CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 148,628
- 71,932
- 2,330
Because the government does not share prosperity, it only shares misery
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Someone must do the thinking for you corporatist water-carriers who clearly aren't capable of governing yourselves in a manner which is capable of preserving democracy. You have this fanatical Libertarian idea that being American means absolutely no constraints on what you regard as your freedom. The following is one example of why your reasoning has been warped by right-wing propaganda.Who the heck are you to determine what is excessive?
There is nothing wrong with wealth. But excessive wealth has a serious corrosive potential which must be controlled.Do you starry eyed liberals not understand that the thing that made this country great wasn't a "fairness" doctrine where we all shared equally but was instead that the US offered more opportunities for those without wealth to create it for themselves and their loved ones then any other place on the planet? Why would we change that? And if we WERE going to change it then why would we copy countries that are now failing? That makes ZERO sense.
America's prosperity was shared very nicely from the 40s through to the 80s, when the shift to Reaganomics altered the system and put an eventual end to shared prosperity. The end result of that intrusive tampering and deregulation is what we've seen in recent years -- the near collapse of our once-vibrant and flawlessly functioning economy and the misery of millions made homeless and impoverished.Because the government does not share prosperity, it only shares misery
Excessive wealth translates to excessive political power. It enables individuals and/or small groups to more effectively corrupt politicians and officials.
Someone must do the thinking for you corporatist water-carriers who clearly aren't capable of governing yourselves in a manner which is capable of preserving democracy. You have this fanatical Libertarian idea that being American means absolutely no constraints on what you regard as your freedom. The following is one example of why your reasoning has been warped by right-wing propaganda.Who the heck are you to determine what is excessive?
The Second Amendment says you have a right to keep and bear arms. Now that means weapons, doesn't it? But do you have a right to keep and bear a flame-thrower? Or an RPG? Or a Stinger missile? How about a 105mm Howitzer? The fact is some things are simply excessive and if allowed to exist would impose grave dangers to mainstream society, so someone had to determine what is excessive and recommend sensible controls.
The same situation exists with the nation's wealth resources. Too much money in the hands of individuals or small groups is redundant and represents a corrosive threat to our political structure. The United States is not a collection of autonomous individuals. It is an organized society which relies on the exercise of rules and regulations to facilitate its survival.
There is nothing wrong with wealth. But excessive wealth has a serious corrosive potential which must be controlled.Do you starry eyed liberals not understand that the thing that made this country great wasn't a "fairness" doctrine where we all shared equally but was instead that the US offered more opportunities for those without wealth to create it for themselves and their loved ones then any other place on the planet? Why would we change that? And if we WERE going to change it then why would we copy countries that are now failing? That makes ZERO sense.
What never fails to amaze me is how most of you run-of-the-mill water-carriers for the super-rich don't have a pot to piss in and can't even conceive of more money than a few thousand dollars in a 401k account, yet you are ready to go to war to defend the right of some scheming sonofabitch to accumulate a fifty billion dollar fortune.
I don't care what Gordon Gekko said. Greed is not good. So wise up and try to understand what is best for your Country rather than for some greedy character whom you don't know and never will but who thinks of you as an ordinary zero to be exploited and ignored.
Last, try to understand that equitable is not the same as equal. Look them up.
The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility.
Who cares about their children's future? If people do, then they should have some concern about the every growing inequality. The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility. As a matter of fact, European's have more upwards mobility than the US? And we invented the American Dream!
Read this article from the Conservative The Economist.
Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend
Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend | The Economist
It is easily verifiable that the reason why corporations are able to suppress competitive emergence and why well-positioned individuals are able to amass grossly excessive accumulations of personal wealth is not simply regulations but selectively imposed regulations and, more importantly, the progression of de-regulation that began with Ronald Reagan and was evidenced early-on by the ruinous Savings & Loan scam. That should have been the harbinger of what could come of the removal of regulations in the areas of business and finance which had stabilzed our economy and ensured the fluid circulation of the Nation's wealth resource throughout the most prosperous and productive decades in our history. But it didn't wake us up. Instead we went full steam ahead with Reaganomics -- and here we are.The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility.
Who cares about their children's future? If people do, then they should have some concern about the every growing inequality. The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility. As a matter of fact, European's have more upwards mobility than the US? And we invented the American Dream!
Read this article from the Conservative The Economist.
Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend
Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend | The Economist
Interesting article, Kiwiman...but I'll point out some major flaws in it's conclusions. First of all it was written BEFORE Barack Obama's rather remarkable ascent to the Presidency which in and of itself shoots a huge hole in the author's contention that upward mobility is in fact dead in this country. Secondly, it points out an increasing divide between the haves and the have not's but doesn't delve into WHY that might be taking place. I would make the argument that our country is so over regulated at this point that the opportunities that were there for upward mobility 40 years ago are simply not there today. Progressives for some reason think that the answer is MORE regulation, which is actually a formula for the locking out of people looking to start a business of their own. One of the reasons that big corporations are seizing more and more power and control in this country isn't because they are allowed to amass more wealth but that their natural competition...the thing that would normally counterbalance them...the ambitious start up business...faces a mountain of regulations that they need to comply with in order to exist. To be blunt...they don't get out of the starting gate because they're forced to jump through so many regulatory hoops that they can't start and if those businesses don't start then you aren't going to GET upward mobility.
Who decides what's excessive? Lazy retards shitting in a park in NYC?The reason to be concerned about who owns what is inequitable distribution of the Nation's wealth is destabilizing and ultimately destructive to democracy.Why care who owns what? That's always baffled me.
It's when you learn to love and appreciate nothing that you've found true wealth.
Fucking crybabies.
Wealth is power. Excessive wealth is excessive power. Accumulation of excessive wealth should not be permitted.
No way. They're only generous with other people's money.Hey if the Libs feel that the government doesn't have enough money to spend
they can always pay more when tax time comes around.
Nobody is stopping them.
The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility.
Who cares about their children's future? If people do, then they should have some concern about the every growing inequality. The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility. As a matter of fact, European's have more upwards mobility than the US? And we invented the American Dream!
Read this article from the Conservative The Economist.
Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend
Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend | The Economist
Interesting article, Kiwiman...but I'll point out some major flaws in it's conclusions. First of all it was written BEFORE Barack Obama's rather remarkable ascent to the Presidency which in and of itself shoots a huge hole in the author's contention that upward mobility is in fact dead in this country. Secondly, it points out an increasing divide between the haves and the have not's but doesn't delve into WHY that might be taking place. I would make the argument that our country is so over regulated at this point that the opportunities that were there for upward mobility 40 years ago are simply not there today. Progressives for some reason think that the answer is MORE regulation, which is actually a formula for the locking out of people looking to start a business of their own. One of the reasons that big corporations are seizing more and more power and control in this country isn't because they are allowed to amass more wealth but that their natural competition...the thing that would normally counterbalance them...the ambitious start up business...faces a mountain of regulations that they need to comply with in order to exist. To be blunt...they don't get out of the starting gate because they're forced to jump through so many regulatory hoops that they can't start and if those businesses don't start then you aren't going to GET upward mobility.
Someone told you that and you believe it. But the fact is the most prosperous and productive period in our history were the decades between the 40s and the 80s, a time when the union movement and regulations imposed by The New Deal had achieved an equitable (not "equal") redistribution of the Nation's wealth resources, giving rise to the American Middle Class.[...]
Seems to me that our periods of greatest economic growth and job creation were also the times when income inequality were the greatest. And our periods of recession and slow growth/job creation were also the times when "fairness" was greater.
[...]
Fairness and equality are polar opposites of progress and growth.
A lot happened between the 40s and 80s. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society happened. The rise of an ever more demanding welfare class happened and that started the decline. Increasingly potent street drug happened right along with an acceptance of those drugs and calls for legalization. A human tsunami of illegal aliens happened right along with some societal acceptance that they are somehow beneficial because even leeches have some value.
The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility.
Who cares about their children's future? If people do, then they should have some concern about the every growing inequality. The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility. As a matter of fact, European's have more upwards mobility than the US? And we invented the American Dream!
Read this article from the Conservative The Economist.
Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend
Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend | The Economist
Interesting article, Kiwiman...but I'll point out some major flaws in it's conclusions. First of all it was written BEFORE Barack Obama's rather remarkable ascent to the Presidency which in and of itself shoots a huge hole in the author's contention that upward mobility is in fact dead in this country. Secondly, it points out an increasing divide between the haves and the have not's but doesn't delve into WHY that might be taking place. I would make the argument that our country is so over regulated at this point that the opportunities that were there for upward mobility 40 years ago are simply not there today. Progressives for some reason think that the answer is MORE regulation, which is actually a formula for the locking out of people looking to start a business of their own. One of the reasons that big corporations are seizing more and more power and control in this country isn't because they are allowed to amass more wealth but that their natural competition...the thing that would normally counterbalance them...the ambitious start up business...faces a mountain of regulations that they need to comply with in order to exist. To be blunt...they don't get out of the starting gate because they're forced to jump through so many regulatory hoops that they can't start and if those businesses don't start then you aren't going to GET upward mobility.
First of all Oldstyle, thanks and kudos for putting in the effort to read the article I linked.
Yes, the article is before Obama assumed office but in fact the trend has continued so therefore the basics of the article hold true. The trend is actually something that has been happening for decades, therefore does your theory of over-regulation apply as we have had both Dem and GOP administrations and congresses. who would be pro or anti regulation? I'd say somewhat and is a factor among factors.
I can't even say that it's an issue that government can solve as I view it as something that brews from the private sector and it coincides with the flat wage growth and the growth of the inequality between the wealthy and everyone else.
Does it have something to do with the ever growing cost of education which is pricing itself out of reach for many Americans? I think in a sense, yes. Look at the graph I attached. Also, I remember when having a BA/BS degree and intelligent hard work, guaranteed a person an opportunity a great chance of climbing the ladder to success. Now you need more education, more degrees.
Again, I think this is an issue that the private sector and the educational sector need to address. Not having a viable unward mobility environment only contributes to the US becoming less competitive on the world stage.
America's prosperity was shared very nicely from the 40s through to the 80s, when the shift to Reaganomics altered the system and put an eventual end to shared prosperity. The end result of that intrusive tampering and deregulation is what we've seen in recent years -- the near collapse of our once-vibrant and flawlessly functioning economy and the misery of millions made homeless and impoverished.Because the government does not share prosperity, it only shares misery
America's prosperity was shared very nicely from the 40s through to the 80s, when the shift to Reaganomics altered the system and put an eventual end to shared prosperity. The end result of that intrusive tampering and deregulation is what we've seen in recent years -- the near collapse of our once-vibrant and flawlessly functioning economy and the misery of millions made homeless and impoverished.Because the government does not share prosperity, it only shares misery
You're either a stupid fucking asshole or a liar, there's no third option