This. Bricker is a lying sack of toad shit. He has reverted to character, and is engaging is deliberate dishonesty.
The man has a very pronounced Jekyll-and-Hyde syndrome. He can go for days, even months, posting rationally and reasonably. Then the potion goes down his gullet and he turns into a monster, desperately relying on dictionary games and logic-chopping, and using language to confound communication rather than to empower communication. At that point, mere obloquy is the only meaningful response.
Later, he’ll get over it, and post sensibly for a while. Maybe some day he’ll get old enough to stop having these periods.
But it’s hilarious that Bryan can completely misrepresent the study that discusses social mobility, and that’s not lying. It’s sincerity that’s weakened because of hai lack of concern, or some shit.
Meanwhile I say to one person, “The cry of the liberal,” and explain that I was talking about one liberal, and it’s fundamental dishonesty.
I work with people trying to better themselves (literacy volunteer). I meet, and work with, people who work absolutely shit jobs, but are at the same time working to improve their lots in life. I’m in a somewhat rural area, so most have dmv issued licenses. It’s not easy to get around if you can’t drive. However, the working poor have NO less “right” to cast a vote based on economic circumstance, than their more affluent counterparts. If i lived in a more city - type environment, more of my clients would be more likely to be bereft of picture id. I have clients who are soul- crushingly poor- in our democracy, are their voices less important? Do they have less “right” to determine our government?
You have implied (or perhaps the issue is in my inference) that if you don’t esteem the vote highly enough to plan months in advance then you don’t deserve to cast the ballot.
I was just wondering who today thinks they can just barely graduate high school with no skills and start off making “middle class” income with their first job. Do people actually think that is possible for a vast majority of people?
Yes, I tend not to agree when some citizens are scapegoated just to keep up the morale of the others. And in this case, the people being scapegoated aren’t even the ones actually targeted by the law itself (because those don’t actually exist) - they’re innocent bystander scapegoats.
Whether you sympathize with them does not matter. What matters is that your diagnosis of what is holding them back is completely wrong and completely irrelevant and willfully disingenuous.
“But the new living room set is money that could earn interest for them instead of interest for the store, if they kept the old furniture.” Perhaps you meant a savings account rather than a securities investment. But it doesn’t matter; neither will gain enough value to make a real difference in the person’s life.
It’s not the value gained by the interest that is particularly significant, though: it’s merely that the interest is positive, as opposed to PAYING interest.
In other words, the focus in that sentence is the “rather than for the store.”
And what you claim is not true: even a small amount consistently put away in an interest bearing account, over 25 years, will make a difference in retirement possibilities.
Yes, because a society cannot permit people to steal bread from other people, even though such restrictions typically constrain the poor more than they do the rich.