and let the labor learn how to use it. Many like this very much and are thankful that I include them in the process and not make them a tool.

As long as you are willing to do anything that is legal to do for pay there is no reason you will fail.

Do not commit your self to one avenue, especially in these times and you purchase new tools at any opp.
you will prosper.

In the depression those with tools and equipment made money or trade those with out traveled looking for work.

reply to post by undo


I think you misunderstand my position.

I don't think any particular brand of humanity is automatically a bunch of scumbags. What I am trying to point out is that the leading edge of any culture's expansionary wavefront is usually composed of sociopaths who never fit in back in their main society because of their sociopathic natures. Being the leading edge and point of contact, being far from the rule of law and custom, they were free to express their sociopathy to the full. Currently the expansionary wavefront is the economy.

Those who remained at home, not sociopaths themselves, benefited from the actions of their fellow citizens' barbarous behaviors,shutting their eyes and hearts to the human cost of it. While accepting the benefits of those behaviors, they simultaneously claimed freedom from the guilt, because they, personally, did nothing wrong. It is akin to the Mafia don who never personally pulled a trigger, tortured anyone, or directly threatened anyone, or today's American citizen who claims innocence of the wrongdoings in the War on Terror while tolerating the existence of Guantanamo prison, "extraordinary renditions", secret prisons scattered around the globe, extralegal drone attacks and assassinations, or the Wall Street executives who claim complete innocence of malfeasance, saying it was the lower ranking individual brokers who conned the gullible into buying toxic garbage, destroying their lives and futures in the process.

I appreciate the fact you as an individual respect my people and my culture, but that respect doesn't translate into an absolvence of the guilt attached to tolerating the continued subjugation of the Nations by your nation as a whole until and unless you actively work in some way to rectify the issue.

To bring it back to the main point of the thread, too many people globally feel that they personally have done nothing to wrong those who are unemployed, homeless, sunk in overwhelming debt, etc, while simultaneously supporting a system that tolerates sub-living wage labor laws, unfettered wealth-building, obviously corrupt judiciaries and political systems and the complete lack of healthcare for bottom of our societies. Your/our tolerance of these things and lack of effort to rectify them makes us all guilty by omission, or at least not innocent of supporting wrongdoing.

We mustbegin to take personal responsibility for the states of our various nations, or give up the title of citizen.

We must actively work to bring justice and equality before the law to our various nations or accept the fact that we are not worthy of being considered responsible citizens.

It is not easy work changing the world, and it requires enormous patience, dedication, and perseverance. You measure progress in decades, not months.

I am a Vietnam veteran.

When I returned home, some greeted me with the title "babykiller".

It took me years to comprehend and accept the truth that the title was deserved and appropriate. While I never personally pulled a trigger or dropped a bomb, my actions directly supported those who did. Their actions took the lives of many innocents. I have had to live with that guilt and acknowledge it every single day of my life since, and do what little I can to mitigate it. It has never been easy to admit it to myself or to others, but it is true nonetheless. Passage of time has not eased the burden nor lessened the obligation to do what I can to make amends and never will, even were I to live for a thousand years.

We all of us must accept responsibility for those things done in our name, and from which we derive benefits; mere lack of direct control or action does not absolve us of the guilt nor relieve us of the responsibility to make amends. If, through inaction or despair of effectiveness, we tolerate injustice and suffering, then we are as guilty of wrongdoing as those who directly commit the crimes against humanity.

I hope this clarifies what I meant by my examples.

reply to post by apacheman


of course i understand that aspect of it, who wouldn't? one of the issues i see with all of this is, once you approach the moral depravity of war and look at it for what it is, you then have to ponder what the heck these people are thinking who start wars. it dawns on me that because of the capacity of human nature to want to dominate other humans (survival instinct gone awry ?), that were any of us to take a submissive role in our own sphere of influence, others who love us might even be tempted to dominate us. this is especially true where you have a globe of various cultures, with their own ideas of morality. which they will be more than happy to try to dominate others with, and in some cases, at any cost necessary. this is where we are at, and have been at, for thousands of years.

if we could just agree not to succumb to the temptation to dominate the submissive, things would likely smooth out and be peaceful. do you see that happening? not likely without dominating those who don't agree, and therein lies the problem. it's like a conundrum, nearly perfectly designed, because we are not robots, but independent, free willed individuals with a bare minimum of social insect mechanisms till in large groups (read armies) and then, watch out.

nothing is ever as cut and dry as it seems. whenever you think you've reached a moment of epiphany and moral certitude on this subject, you'll find it's just another layer to the complexity that is human nature.

reply to post by undo


I submit that is not "human nature" to foment wars and subjugate others, not true humans, anyway.

It is, however, the nature of sociopaths, a predatory sub-species of humanity that masquerades as true humans, but are not.

True humans are capable of empathy and social cooperation; false humans, sociopaths, are not. They form a physically, morally, and spiritually different group. It is the fact that we have only recently been able to positively differentiate them from normal humans that has allowed the myth that their behavior is "human nature".

The lie of what constitutes "human nature" is one that provides them the social cover they need to survive and thrive.

When we reject that lie we begin the path to freedom from them.

We are not like them, they are not like us. Only when we clearly understand the difference can we begin to make the world a place free from their dark influence.

Conservatives always tell me that here in America anyone that tries can be rich. They think the poor are poor because they don't try hard enough. Bull!! there is a thing called DOWN ON YOUR LUCK that happenes to anyone. Being rich just means you were lucky. The poor are just down on their luck.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by undo

 

I submit that is not "human nature" to foment wars and subjugate others, not true humans, anyway.

It is, however, the nature of sociopaths, a predatory sub-species of humanity that masquerades as true humans, but are not.

True humans are capable of empathy and social cooperation; false humans, sociopaths, are not. They form a physically, morally, and spiritually different group. It is the fact that we have only recently been able to positively differentiate them from normal humans that has allowed the myth that their behavior is "human nature".

The lie of what constitutes "human nature" is one that provides them the social cover they need to survive and thrive.

When we reject that lie we begin the path to freedom from them.

We are not like them, they are not like us. Only when we clearly understand the difference can we begin to make the world a place free from their dark influence.

well see that's the issue. if you try to force that view on others via domination, you've just committed the same sociopathic faux pas as those you're rightfully identifying as overtly dominating. it's a sad fact of human nature. the soldier thinks the same thing at the beginning of battle: "what i'm doing is right," "this is necessary for freedom," "this is morally necessary" "for allah!" "for jesus!" "for the aten!" "for my kids!" "for peace!"

i hear what you're saying but don't see an easy solution, morally, because it always requires dominating and in some cases, destroying others based on the moral compasses of some sector of the world, which frankly, may not agree with the moral compasses of people of the other sectors of the world.

it's a maze. start here:

Perspective?

xkcd.com...=-8798&y=-6624&z=5

reply to post by undo


On the contrary, a desire to prevent domination by others does not translate into a desire to dominate them.

Freedom from something isn't the same as freedom to do something.

Are you trying to make the argument that stopping sociopaths from fully expressing their sociopathic behaviors is somehow immorally depriving them of their "right" to abuse others?

Sorry, don't buy that line of reasoning.

That is illogical, and dangerously so: it perpetuates the mythology that somehow they have a right to express their nature at the expense of everyone else and to the detriment of global society.

Being civilized means accepting some limits on individual behaviors so that the community may thrive. You give up your "right" to kill those who annoy you, the "right" to take whatever you want from those too weak to prevent it, your "right" to destroy the collective environment for the profit or pleasure it gives you. Limiting the behavior of sociopaths is a necessary step towards a truly civilized society.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by undo

 

On the contrary, a desire to prevent domination by others does not translate into a desire to dominate them.

Freedom from something isn't the same as freedom to do something.

Are you trying to make the argument that stopping sociopaths from fully expressing their sociopathic behaviors is somehow immorally depriving them of their "right" to abuse others?

Sorry, don't buy that line of reasoning.

That is illogical, and dangerously so: it perpetuates the mythology that somehow they have a right to express their nature at the expense of everyone else and to the detriment of global society.

Being civilized means accepting some limits on individual behaviors so that the community may thrive. You give up your "right" to kill those who annoy you, the "right" to take whatever you want from those too weak to prevent it, your "right" to destroy the collective environment for the profit or pleasure it gives you. Limiting the behavior of sociopaths is a necessary step towards a truly civilized society.

no, what i'm saying is, first you have to identify them, and to do so, you look for what you call "sociopathic tendencies", the description of which is their tendency to want to dominate others to their world view, wihich you would in turn do to them. this is how it all happens in a vicious circle. the only truly moral position is to submit, which in turn not only allows them to abuse you, but makes you miserable to boot. but this is the price of being truly moral and not lying to yourself that you're moral while wacking someone's head off.

reply to post by undo


Uh, no, identifying them isn't a matter of guesswork anymore.

True sociopaths are easily identifiable today through genetic analysis, psych testing and by fMRIs.

True sociopaths with fail all three methods of testing, while environmental sociopaths will fail two of the three: they will have the genetic markers for sociopathy, they will score high on the standard test for sociopathy, and their fMRI will clearly show a lack of response in the the empathic centers of the brain when shown images or while reading passages that provoke an empathic response in normal humans.

It is not dominating them to prevent them from occupying positions that require an ability to be empathetic towards others. It is most assuredly not moral to submit to them, that idea is simply ridiculous and self-defeating. You keep jumping to the position that their heads are going to be whacked off, even after I have explicitly ruled that out. Are you arguing that the only moral course of action is to submit to a rapist, a conman, or a killer? The moral course is to defend oneself and one's society from obvious threats.

The moral thing is to allow them to be, but prevent them from acting out their sociopathy by limiting their scope and keeping them under observation, just as we keep other potential threats to society under observation.

reply to post by apacheman


i submit to you that just having a disagreement with someone on the nature of the universe, can result in one or both people involved, displaying sociopathies, such as not caring if the other person just stubbed their toe, got in a car accident or is suffering with various maladies. in addition, holding generational grudges lowers the capacity for compassion towards those the grudges are against, resulting in the increase in sociopathy towards that person's suffering or hardships, even when they may not have even been on the planet at the time of the original crime that caused the grudge. what i think you're doing is trying to set up a system to kill people who disagree with you, on the pretense that they're sociopaths, while displaying the same tendencies yourself.

i've seen this before. i had a rather lenghty discussion with a gentlemen from africa. he was literally in africa, never been to the states. anyway, i was told that white people are evil incarnate and the offspring of satan, and that they would be eradicated from the earth for the sake of the planet and its people. he quoted various passages from the old testament of the bible to support his position, including a scene in which god told the hebrews to take the babies of their enemies and smash their heads against the rocks. it was gruesome. i suggested to this gentleman that i didn't think the world was supposed to work like that anymore. but he basically informed me that that was going to be the fate of white people everywhere, not only the adults, but the children and babies, and that the lands of the indigenous people of the world that were invaded and dominated by the white man would be returned to their rightful owners. (your position reminds me a tiny bit of his). and black hebrews everywhere, would retake jerusalem, kill the fake jews, and rule the world from their rightful throne

anyway, i said, but even the dogs are allowed crumbs from the master's table. and he said no. not if the dog is white. i said well surely god will rescue me then. he knew i was female and told me no, god doesn't care about women at all. they are only here to serve men and nothing more. this is the future of the planet. the guy had ZERO compassion. i see this alot from people nowadays, even as we have grown to be less and less racially divided nation even 20 years ago, the push from somewhere, is to go in the exact opposite direction and commit the biggest genocide in history. well if that's the state of life awaiting women, wouldn't matter to me if i was purple with pink polka dots, i wouldn't want to live here.

reply to post by undo


I am not talking about sociopathic tendencies driven by circumstances, I am talking about the physical state of being a sociopath.

The African gentleman in your tale may or may not have been a genuine sociopath. If he can feel empathy towards others who are not Americans or whites, then he is NOT a sociopath. Education, travel, and direct experience have the capacity to change and mellow his viewpoint. One of the factors you neglect to consider or perhaps forgot to mention, is that from his point of view, he has extremely valid reasons for his feelings: Africa has suffered terribly from many injustices perpetrated by those his hate is directed towards, it is still suffering from many of them and their aftereffects. Forgiving and forgetting isn't possible when those responsible refuse to acknowledge the offense and the debt owed. Only those who have done wrong or accepted the fruits of the wrongness done by others want everyone to forgive and forget without consequences. Like it or not, consequences can run for generations if steps aren't taken to heal the wrongness: simply saying it happened long ago doesn't cut it. The debt I speak of isn't money, although money may be part of it. The wrong was social and the debt must be paid with appropriate social behavior. Mere empty apologies only exacerbate the wrongness. But a non-sociopath is able, sometimes with difficulty, but nonetheless able to find a way to make peace.

A genuine sociopath doesn't need reasons to mess with people, he or she simply enjoy doing it...they physically can't care about the feelings of others or the consequences of their actions. They will kill, cheat, lie, steal, and destroy simply because they felt like doing it at the time.

Big difference.

Many of our wealthy, super-wealthy, corporate and political classes, I am certain, are genuine sociopaths. It is the only thing that explains the callous and reckless behavior that has been so evident these last few years in Washington, New York, and other power centers and the current state of our society.

I say let's have them pee in a mental cup, as it were, and submit to testing. If and only if they fail two of the three tests, then remove them from any power position they currently hold and institute a lifetime ban on their direct participation or employment in fields were empathy is a required component.

To my mind there is zero moral, ethical, or legal difference between that and drug testing, and the tests for sociopathy are far more definitive and accurate than drug tests are...

ETA:

His feelings about and towards women are repulsive and an anathema to me, definitely sociopathic, but like I said, it doesn't necessarily make him a sociopath, just an ignorant a-hole.