America's Staggering Inequality and Our Strong Preference for a Swedish Alternative

[NYcarbineer]

Misappropriation of Trust and Finite Funds contributes what exactly to Growth???? Yeah.... I thought so. Why not limit your scheming to your own resources??? Why must the rest of us be compelled against our will to support poorly planned Government backed Scams???

For the same reason I'm compelled against my will to support a military more costly than the rest of the world's military combined. How about that, if you're looking for that sort of rationale...

Actually I'm not, I support Nothing beyond the consent of the Governed. I believe in a Strong Defense, that includes a Strong National Guard and Reserve.

Holding the World's hand, being stretched too thin and being deployed all over Kingdom Come??? Not at all. We need to Reign in Aid and spending. We are handing out aid and candy, buying Allies, wasting every Penney. We need Allies that understand Justice, Good Will, Give and Take. Why are we spending on Others with Borrowed money that we are paying interest on??? Why??? Maybe China want's the privilege?

Now, how about giving this one another whirl.
Misappropriation of Trust and Finite Funds contributes what exactly to Growth???? Yeah.... I thought so. Why not limit your scheming to your own resources??? Why must the rest of us be compelled against our will to support poorly planned Government backed Scams???

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So which of these 'socialist' programs have been found unconstitutional?

1. Social Security
2. Medicaid
3. Food stamps
4. Minimum wage
5. Public schools
6. Heat/energy assistance
7. Progressive income tax
8. Medicare
9. Veteran's Health Administration
10. Student aid
11. Subsidized housing

...for starters...

Social Security, The Minimum Wage Act, and the progressive income tax were all deemed unconstitutional.

Really? Then how do they manage to continue to be in effect?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives if they had their way would eliminate Medicare, Social Security, the minimum wage, food stamps, public assistance, housing assistance, heat/energy assistance, student assistance, Medicaid, the progressive income tax, not to mention alot I'm not thinking of offhand...

Sounds good to me.

...all of that would make lower income Americans poorer, period.

That's one theory. It may also force people to start pulling their own weight again like they used to in our grandparents' days and take more responsibility for their lives.

That is what conservatives want to do. And conservatives know for a fact that those lower income Americans will not magically find some way replace all of that help,

so, for a fact, conservatives WANT the poor to be poorer. Conservatives want nothing to alleviate the condition of the least wealthy in this country.

It's not the responsibility of conservatives or anyone else to alleviate the condition of the poor. The only responsibility they hold is for those in Congress to get out of the way and allow equal opportunity. From there, it's up to each of us to make of ourselves what we will.

Furthermore, you're bashing of conservatives for allegedly hating the poor is incredibly hypocritical because it is the conservatives in this country who by and large donate far more to charity than so called liberals do. And that my friend IS irrefutable as it is a proven statistic.

You refute yourself. If conservatives were ever able to summon the political necessary, they would end those programs, and conservatives would certainly NEVER voluntarily contribute the difference.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives if they had their way would eliminate Medicare, Social Security, the minimum wage, food stamps, public assistance, housing assistance, heat/energy assistance, student assistance, Medicaid, the progressive income tax, not to mention alot I'm not thinking of offhand...

Sounds good to me.

...all of that would make lower income Americans poorer, period.

That's one theory. It may also force people to start pulling their own weight again like they used to in our grandparents' days and take more responsibility for their lives.

That is what conservatives want to do. And conservatives know for a fact that those lower income Americans will not magically find some way replace all of that help,

so, for a fact, conservatives WANT the poor to be poorer. Conservatives want nothing to alleviate the condition of the least wealthy in this country.

It's not the responsibility of conservatives or anyone else to alleviate the condition of the poor. The only responsibility they hold is for those in Congress to get out of the way and allow equal opportunity. From there, it's up to each of us to make of ourselves what we will.

Furthermore, you're bashing of conservatives for allegedly hating the poor is incredibly hypocritical because it is the conservatives in this country who by and large donate far more to charity than so called liberals do. And that my friend IS irrefutable as it is a proven statistic.

Actually, if the People decide legislatively that it is your responsibility, it is.

 

[The T]

We could stand some improvement.

Unemployment
US 9.2%
Sweden 7.8%

GDP Growth 2010
U.S. 2.9%
Sweden 4.1%

Deficit 2010 Pct of GDP
U.S. 10.7%
Sweden 3.1%

Educational Rank
U.S 27
Sweden 15



Educational Score Performance - Country Rankings
United States GDP Growth Rate

As to that educational rank? We spend billions on education and for what? Just look at who is running the schools? And imperial FED and UNIONS that care more of their stinkin' jobs and benefits rather than really teaching.

And as far as teaching? It's more indoctrination into Socialist Failure. Gubmint=Good

Individualism and Responsibility=BAD.

I would be ashamed of such an abysmal ranking and the preveyors should be as well.

 

[Stephanie]

Conservatives if they had their way would eliminate Medicare, Social Security, the minimum wage, food stamps, public assistance, housing assistance, heat/energy assistance, student assistance, Medicaid, the progressive income tax, not to mention alot I'm not thinking of offhand...

Sounds good to me.



That's one theory. It may also force people to start pulling their own weight again like they used to in our grandparents' days and take more responsibility for their lives.

That is what conservatives want to do. And conservatives know for a fact that those lower income Americans will not magically find some way replace all of that help,

so, for a fact, conservatives WANT the poor to be poorer. Conservatives want nothing to alleviate the condition of the least wealthy in this country.

It's not the responsibility of conservatives or anyone else to alleviate the condition of the poor. The only responsibility they hold is for those in Congress to get out of the way and allow equal opportunity. From there, it's up to each of us to make of ourselves what we will.

Furthermore, you're bashing of conservatives for allegedly hating the poor is incredibly hypocritical because it is the conservatives in this country who by and large donate far more to charity than so called liberals do. And that my friend IS irrefutable as it is a proven statistic.

Actually, if the People decide legislatively that it is your responsibility, it is.

Oh really.
then you all won't mind if we the people legislate to outlaw abortions.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So which of these 'socialist' programs have been found unconstitutional?

1. Social Security
2. Medicaid
3. Food stamps
4. Minimum wage
5. Public schools
6. Heat/energy assistance
7. Progressive income tax
8. Medicare
9. Veteran's Health Administration
10. Student aid
11. Subsidized housing

...for starters...

Social Security, The Minimum Wage Act, and the progressive income tax were all deemed unconstitutional.

Really? Then how do they manage to continue to be in effect?

Are you laughing at your own ignorance of history?

The Social Security Act and the Minimum Wage Act were both declared unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision of the SCOTUS. When this happened FDR was furious and attempted to pull a Hugo Chavez and expand the size of the SCOTUS so he could stack it with like minded judges who would push through his unconstitutional New Deal programs. This did not sit well with people and he experienced a backlash from his own party in Congress who refused to go along with it. It became a very contentious issue between the Congress and the court and president and due to the underlying pressure and intimidation that followed, the fifth justice changed his ruling and permitted the programs to be implemented, which paved the way for the rest of the welfare state that we can't pay for today. So as you see, the "Constitutionality" of those programs were wrought through intimidation, coercion, and bullying by the Executive Branch.

Regarding the progressive income tax, it was struck down three times by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In order to make it legal the Congress and the Wilson administration had to amend the Constitution (the 16th Amendment).

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Conservatives if they had their way would eliminate Medicare, Social Security, the minimum wage, food stamps, public assistance, housing assistance, heat/energy assistance, student assistance, Medicaid, the progressive income tax, not to mention alot I'm not thinking of offhand...

Sounds good to me.



That's one theory. It may also force people to start pulling their own weight again like they used to in our grandparents' days and take more responsibility for their lives.

That is what conservatives want to do. And conservatives know for a fact that those lower income Americans will not magically find some way replace all of that help,

so, for a fact, conservatives WANT the poor to be poorer. Conservatives want nothing to alleviate the condition of the least wealthy in this country.

It's not the responsibility of conservatives or anyone else to alleviate the condition of the poor. The only responsibility they hold is for those in Congress to get out of the way and allow equal opportunity. From there, it's up to each of us to make of ourselves what we will.

Furthermore, you're bashing of conservatives for allegedly hating the poor is incredibly hypocritical because it is the conservatives in this country who by and large donate far more to charity than so called liberals do. And that my friend IS irrefutable as it is a proven statistic.

You refute yourself. If conservatives were ever able to summon the political necessary, they would end those programs, and conservatives would certainly NEVER voluntarily contribute the difference.

Actually, it refutes your position. If conservatives truly wanted to eliminate these programs, they've had plenty of chances to do so, and yet haven't.

 

[Intense]

For the same reason I'm compelled against my will to support a military more costly than the rest of the world's military combined. How about that, if you're looking for that sort of rationale...

Actually I'm not, I support Nothing beyond the consent of the Governed. I believe in a Strong Defense, that includes a Strong National Guard and Reserve.

Holding the World's hand, being stretched too thin and being deployed all over Kingdom Come??? Not at all. We need to Reign in Aid and spending. We are handing out aid and candy, buying Allies, wasting every Penney. We need Allies that understand Justice, Good Will, Give and Take. Why are we spending on Others with Borrowed money that we are paying interest on??? Why??? Maybe China want's the privilege?

Now, how about giving this one another whirl.
Misappropriation of Trust and Finite Funds contributes what exactly to Growth???? Yeah.... I thought so. Why not limit your scheming to your own resources??? Why must the rest of us be compelled against our will to support poorly planned Government backed Scams???

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't continue to spend what you do not have and define yourself as responsible. Changing the subject and finger pointing to evade answering a question is a fail.

Think C.O.D. We've heard the excuses too many times. You can't afford something, try consignment.

 

[The T]

Sounds good to me.



That's one theory. It may also force people to start pulling their own weight again like they used to in our grandparents' days and take more responsibility for their lives.



It's not the responsibility of conservatives or anyone else to alleviate the condition of the poor. The only responsibility they hold is for those in Congress to get out of the way and allow equal opportunity. From there, it's up to each of us to make of ourselves what we will.

Furthermore, you're bashing of conservatives for allegedly hating the poor is incredibly hypocritical because it is the conservatives in this country who by and large donate far more to charity than so called liberals do. And that my friend IS irrefutable as it is a proven statistic.

You refute yourself. If conservatives were ever able to summon the political necessary, they would end those programs, and conservatives would certainly NEVER voluntarily contribute the difference.

Actually, it refutes your position. If conservatives truly wanted to eliminate these programs, they've had plenty of chances to do so, and yet haven't.

They have to get rid of the old guard Repubicans first.

 

[Stephanie]

You refute yourself. If conservatives were ever able to summon the political necessary, they would end those programs, and conservatives would certainly NEVER voluntarily contribute the difference.

Actually, it refutes your position. If conservatives truly wanted to eliminate these programs, they've had plenty of chances to do so, and yet haven't.

They have to get rid of the old guard Repubicans first.

yep, and we are keeping a eye on them for the NEXT election.

 

[Intense]

These Boards are loaded with Threads claiming the Sky is Falling, every time a Republican suggests cutting a dime. Give the rant a break.

 

[Stephanie]

These Boards are loaded with Threads claiming the Sky is Falling, every time a Republican suggests cutting a dime. Give the rant a break.

It's the standard "fear mongering" they use every time.

 

[Flopper]

We could stand some improvement.

Unemployment
US 9.2%
Sweden 7.8%

GDP Growth 2010
U.S. 2.9%
Sweden 4.1%

Deficit 2010 Pct of GDP
U.S. 10.7%
Sweden 3.1%

Educational Rank
U.S 27
Sweden 15



Educational Score Performance - Country Rankings
United States GDP Growth Rate

As to that educational rank? We spend billions on education and for what? Just look at who is running the schools? And imperial FED and UNIONS that care more of their stinkin' jobs and benefits rather than really teaching.

And as far as teaching? It's more indoctrination into Socialist Failure. Gubmint=Good

Individualism and Responsibility=BAD.

I would be ashamed of such an abysmal ranking and the preveyors should be as well.

Instead of asking what are we doing wrong, maybe we should be asking what are they doing right?

 

[Woyzeck]

These Boards are loaded with Threads claiming the Sky is Falling, every time a Republican suggests cutting a dime. Give the rant a break.

It's a nice change of pace over being loaded with threads claiming its raining fire and brimstone outside every time Obama blinks.

 

[whitehall]

Jonathan Weiler: America's Staggering Inequality and Our Strong Preference for a Swedish Alternative

Of course, many think inequality is irrelevant, as long as a rising tide lifts all boats. But while the wealthiest Americans live ever more opulent lifestyles, ordinary Americans, especially at the sixtieth percentile and below are running in place, if not falling further behind. For one thing, the typical household puts in longer work hours now than was true in 1979, placing added strains on many American families. Furthermore, in the past three years the general picture of distribution has likely worsened, with record levels of long-term unemployment as well as draconian cuts to basic services like health care and education at the state and local level, which have disproportionately affected people lower down the income ladder. So, the relatively weak gains for the majority of Americans in the past thirty years have been precarious, subject to a swift and un-nerving reversal of fortune, while those at the top continue to enjoy record incomes and wealth.


Marked for emphasis on the truth!

Socialists are climbing out from under the rocks all over the place since the former street agitator was elected president. It's no coincidence that the radical left hates the former governor of Alaska. What would fayzie do to the "rich" factory owners? Arrest them and take over the distribution of goods and services?

 

[Avatar4321]

If you like Sweden so much, you are free to move there. I dont see why we should give up our freedom just because you prefer another country.

 

[georgephillip]

"Exclusions (from the Social Security Act) exempted nearly half of the working population.[14]

"Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.[16][17]

"At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as 'a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.'[17]

"Some have suggested that this discrimination resulted from the powerful position of Southern Democrats on two of the committees pivotal for the Act’s creation, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.[citation needed]

"Southern congressmen supported Social Security as a means to bring needed relief to areas in the South that were especially hurt by the Great Depression but wished to avoid legislation which might interfere with the racial status quo in the South.

"The solution to this dilemma was to pass a bill that both included exclusions and granted authority to the states rather than the national government (such as the states' power in Aid to Dependent Children).

Wiki-Social Security

 

[Flopper]

Social Security, The Minimum Wage Act, and the progressive income tax were all deemed unconstitutional.

Really? Then how do they manage to continue to be in effect?

Are you laughing at your own ignorance of history?

The Social Security Act and the Minimum Wage Act were both declared unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision of the SCOTUS. When this happened FDR was furious and attempted to pull a Hugo Chavez and expand the size of the SCOTUS so he could stack it with like minded judges who would push through his unconstitutional New Deal programs. This did not sit well with people and he experienced a backlash from his own party in Congress who refused to go along with it. It became a very contentious issue between the Congress and the court and president and due to the underlying pressure and intimidation that followed, the fifth justice changed his ruling and permitted the programs to be implemented, which paved the way for the rest of the welfare state that we can't pay for today. So as you see, the "Constitutionality" of those programs were wrought through intimidation, coercion, and bullying by the Executive Branch.

Regarding the progressive income tax, it was struck down three times by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In order to make it legal the Congress and the Wilson administration had to amend the Constitution (the 16th Amendment).

Nope. Wilson and the Congress did not amend the constitution.

The 61st Congress, with both houses controlled by Republicans passed the 16th amendment in 1909. The Republican William Taft was president when the bill passed. It was then ratified by 3/4 of the states. So we have the Republican party to thank for our federal income tax. I bet you won't hear Republicans listing the 16th amendment as one of their great accomplishments.

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
61st United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Flopper]

"Exclusions (from the Social Security Act) exempted nearly half of the working population.[14]

"Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.[16][17]

"At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as 'a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.'[17]

"Some have suggested that this discrimination resulted from the powerful position of Southern Democrats on two of the committees pivotal for the Act’s creation, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.[citation needed]

"Southern congressmen supported Social Security as a means to bring needed relief to areas in the South that were especially hurt by the Great Depression but wished to avoid legislation which might interfere with the racial status quo in the South.

"The solution to this dilemma was to pass a bill that both included exclusions and granted authority to the states rather than the national government (such as the states' power in Aid to Dependent Children).

Wiki-Social Security

Share croppers, tenant farmers, and domestic help were exclude. This exempted about 500,000 blacks from Social Security. Most women were exclude by excluding teachers, nurses, librarians, and most all jobs that were open to women.

By excluding most blacks and women and paying benefits for just a few years, S.S. was not a very expensive program. You didn't qualify for benefits till you were 65 and most people didn't live much past 70. Today the average person that starts receiving benefits at 65 can look forward to drawing benefits for about 14 years, nearly three times longer than when the program started.