What exactly do these words from the song THE FUTURE mean?

maybecabdriver said:

It's systematic overTHROW of the underclass.

.
[This message was edited Tue Jun 3 10:59:56 PDT 2003 by BlaqueKnight]

BlaqueKnight said:

[This message was edited Tue Jun 3 11:01:16 PDT 2003 by BlaqueKnight]

It's a kinda dumb lyric anyway because how do you overthrow the underclass?

BlaqueKnight said:

thanks

I believe that this statement is a reflection of whats going on today in the world with the rich geting richer and the poor getting poorer. I love the way he put that togeather.

Cloudbuster said:

You make it nearly impossible for them to advance. Here are some examples:

1) Forcing welfare constraints upon poor, single mothers, for example, while denying reasonble access to daycare for them.

2) Denying the poor tax breaks that make it easier for them to build wealth and develop opportunities for themselves.

3) Denying qualified immigrants in-state tuition rates for college.

4) Severely limiting the legal, educational and financial resources allowed for ex-cons.

5) And, perhaps the most wicked: Providing legal and economic double standards for the rich (be it in tax codes or in the light punishments meted to corrupt executives). If paper-shredding, books-cooking executives faced the same sorts of sentences handed out to drug offenders, for example, we'd see a QUICK decrease in corporate scandals. (And, that's not even exploring the cumulative effect on society -- vis a vis the economy, unemployment, wage inequities, etc. -- sparked by the economic scandals.)

I get your point but you can't overthrow a class of people who have no power to begin with.

Cloudbuster said:

that's why the line is IRONIC. It's not dumb, it's clever. Irony and subtlety are a bit rare on that side of the Atlantic, so it's nice when they appear. It's just a shame they need to be spelled out to be appreciated.

wasitgood4u

ThreadBare said:

At the risk of starting yet another flame war...

1) Forcing welfare constraints upon poor, single mothers, for example, while denying reasonble access to daycare for them.
How on earth do you not force welfare constraints? Should our government just pay single mothers 50K a year and give them daycare? I dont get it. There is pleanty of affordable daycare, cheaper and even free for those in need, and even... get this...free birth control!

2) Denying the poor tax breaks that make it easier for them to build wealth and develop opportunities for themselves.

Cant give tax breaks to people who dont pay taxes anyway. That would be the same as welfare. If you want to pay 40%-50% of your paycheck to the feds to live in a socialist state, move to europe.

3) Denying qualified immigrants in-state tuition rates for college.
I need more explaination. There are debates in California now about giving Illegal Immigrants in state tuition. ILLEGAL! That means they are Illegally in this country. Why should an immigrant who most likely doesnt pay taxes be able to have in-state tuition while I would have to pay out of state if I was just from another state? They arent even from the same country!

4) Severely limiting the legal, educational and financial resources allowed for ex-cons.
While in prison, convicts have countless resources to get an education and all accused criminals have the right to a trial by jury and government provided counsel. Financial resources? why should somebody who has already been a burden on society get even more benefits?

5) And, perhaps the most wicked: Providing legal and economic double standards for the rich (be it in tax codes or in the light punishments meted to corrupt executives). If paper-shredding, books-cooking executives faced the same sorts of sentences handed out to drug offenders, for example, we'd see a QUICK decrease in corporate scandals. (And, that's not even exploring the cumulative effect on society -- vis a vis the economy, unemployment, wage inequities, etc. -- sparked by the economic scandals
Yes, corporate scandal is a problem. And yes, the severely rich can buy their way out of almost anything. but why is that? because they are severely rich! This is no double standard. They can afford the best lawyers. They contribute countless dollars to political funds for both major parties. They have politicians from local to the federal level looking out for their interests all because of the mighty dollar. not saying that this is right. but this is in no way a double standard. a criminal is a criminal. weather they are a drug offender or a corporate leech. also... with stricter drug sentences we do not see a major decrease in drug offenders, what makes you think it will be different for white-collar crime?

HA!!! sadly, you're right in that irony and subtlety are FAR too rare in america today...although you shouldn't write us all off. there ARE some of us who appreciate and encourage this type of artistic statement.

by the way, that's gotta be one of my favorite prince lyrics ever.

wasitgood4u said:

"The majority become the minority in the wink of an eye"

Cloudbuster said:

You can minimize (overthrow) the population of the underclass by making birth control common place- pretty much making smaller families(throughout history the poorer tend to have larger families than the rich and educated), wars (vietnam) could definitely contribute to overthrowing the underclass. If you have a large underclass, the one person 1 vote may begin to show an influence perhaps even representation.
[This message was edited Wed Jun 4 7:30:07 PDT 2003 by korin]

Bugger it! There should be means tested sterilisation...that would solve sooo many problems in the world!!

chemmie said:

My points are about the working poor, not the stereotypical welfare queen who acts as a birthing center of societal burdens and abuse. And, I'll disregard the hyperbolic references to $50,000-salaries and to socialism and, instead, address your questions. How's that?

These two points are tied to wage inequity and at what point government aid cuts off as the working poor's still-low wages rise. The following data is from Tara Meissner's March report for the Manitowec Herald Times Reporter. You'll note the people who form the basis of her article pay taxes:

As a family tries to work its way out of poverty, the combination of benefit cuts and increased taxes leave it worse off as income increases, under current W-2 benefit structures and tax laws.
...
[Manitowoc County's U.S. Rep. Tom] Petri provided a hypothetical example. Consider a woman in Wisconsin who is supporting two children while earning $12,000 per year. If this woman increases her earnings to $25,000 per year, she will be about $4,000 worse off than she was before.

'That's because as she increases her income, her taxes shoot up while at the same time her government aid rapidly fades away,' Petri said."



Not necessarily, Chemmie. The key word in my example is "qualified," as in people who are here legally on the appropriate visas. The Baltimore Sun recently ran an article about such a person. A B-plus student who just graduated from high school here on a student visa. Her parents are from Salavador and are here legally, as a result of a U.S. program initiated when that country was hit by earthquakes a few years ago. Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. recently vetoed a bill that would have provided in-state tuition rates for such, QUALIFIED students who are here legally. As it stands, the student will have to go to a community college instead of the University of Maryland.

Secondly, and I'm sure you're aware of this, numbers of people "relocate" to attend a college at in-state tuition rates. Sometimes entire families do it. They have the means to move but still find it economically justified to do so, for the sake of their children. If legal, qualified immigrants are here to learn, why not extend the opportunity to them?




I'm talking about the federal laws that affect the lives of people once they've "paid their debt" to and try to rejoin society. Believe it or not, a number of laws still limit the options available to convicted felons. (Mind you, I'm not talking about access to firearms and the like.)

Sure, someone can get the equivalent of a degree through a college's correspondence program. But, how many would-be employers would extend such a chance to a convicted felon? On many job applications, that's an automatic disqualifier. Secondly, such convicts aren't allowed to get student loans to continue their education. So, again, the resources are denied people whom a larger society (read, "government") has told to become productive, law-abiding citizens. Our laws prevent these people from developing new skill sets. As a result, they often revert to their existing, criminal skill sets and their states are saddled with the unwieldy costs of recivitism and incarceration.



Because white-collar criminals rarely end up serving the sorts of sentences given to drug offenders (I'm not just talking about terms. I'm also talking about facilities). If it became widely known that a greedy executive could end up sharing a cell with a repeat offender named "Skizzle" for 20 years, I believe that already high-paid exec would think twice about trying to double dip. Just a hunch.

Yes, I understand the advantages afforded the wealthy. When you review sentencing patterns, however, it's unquestionable how that advantage plays out in the legal system. I say take away the sentencing advantages and hold them accountable for the harm they inflict in the same manner drug offenders are punished. That's justice.

And, another thing!