SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Donald Trump and Angela Merkel will join 2,500 world leaders, business executives and charity bosses at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland which kicks off on 23 January. High on the agenda once again will be the topic of inequality, and how to reduce the widening gap between the rich and the rest around the world.
The WEF recently warned that the global economy is at risk of another crisis, and that automation and digitalisation are likely to suppress employment and wages for most while boosting wealth at the very top.
But what ideas should the great and good gathered in the Swiss Alps be putting into action? We'd like to know what single step you think governments should prioritise in order to best address the problem of rising inequality. Below we've outlined seven proposals that are most often championed as necessary to tackle the issue – but which of them is most important to you?
- Provide free and high quality education
- Raise the minimum wage
- Raise taxes on the rich
- Fight corruption
- Provide more social protection for the poor
- Stop the influence of the rich on politicians
- Provide jobs for the unemployed
Do you think these ideas are enough, or are there any better ideas to close this wealth gap ? You too can participate and vote for the idea that, you think, works best.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:37PM (10 children)
How about the fucking 1% pay their taxes like the rest of us for starters?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:49PM (9 children)
The bottom 40% to 50% doesn't pay income taxes.
The top 1% pay nearly half of the total.
We can't be fair because you can't get blood from a stone, but $5626.28 per person would do it. If everybody pays that, even babies, then our taxes would be fair.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:17PM (7 children)
That's not a fair comparison. All it takes nowadays to be a 1% earner is to crowd source your income like Kim Kardashian without actually doing "work". The bottom and middle income earners ("the workers") are working harder than ever and squirreling away their money in savings. Meanwhile the top 1% can live off the interest of their money and be a net negative to society by more than 40-50%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:19AM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:26AM (3 children)
Indeed, all you have to do is get lucky and sell your soul
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:34AM (2 children)
So why should we try to make you rich when it's not even something you want?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:07AM (1 child)
Get thee behind me, Satan!!! Temptress! Libertarian! Whore of Babylon! And I do not mean Babylon5, the original.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:33AM
(Score: 4, Touché) by Snow on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:37AM (1 child)
All it takes is a small 10 million dollar loan.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:20AM
Exactly.... that's how the bank got rich.
Through the magic of Fractional Reserve Banking, they do not have to have on hand the money to lend you.
They just make a ledger entry... you owe them ten million bucks... and they start collecting interest.
Usury on ten million dollars that never existed! Until now. Its yours to spend, and have to pay back.
You are the loser. You took out that loan with promise to repay... with interest.
The government charters a bank to do this, but you can't.
So, your wealth is constantly drained by monthly payments. To them. For the effort of making an entry in a ledger.
Wealth.
The American Way.
Codified into Law by Congress.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @10:52AM
> The bottom 40% to 50% doesn't pay income taxes.
And that would be relevant, if income taxes were the only taxes...
The bottom 40% to 50% still pay payroll taxes (if they're lucky enough to be employed), property taxes (if they're lucky enough to own stuff), and sales taxes (if they're lucky enough to be able to buy things).
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Justin Case on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:43PM (24 children)
How did we establish that "closing the wealth gap" is worth doing, or even possible?
I bet if we gave every single person on Earth $5 million, within a year many of the same people would be broke again. Either they can't discipline their impulses, or they live in corrupt countries that don't recognize property rights.
Anyway, only two of the listed proposals are legitimate functions of government:
* Fight corruption
* Stop the influence of the rich on politicians
But then, those are both the same thing. And you rely on those exact rich people and corrupt politicians to enact the remedies. Hmmm.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:54PM (2 children)
Let's instead close the opportunity gap, and then whatever wealth inequality still results is probably the healthy result of a dynamic society in fair competition. As a liberal that's always been my understanding of our economic goals. It's not about lowering wealth inequality, that's just a lazy short-hand way of explaining it quickly. What we really want is to minimize inequality due to luck, and maximize inequality that's the result of effort and talent while maintaining a reasonable floor below which we don't allow people to fall. Societies that place no lower bounds on poverty end up with crime and other social diseases that have to managed through police, courts, and prisons. So you end up paying for it anyway.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:23AM (1 child)
There is no real opportunity gap in the US. Does not matter what walk of life you come from here, if you are the next Einstein you will raise to the top. You can get admission to an Ivy, and your tuition will be all but paid for. If you are just mediocre, then why the fuck should the society elevate you?
BTW wtf is this "Poland has gun control." meme on the bottom of the page? Yes it's some left over Communist law, but by and large if you want private arms for national defense (like Militia type activities) or hunting it's pretty easy to do.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @06:07AM
You seem to be assuming that the US public education system is fit for purpose? Or do you believe that people like Einstein were just born with all the knowledge of the world coded in their genes?
If you're mediocre, you should be allowed to elevate yourself to mediocrity. In American society as it stands, mediocre people born to a rich family are considered "elite", and never have to work a day in their lives, whereas mediocre people from poor families struggle to support themselves through education by working multiple minimum-wage jobs, with little prospect for real societal advancement.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by noneof_theabove on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:56PM (14 children)
Just the taxing as it will cover everything else.
Only one way to fix the taxes. Get in the 21st Century and put it in the "banking system".
When the Dems get back power they must immediately institute the Federal Ingress Egress Tax System [ FIETS ©wap3 ]. I will try to keep this simple as most people do not understand numbers beyond 3 times their pay check, including the "richies", that are running this fleecing of America.
Ingress = coming in
Egress = going out
On each end there this is only 1 transaction, true creators like Monsanto, they create seeds to sell, no ingress, literally, and the end consumer that buys a steak, cooks it and poof it is gone, no egress.
There is between 5 and 15 trillion dollars per day that pass through the banking system, ingress and egress, and it varies everyday. [ Mon-Fri 52 weeks]
So for easy numbers I will use 2% of each transaction both in and out totally 4% for any entity, corporation or person. No homes, children, big money wall streets pay, congress, president, EVERYONE PAYS, Bill Gates, Mark Zukerburg, Warren Buffet, etc. When you sell [in money] or buy [out money] that is a transaction and tax applies. So when your employer cuts your pay check there is 2% [out], when your check is cashed/deposited [in] there is 2%. The grocery store pays 2% when they get stuff [in] and you pay 2% when you take stuff home [out].
Simple so far?
Now the number, and I will use the conservative 5 Trillion $5,000,000,000,000 per day 5 days a week 52 weeks a year.
$5,000,000,000,000 * 0.04 [4% the 2% + 2%] = $100,000,000,000 [100 billion] per day.
times 5 days a week = $500,000,000,000 [500 billion] per week
time 52 weeks a year = $26,000,000,000,000 [26 trillion per year]
The National Debt is $17 Trillion = GONE. Well we will work the on it using left over funds.
Current 2018 budget from federal-budget.insidegov.com [http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate] is Income $3.21T expenditure $3.65T for a 2.6% increase in deficit.
so $26T - $3.65T = $22.35T SURPLUS.
Not exactly a surplus as this now PAYS FOR EVERYTHING.
Full education for all [at least a bachelor, maybe master/phd for those that approve their worth say for doctors, teachers, etc or full Vo-Tech for welders/truck drivers don't need the extended education].
+++++++
Full basic medical for all. [hospital, doctors, pharma but you want the optional botox then you pay a negotiated price that is listed just like prices at McDonald's and stores].
+++++++
Excellent military with FULL BENEFITS to retirees and vets.
+++++++
Social Security is fully funded and solvent at a living amount and adjusted yearly for new cost of living [mainly food/housing as medical is covered].
+++++++
Infrastructure to fix deadly bridges and new mass transit.
+++++++
Get us on non-fossil energy but f*ck that expensive nuclear, there is better less expensive used in submarines and destroyers.
+++++++
NO MORE F*CKING 1040 FORMS AND 35,000 PAGES OF TAX CODE !
I used to have 22-24% pulled from paycheck and got back a few hundred for about 19% on April 15. Yes, 4% and no paper work, that's a real raise of 15% not congressional vodoo magic numbers.
Of course you don't necessarily spend your entire pay check, and money moving within the banking system has not fee.
+++++++
this is all encompassing and in 3-5 years the national debt is gone.
A fractional amount could be included [maybe not needed] that would be allocated to the states, regions, cities instead of sales tax.
Is this doable, YES.
Sorry H&R BLOCK and lower level IRS and tax lawyers. Thank for your prior services as you are no longer needed in the digital age.
The upper level IRS remains to monitor the banking system and collect the payments [ok the banking system could keep a small fee to cover expenses for computers, etc]
NOTE: transaction percent could be adjusted year, 6 months, or maybe 3 months to reflect the overall system status.
NOTE: I wap3 do hearby mark my Intellectual Property Rights for the FIETS, Federal Ingress Egress Tax System concept, use without my permission is forbidden. [K.I.S.S. Legal Stuff]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:08PM (5 children)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:38PM (4 children)
Suppose your business purchases passenger jets, paints them to order, and then sells them. Each jet costs you $300 million, and you sell it for $310 million.
With VAT: You pay a percentage of $10 million, perhaps 30%. So $300,000 tax.
With this: You pay 2% of $300 million, and then 2% of $310 million. So $12,200,000 tax.
This thing, for the given business, is more than 40 times worse. Of course, no matter what kind of tax is imposed, businesses will restructure their operations to minimize it. In this case, the aircraft would simply never be sold by the manufacturer. They would lease it. That way, subsequent sales wouldn't get taxed again and again on the full value of the aircraft.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:04AM (2 children)
"With VAT: You pay a percentage of $10 million, perhaps 30%. So $300,000 tax.
With this: You pay 2% of $300 million, and then 2% of $310 million. So $12,200,000 tax."
That's what the parent is trying to hide. The fact that under his small 2% rate, the cost for EVERYTHING will skyrocket. There's no way someone will buy and paint a jet with just a 10 million upgrade on the price in the new system. You would expect them to sell it at 330 million or more, minimum. The exact same thing happens with the groceries you buy, which in most sane countries not taxed at all (except junk food etc), the cost of the ingress tax will be passed along to the person paying the egress tax in the form of an increased price tag.
The bottom line is greed. The producers will not accept the additional cost. It will be passed along to the final consumer.
I'm not saying tax reform is long overdue (And in the opposite direction Trump pointed it in recently) but any new system that magically creates trillions of tax dollars DEFINITELY has a price that the consumer will pay in full. What you need is to close off ALL tax loopholes used by the rich (personal and business).
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:35PM
The claim that all taxes always fall on the consumer is an oft-repeated statement, but isn't actually true.
Who ends up paying the tax depends on the nature of the market where the tax is applied. Some of the many variations that you can learn all about in Econ 102:
- In highly competitive markets (enough buyers and sellers that no one player has the power to set prices) for a product that everyone can do without completely, the tax as an additional cost of production will push the supply curve upwards. However, because demand decreases with price, the sellers will typically find it's more profitable to take a partial hit on their profit margin in order to sell more product than it is to push the entire cost of the tax onto the buyers. That puts some of the cost of the tax on their owners / shareholders.
- In highly competitive markets for products where there's a viable substitute (e.g. pizza vs Chinese food delivery), and the tax is imposed on only one of those markets then there will be a shift from the taxed good to the un-taxed good, and again the sellers of the taxed good will consider taking a partial hit on their profit margins in order to compete with the untaxed good.
- In monopoly markets with viable substitutes (e.g. prescription drugs with not-quite-as-good generics available), again the monopolist will find it more profitable to take a partial hit to their profit margin to reduce the people who opt for the substitute.
- In monopoly markets for essential goods and no viable substitutes (e.g. prescription drugs with no generics available), the monopolist will indeed push the entire tax onto the customer, because they have absolutely no reason not to.
- In monopsony markets (one buyer), basically the entire tax will fall on the seller.
And the simplest example of why taxes don't always fall on the buyer: When income taxes go up, what pretty much never happens is the boss immediately giving everybody a raise.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Kalas on Friday January 26 2018, @04:44PM
30% of 10M is 3M, not 300K.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @10:33AM
your business purchases passenger jets, paints them to order, and then sells them. Each jet costs you $300 million, and you sell it for $310 million
Where do I get some of that paint?
It sounds absolutely magical.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:56AM (7 children)
You just know that something smells when they have to invent a whole new name for it when there's already sales tax, VAT, etc out there. How about a better idea? We just don't do that and thus, don't have to pay the consequences of making that mistake. Sales taxes and such are already known to be regressive. This would end up being yet another such tax which the rich would be adept at avoiding, such as by leasing everything (as AC noted [soylentnews.org]).
Sorry, this is a idiotic approach. Transactions aren't wealth inequality. Everyone needs to trade to get what they need, but the rich would be particularly well positioned to trade in ways that don't incur this new tax. This is not the first time I've seen someone try to solve wealth inequality by counterproductively attacking something that isn't part of wealth inequality.
And who again is paying for this? There's not going to be 5 trillion in transactions when it's all taxed at the massive rate of 2%. It would be educational to see how quickly the free lunchers use up this bonanza for all the frivolous crap you mentioned (as well as plenty you didn't mention), but not worth $100 billion a day.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:37AM (6 children)
I wish we had someone like you to push against military funding
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:39AM (5 children)
You do have me. But military spending is only 20% of the US federal budget and very little of the state or local level budgets. To solve things, you also need to deal with (and by that, I mean greatly reduce) entitlements. Personally, I'm in favor of a 25-50% reduction across the board in benefits and spending on everything in order to get spending in line with revenue. There's not much point to increasing taxation more when in the case of the US, it's spent so poorly and the political establishment borrows so readily.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:25PM (2 children)
Personally, I'm in favor of a 25-50% reduction across the board in benefits and spending on everything
You are about to find that the poor favour a 20% reduction in the rich - and in America the poor have GUNS. Another problem is
that they may be very poor in money terms and also poor at identifying the rich. The killing may not be the right people
and may not be easy to stop.
There is a natural balance between rich and poor - it is established and maintained by the poor killing the rich. However,
(read up on chaos theory) some transitions are smooth and others are abrupt. In a smart administration, the rich see the
poor coming and make concessions. In others they lose their heads (see French Revolution, Haiti).
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:37PM
Your violent fantasies overlook that a person with more money can afford
* More/bigger guns
* Security people to wield the guns
* Fences, alarms, cameras, walls...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:13PM
The poor isn't necessarily on your side. Most of them want a functioning society too.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:54PM (1 child)
Why is that necessarily the solution, and not, say, taxing rich people to fully fund the entitlements in question? For example, we could completely eliminate any kind of debt in the Social Security system by eliminating the cap on wage income subject to FICA tax. We don't do that because we don't choose to do that.
Bear in mind that when you translate "greatly reduce entitlements" into real rather than financial terms, what you're saying is "We should let millions of poor cripples and elders die."
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:36PM
Who needs death panels when you've got death legislation?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:45PM (2 children)
you rely on those exact rich people and corrupt politicians to enact the remedies. Hmmm.
Well, we could vote them out, every last one of them in the house. It doesn't take any effort to tune out the propaganda.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:25AM (1 child)
"FUCK RICH PEOPLE"
Also:
"Rich people, bail me out plz!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:13AM
Oh, come now! Does such hyperbole do anything to foster a practical solution?
Here is my suggestion. Money is green, Soylent Green. It's rich people. Don't fuck them. As with the Donald, they just seem to enjoy that. Eat the rich. Seriously.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:58PM (2 children)
Yep, that's a well established aspect of human nature. Even many entertainers who "earned" their millions seem to have a perpetual problem with spending it all. A factory I had a summer job in used to pay weekly, on Tuesday, because they knew that people tended to blow their paycheck on Friday night, so giving the money on Tuesday at least let them pay their bills before succumbing to impulse.
On thing that I think modern technology could improve with respect to this problem in human nature is: instead of transacting recurring payments in weekly, monthly, or annual cycles, move to real micropayments. $60,000/yr income wouldn't be paid at $5,000 per month, but instead at 1929 micro-dollars per second. A $1800 per month mortgage payment would instead deduct at 694 µD/s, a $400 car payment at 154 µD/s, internet service at 25 µD/s etc. and usage based utilities would be even better, you could see in real-time how consumption translates to tangible money, perhaps the electric bill might peak at 200 µD/s while you are charging your car, and settle down to 10 µD/s when most major appliances are shut down.
Discrete purchases could still be in discrete dollars, for people who live with a positive balance in their savings account, or for those who live on credit, things could be spread out over the next 30 days, and credit could stop when the current positive cash-flow on an account drops below ~140 µD/s per person that account provides for - effectively saving enough money for food, transportation, and normal life expenses. So, if a family of 4 has 2500 µD/s income, and 1200 µD/s established recurring expenses (including income taxes), that leaves 640 µD/s for discretionary purchases... a $150 night on the town could be financed for 30 days (almost like credit cards do), for 58 µD/s - do that 4 times a month and you'll see the 640 µD/s discretionary cash flow diminish down to ~408, and slowly recover as each 30 day payoff happens. Creditors might even give discounts for heavy front-end payback, that same 58 µD/s meal might be discounted to an average of 55 µD/s if the payer agrees to a 30 day term that starts at 110 µD/s and linearly decreases to 0. Even saving 10% of income for retirement would require setting aside 250 µD/s, but you can easily see there are still 390 µD/s left over for discretionary expenditures, over and above basic food, etc.
I think this kind of system would be much easier for most people to grasp and manage than the current: big insurance bill coming up once every 6 months, taxes once a year, paycheck bi-weekly, mortgage and utilities monthly, etc. etc. I would still prefer to run a positive balance in a savings account (preferably one that pays meaningful interest, meaningfully increasing as the balance increases), but it is clear that many (most?) people would tend to run on the debit side of the scale, and that's O.K. - a $12K Caribbean vacation, financed for 12 months is only 386 uD/s, and the family's entire recurring financial picture would be easily summed up by a single number that could continuously update on a cellphone app.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:18AM (1 child)
I believe that with this creeping system of income and expenses it is much harder to understand what's going on. Instead of a clear sum twice a year you are dealing with deductions that are hard to measure. This will lead to the situation when services will be just charging what they want.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:57AM
Well, the system we have works well enough for me, and presumably for you, so any change is likely going to be more confusing than helpful, at least at first. However, GP's suggestion of "giving every person on the planet $5M tomorrow" has a well known flaw that would clearly be addressed by instead giving every person on the planet 1584 μD/s for the next 100 years.
I do think that shifting everything to a common time scale, and having that time scale be as small as possible, would make the relationships more intuitive, not less, after getting used to the initial change. With income expressed per year, paid bi-weekly, and various bills coming at all different intervals, it's much harder to get a grasp of how the various services relate. At present, my internet service is increasing from $55 per month to $65 per month, and it pisses me off because that's inflating much faster than everything else in my life - while the service provided is not improving at all. If that internet service bill were on the same time-scale as all the other regularly recurring credits and debits in the account, it would seem to be easier to compare with them, not harder.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:44PM (60 children)
American conservatives love to talk about "equality of opportunity" but some kids are born into families where it's never an issue paying for healthcare and education while some babies are born into families that can barely afford food. No one gets to choose which situation they'll find themselves in, it was a roll of the dice; we didn't even get a choice to play the game or not. If you start out life malnourished, with marginal healthcare, and with education permanently out of reach you have not been given an equal opportunity. Taking care of health care and education are the two immediate and obvious fixes we can make that will do the most good for the most people as quickly as possible.
To paraphrase a quip from Gandhi, probably apocryphal, when someone asks me what I think about equality of opportunity, I respond that it would be a good idea.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:53PM (2 children)
Oh, hey, and we're working on that with school vouchers, allowing the more wealthy to claw back their school tax dollars and put them together with private money to put their kids in more expensive schools than are provided for the general population. Also know that these privatized schools are essentially free to discriminate based on academic ability, mental and physical disability, and of course ability to pay. While these privatized schools pull away the better students, parents and teachers, the public school system will be shrinking in funding and ability to deliver a competitive education. It won't be long before we've got a major chunk of the population who simply can't access a competitive education due to circumstances of their birth, and that should go a long way toward keeping the poor in their place, unable to move up in the world for generations.
That is what we've been driving toward for the last 30 years, isn't it?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:47AM (1 child)
It's so outrageous that successful people get to do what they want, just because they earned more than us! To have freedom, everybody else has to move at the rate of our dumbest and laziest and least capable like you! Otherwise it would UNFAIR!! Whaaa!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 21 2018, @06:14AM
Did you know all those strawmen you burned are going to be waiting for you in Hell? And they have some creative ideas about where you can stuff all that hay...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:53PM
I know how this works out. The poorest Americans, and anybody who overstays a visa or jumps the border, can also have the privilege of getting a PhD in Gender Studies from New York University and then have their balls cut off for free.
People appreciate things they earn. People waste things they are given for free.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:14PM (34 children)
My grandfather was born on a farm in Iowa. It was probably about 1910. He was one of seven kids. The house consisted of a single small room with a dirt floor. There was no plumbing, phone, or power. They couldn't afford a horse, donkey, ox, or tractor. They had a mule. They grew crops to survive. They had to stuff cardboard in their shoes when there were holes, even in winter, because they couldn't afford better.
All seven kids went beyond a Bachelor's degree.
It wasn't some magic privilege. They worked their asses off. At the time they were even recognized and hated. There were signs on businesses that said "No Irish", and there was no hiding the red hair and freckles.
Everybody worked hard and saved. They put the first kid through school, and then the second, and so on. They bootstrapped themselves out of poverty and subsistence farming.
Healthcare? Hah! There was no healthcare. Malnourished? Yep, that happens with subsistence farming, and a couple generations prior there was that whole potato famine in Ireland. Education out of reach? It would have been if they didn't save and work their asses off like responsible Americans, because at the time you couldn't just sit at home and watch video of MIT lectures for free or head over to Khan Academy for free. It's pretty shameful if you think poor Americans have it bad today. Most of the world has a situation that is delightful compared to what my grandfather endured.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by julian on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:25PM (9 children)
Ripping yarn, and also totally irrelevant. Other people suffered worse and succeeded in the past, therefore we shouldn't do anything to mitigate suffering or unfairness today. That's a fallacy (relative privation [wikipedia.org]).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:46PM
Yours is the assumption that a list or fallacies is relevant outside of a high school debate team contest. Scoring points isn't the goal here.
In the real world, relative privation actually matters. I can and I will dismiss the idea that things are so bad and terrible now.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:00AM (7 children)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:20AM (6 children)
This is just wrong. Seriously, self-deluding wrong. Who do you think gave (note, gratis, if not under the Homestead Act) land to these "self-sufficient" subsistence farmers? Yes, the government, after they got done stealing it from its native occupants and rightful owners. So I am going to demand, as a Native American, the right to self-help in pushing these damn Washita off my land, and I demand you withdraw the government subsidies (Farm price supports, the entire Dept. of Ag.) from them, and any protection by armed forces or police. "Without requiring a government nanny"!! What the fuck are you, some Vienna Circle Libertarian Sophmoron?
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:54AM (5 children)
Themselves. Farms don't spontaneous form out of the aether.
What makes you think the native occupants owned the land? Where's the foundation for that assertion?
Non sequiturs don't help your argument a bit. You can demand whatever you want to demand in a land of free speech. Just don't be surprised when the rest of us don't care.
The language is appropriate, so not seeing the need to care that you're worked up over "government nanny".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:20PM (4 children)
So yes, you are a libertarian moron. Thanks for clearing that up! Your persistent adherence to ignorance leaves only simple derision as an option. Though people routinely try to help you anyway.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:46PM (3 children)
Ah yes, the gracious way of announcing to the world that you've lost the argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @10:31PM (2 children)
Moron :) I wasn't the one arguing the point, that person gave up when it became obvious you were just soapboxing and denying things you don't like.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday January 22 2018, @10:48PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:39PM
That is exactly what you are doing. Basically take every insult you hurl and if you're honest you'll find out you're mad at yourself.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:48PM
And...? Your point is??
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:55PM (15 children)
What a load of shit.
My uncle went beyond a bachelor's degree and he was unemployed his whole life. My mother went beyond a bachelor's degree and she spent half of her working years unemployed. I went beyond a bachelor's degree and I am spending half of my working years unemployed.
My father went beyond a bachelor's degree and he is the only member of my family who worked his entire life. The rest of my family should be so lucky.
Degrees weren't worth anything to my uncle, and working your ass off doesn't accomplish anything. It takes two to make a contract, meaning no matter what you do, your success ultimately depends on someone else being willing to pay you or you end up with nothing.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:36AM (12 children)
So, tell us, you entitled snowflake - what were the degrees for? And, how far beyond a bachelor's degree are you talking about? You do realize that uneducated, unwashed people manage to earn decent livings, because they work in fields that are in demand. Maybe if you weren't to proud to pick up a shovel, you could be employed. Tell me, what do you think of DACA? Should be bring more Mexicans across the border to do the jobs that you don't want to do, so that you have more time to whine about being unemployed?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:21AM (11 children)
I dunno, old man! What were the degrees for? What can you do with degrees in mathematics, library science, computer science, professional degrees of the middle class.
We're talking about master's degrees for all! Except my grandfather, he was a dentist. He was such an unsuccessful dentist that the IRS audited him because they couldn't believe a dentist could have income so low. That's right, I'm a direct descendant of Zoidberg, DDS.
I'm never too proud to shovel shit. Nobody will hire me to shovel shit, because with my tech degrees and my faggy nerd demeanor, they expect I'll stop shoveling shit as soon as I get a tech job. Nobody will hire me for a tech job either. They tell me I should take my nerdy skills and my years of tech experience and go shovel shit. The circular reasoning is perfect in this fucking game of keep-away the job-creators play.
I hear the tech field is in demand. That's a lie. I hear the tech field pays well. That's also a lie. Maybe the Mexicans are getting the tech jobs? Or was it the Blacks, or the Chinese, or the Indians? You're old enough to be an old racist bastard, maybe you know how racist exclusionary hiring works?
Education! Good god, ya'll, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing....
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:31AM (1 child)
Runaway's a real piece of work isn't he? Modded +1 because people need to see the vicious circle you're describing, even if the asshole you replied to would never acknowledge it. Don't worry, he'll end up in Hell where he belongs soon enough...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:58PM
Why would he go to Detroit? He's a Texan.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:02AM (3 children)
So - your entire family has masters degrees, and the lot of you are unable to find work. There is something seriously wrong - and at least part of that is the business culture today. But, I can't help wondering if you're not part of the problem.
Apparently, you're something of a racist. I ask a question, and all you can think about is race? WTF? So, what race are you? You seem to be not Black, or Chinese, or Indian, because you're pointing fingers at all of them.
Zoidberg? Never heard of him - did a search - all I find is cartoon and cosplay references. So - you're not a real person, right? You're a cartoon character trying to describe real life?
So, to cut to the chase, you're full of shit, just blathering on about how unfair life is. Sorry, sux2bu.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:25PM (2 children)
Egads yer an idiot.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 21 2018, @10:27PM (1 child)
Well, yes, of course I'm an idiot. And, some random idiot on the internet has led a more successful life than you and all of your doctorate relatives. The only times in my adult life when I didn't have gainful employment, were those times when I didn't WANT to work. Those times were always to brief though - I plan on taking a month off, and a week goes by, I get a phone call. "Runaway, we really need some help here - can you be here Monday?"
Yep - I'm an idiot. But, I've never painted myself into a corner!
Tell me - have you ever thought about just LYING on your resume? In fact, don't do a resume. Just do the standard "application for employment" that most uneducated people use. I'll lie in a heartbeat. I get the feeling that the interviewer doesn't like veterans, I don't mention being a veteran. He doesn't like farmers, I don't mention that I started out on a farm. He doesn't like guns, I don't mention guns. At least, I don't mention these things until I"m on the job site, doing whatever I was hired for. And, when in business for myself, I just didn't mention ANY of that shit to customers. So - you're "over qualified", right? Don't mention your degree. Or downplay it - just tell them you've got a little community college behind you. The bastards are happy to lie to you, don't feel guilty for lying to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:42PM
Nothing like personal anecdotes from a baby boomer to throw salt on the wounds of people struggling. Gee as a regular white guy who went through the military you never had trouble finding work? Say it ain't so? What are all those college grads doing? They must be sitting on their asses all day waiting for a hand out, otherwise they'd totally have decent careers going!!!
Clue bat incoming, they'll probably steal your shitty phone while they're at it.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:03AM (4 children)
Apparently it doesn't go far in your family. Too bad you wasted your time. My family did quite well by education.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:35AM (3 children)
If this guy had a wider concept of reality I'd make a *whoosh* airplane noise, but I think airplanes might have too far a reach for this one. Maybe simple biographies from a variety of cultures, an extended course.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:47AM (2 children)
I figured the previous post was bullshit. Turns out it was bullshit. Who knew? ... Who knew?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:40PM (1 child)
When everything you touch turns to shit it may be time to do some introspection.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:44PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:52AM (1 child)
On the way home from a job interview, he ran a red light and got hit by an 18-wheeler. He did however get a job offer, post-mortem.
She decided to be a mother.
You decided to be a mother.
He had to support you and your mom.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:30AM
Nice try, idiot.
My uncle was gay in a time when it wasn't hip to be gay yet.
My mother was female in a time when it wasn't empowering to be female yet.
My father was Archie Bunker when, guys like him, he had it made!
Me, I'm white in a time when it's not cool to be white anymore, bro.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:00AM (3 children)
My dad was born post world war II. He went to a state university in the late 1960s. At that time, you could "work your ass off" flipping burgers or pumping gas for minimum wage through the summer and EARN FULL COLLEGE TUITION for the fall and spring semesters.
The times, they are a changin'.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:42AM (2 children)
Actually, times haven't changed as much as most people believe. My youngest son pretty much paid his way through college. He has minimal college loan debt, Mother and I helped as much as we could, but he paid most of his own education.
To be fair, I'll note that he has a gift for making things work in his favor. He can buy and sell a vehicle, and make money doing so, even if the vehicle is a complete POS. The kid has always seen opportunity, and exploited it. So, he didn't exactly depend on minimum wage jobs while going to college.
People who insist on Ivy League schools aren't going to work their way through college like your dad, or my son. Minimum wage jobs? No way.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:50AM (1 child)
Oh, my Dad didn't work his way through school, his mother spoiled him rotten, bought him sports cars, paid for school, etc. Of course, in the 1960s she was able to do this with the money she made as a hairdresser. The point I was after was that, IF he had worked through the summer at a minimum wage job, he could have paid his own tuition for the whole year at a prominent state school.
It seems that things you need: education, food, shelter, transportation, healthcare, have all been inflating at rates much higher than mid to low level incomes have inflated ever since somewhere in the 1970s.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:13PM
What is the median student loan debt for a bechelor's degree? Google is of little help other than to say the problem is bad. You'd think the statistics would be easy to find.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Whoever on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:29AM
Michael Palin: Ahh.. Very passable, this, very passable.
Graham Chapman: Nothing like a good glass of Chateau de Chassilier wine, ay Gessiah?
Terry Jones: You're right there Obediah.
Eric Idle: Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Chateau de Chassilier wine?
MP: Aye. In them days, we'd a' been glad to have the price of a cup o' tea.
GC: A cup ' COLD tea.
EI: Without milk or sugar.
TJ: OR tea!
MP: In a filthy, cracked cup.
EI: We never used to have a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.
GC: The best WE could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.
TJ: But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.
MP: Aye. BECAUSE we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, 'Money doesn't buy you happiness.'
EI: 'E was right. I was happier then and I had NOTHIN'. We used to live in this tiiiny old house, with greaaaaat big holes in the roof.
GC: House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture. Half the floor was missing; we were all huddled together in one corner for fear of FALLING!
TJ: You were lucky to have a ROOM! *We* used to have to live in a corridor!
MP: Ohhhh we used to DREAM of livin' in a corridor! Woulda' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woken up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House!? Hmph.
EI: Well when I say 'house' it was only a hole in the ground covered by a piece of tarpolin, but it was a house to US.
GC: We were evicted from *our* hole in the ground; we had to go and live in a lake!
TJ: You were lucky to have a LAKE! There were a hundred and sixty of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.
MP: Cardboard box?
TJ: Aye.
MP: You were lucky. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, our Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt!
GC: Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, go to work at the mill every day for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would beat us around the head and neck with a broken bottle, if we were LUCKY!
TJ: Well we had it tough. We used to have to get up out of the shoebox at twelve o'clock at night, and LICK the road clean with our tongues. We had half a handful of freezing cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at the mill for fourpence every six years, and when we got home, our Dad would slice us in two with a bread knife.
EI: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, (pause for laughter), drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing 'Hallelujah.'
MP: But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'.
ALL: Nope, nope..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by theluggage on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:23AM (1 child)
OK, so instead of a single small room in Iowa in 1910, imagine they're in 2 or 3 reasonably-sized rooms in a housing block somewhere in a rust belt. Where the flying fuck do they plant the potatoes? There's only one crop that is high-value, low-volume enough to be profitably grown in those conditions (if they nick the electricity for the glow lights) and its still frowned upon in many jurisdictions (although it should restore your faith in humanity a bit to know that some people do still make the effort). Apart from that, do you think there's enough non-concreted-over ground for the 200 inhabitants of the block to grow their own food (and graze 20 mules?) and if there was, do you think they'd be allowed to?
I mean, you're quite right that people in the past were more physically resilient - but in other ways, I think opportunities for "social mobility" and entrepreneurship peaked sometime in the 20th century, and a lot of ladders have been pulled up since then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:44PM
But but but TECH! They can educate themselves and start up a small business!!! Sheeit, we have anecdotal evidence for every goddamn thing to show just how lazy and entitled every "poor" person is. It worked for me, why can't you do it? Must be your fault...
/s
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:35PM (5 children)
Did the parents not have the opportunity to get a job before having children? Isn't socialising irresponsibility... irresponsible?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:09AM (4 children)
Here in the real world, where pregnancy spans three fiscal quarters, a woman can have a job when she becomes pregnant and lose her job before she gives birth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:19AM (3 children)
Which is a risk for everyone, which is why we have savings or at least a buffer.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:28AM (2 children)
Yes she did get a job but now we're going to move the goalposts and say she should have had savings or at least a sugar daddy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:43AM (1 child)
Yes we did have plans to raise a families but now find ourselves working 6 months of the year to pay welfare to the unemployed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:38PM
Its like you know your argument is shit so you make it extremely ridiculous to compensate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Entropy on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:38PM (14 children)
Perhaps some of the families that can't afford food shouldn't have 5 children. Google "Angel Adams" and her 13 or so children that she insists someone else needs to pay for. No, she needs to pay for them--but she never will because her only purpose in life is a useless baby factory.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by julian on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:05AM (6 children)
So you punish the child for the sins of their parents? Very Old Testament of you.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:27AM (3 children)
The world is going to punish the child, then punish us for her sins. And this story will be repeated a billion times. The moral of the story, what you SHOULD HAVE LEARNED, is to do something about it before the child is conceived.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:38AM (2 children)
Mandatory abortions for mothers in poverty. Doing something about it! Tough on poverty!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @05:33PM (1 child)
There's no need for that. Give them the choice of zero aid or permanent sterilization.
Meanwhile give out free condoms etc. The parents who are more responsible will then have the number of children they can afford to feed and raise.
While the irresponsible ones will starve or be sterilized.
When you have billions of people on the world it's not so important to help reproduce the genetic material of those who can't learn important stuff like not having more children than you can afford to feed and raise.
Time to focus on quality and not quantity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:23PM
Psychopath
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:34AM (1 child)
Here are some ways I can think of to get a handle on this.
- Sufficiently advanced feminism. Yes, womyn-born-womyn can spit out babies, and with great power comes great responsibility. This only works if we provide women with no-cost contraception.
- Forced sterilization. Require women to be married before they may have children. This is not Yahweh/Diana-compatible.
- Children the parents cannot support are taken from both parents and raised by the state. This is not Yahweh-compatible.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @05:47PM
How about cheap contraception? Isn't that good enough?
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:17AM (6 children)
There will always be exceptions.
But if you let your policy be determined solely by trying to counter the exceptions, you get bad policy.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:55AM (5 children)
To the kind of people who want that sort of policy, this is a feature, not a bug. There is a visceral disgust these people have for the poor, and they'll do anything they can to salve it--the disgust, not the problems of poverty. If that includes turning their back and inching their way to democide of the poor, so be it, as long as they don't have to look at the poor.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:10AM
I’m so glad to hear you’re willing to pay for their daycare. How virtuous of you!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:25AM (1 child)
Do you want more people to be poor? Subsidize poverty, and you'll get more poor people. They breed.
It could be considered evolution. If the environment changes to include welfare or child support, those who best exploit the new environment will leave the greatest number of descendants. Over time, these mental attributes become numerous in the population. In the long term this is unsustainable, leading to a crash. Civilization is going down.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @10:38PM
Only idiots like you buy into social darwinism. All the examples of poor people managing to claw their way out of a system designed against them won't change your mind, you cling to the idea of "welfare mamas" and ignore the ways we could solve those problems.
Do you know WHY there is a welfare trap? Because Republicans are assholes that refuse to be decent human beings, so all the welfare programs were encumbered with "reasonable" measures trying to bring accountability back in. So, if a single mother gets a part time job then she can no longer receive benefits. However, if her benefits pay more than the job then she obviously won't take the job! Thank you assholes for making it difficult for people to improve their own situation, good job, golf claps all around! I also just really enjoy having the assholes who set up the system for failure use that to destroy it even further.
You are the type of person making the world a worse place and by god you think up is down and you're a tough loving saint! Blegggghh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:24AM (1 child)
You don't understand welfare. [spectator.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 22 2018, @05:51AM
Yes, yes, and the Klan was largely Democrats once. What's your point? Times change, people change.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:55PM (11 children)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:13PM (7 children)
Great list to be sure:
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:33AM (6 children)
What you describe is a situation in which most people can not afford to take any kind of risk.
The effect of that is to entrench the wealthy and increase wealth disparity.
Increased wealth disparity has historically been associated with lower growth.
You can't see beyond blaming poor people for their own poverty. It's a short-sighted and cruel vision.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:57AM (2 children)
He (this HAS to be a he!) doesn't see that as a problem. He, and people who think like him, want the poor gone. The poor are an eyesore marring the view to people like him. Please disabuse yourself of the notion that you are dealing with a decent human being here; you are not. Unthinkable as it may seem, there are people, a lot of people as I'm finding out, who take a "life unworthy of life" approach to the poor, disabled, and otherwise helpless.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:30AM (1 child)
I'm sure you are right. This is why granting women the right to vote was a huge mistake. They fail to cull the weak and fight the other tribes; they have instead an instinct to demand sharing and to sleep with the enemy. In the long term, this does not support the continuation of modern civilization.
In the long term, women will effectively vote themselves back into being mere chattel. This is what you get when you breed for poverty and welcome invaders who are culturally stuck in the year 700.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @10:41PM
I want to believe that is satire, but the way you write just seems genuine. Dear lord save us from these troglodytes!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:41AM
See also: violent revolution
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:34PM (1 child)
This is why we have bankruptcy protections.
No, you're describing the welfare trap.
Those on welfare are not creating wealth.
You can't see beyond trapping the poor in poverty. It's a short-sighted and cruel vision.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2018, @09:27PM
Hey, mr. moron decided to go AC.
1. you have no clue
2. yup, still no clue
3. wow, no clue again? maybe let people on welfare work a job and remain on welfare until their income is actually livable? naaah, let stay clueless!
4. ignorance of reality is no excuse, now go stand in the corner!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:07AM (2 children)
Oh, that's going to go over really well - what legislator on the planet do you think will vote to execute themselves? What lobbyist will back a legislator who is voting to have them executed?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:29AM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:41AM
On the surface, no. The more you dig, the more you find: politicians selling out the public for millions while lining their pockets with hundreds. It's amazing how cheaply they and their morals can be bought.
One tiny little example: back when Martha Stewart was being hung out to dry for insider trading, national level US congressmen's wives would make little $2000 or $4000 investments based on insider tips that their husbands brought home from work. Martha Stewart went to jail. Callista Gingrich, not so much.
🌻🌻 [google.com]