The "TRUTH" about "Wealth Distribution".

[MitchMan]

Oddball, you've got it all wrong. My attitude is of the guy who eats sushi and drinks white wine and marvels at his own physique that he got from working out. Get your stereo type right; I got you pegged.

I like your term, pus bucket. I am going to use it. Come on, tough guy, lighten up.

Nope, didn't criticize the founders at all, they were mostly unbelievably remarkable men...for their time and environment and their circumstances. You wouldn't fight in Afganistan with the same equipment and tactics and technology that were used in WWl or WWll, would you? You wouldn't apply the same economics to 2011 that you would in the 1776 mercantilist economy, would you?

 

[Oddball]

I have nothing all wrong....It's like we ordered you from the Atlas Shrugged antagonist stereotype catalog.

Unlike a lot of people, I'm not buffaloed by overly verbose text walls and elitist prepossessions....I sort for structure, rather than mere content.

But please carry on...I am so amused by pretentious Jacobin subversives, who fool themselves into believing that nobody can see through them.

 

[MitchMan]

Oooo. Subversive. I'd like that better than being called a pus bucket. Every time I say 'pus bucket', it makes me laugh. While I would rather be called a subversive, though I do like saying 'pus bucket' more. Being called a subversive, I think people would take me more seriously. Who's gonna take a pus bucket seriously?

 

[georgephillip]

Very, very interesting, georgephillip. Spot on, I think.

I have always said that the right wing simply want a strong military so that no foreign interest can come into interfere with the conservative machinations. And, they want a strong police force domestically to enforce the laws that favor their advantage, and that's about the extent of their view for government. Conservatives are consistently against most all other applications of government including but not limited to protection of any kind of the consumer, education, medical care, etc. They are nearly libertarian like Milton Friedman who was against almost any kind of licensing and scrutiny.

For some peculiar reason they keep harkening back to the framers of the constitution and the constitution itself when it was first written. You know, there were only 3 million people in 1776, there was rudimentary science in application, most people were illiterate, the germ theory did not exist, education was severyly limited, monolithic western european culture, they were still burning witches, women couldn't vote, the economy was primarily aggrerian, slavery was everywhere practiced, poor to nonexistant communications, and the country was in the throws of trying to thow off colonial mercantilism. Conservatives believe that environment, limited knowledge, and paradigm that existed at that time was capable of producing a constitution without much alteration and certainly no need for reinterpretation or judicious reapplication bringing it up to dealing with the complexities and reality of today's life in a pluralistic, technologially advanced America and in the world. I don't understand it completely, but there seems to be some connection in the right wing mind between a government limited to a military and a police force, and desire see themselves as 1776 revolutionaries. Very primitive, simplistic, dangerous, out of touch, destructive and unworkable.

In his book The Political Mind, George Lakoff contends conservatives and progressives have completely different conceptions of morality.

For progs empathy serves as their moral bedrock.
If you don't want someone else killing your children for money, don't kill theirs.

Cons define morality as obedience to a (presumably) legitimate authority. Lakoff mentions a sign he spotted outside a southern US military base: "OBEDIENCE IS FREEDOM"

I'm starting to worry conservatives are reaching back to Moses more than Washington and Jefferson. The absolute First Principle of conservative morality seems to stem from a "god" who hated queers, women and adultery more than chattel slavery.

I don't know how a "free" people ever dig themselves out of that hole. We have managed to make slavery illegal, but it walks among us yet, and seems to be growing stronger.

George Lakoff: The Political Mind copyright 2008 pp 47-61

 

[Oddball]

Oooo. Subversive. I'd like that better than being called a pus bucket. Every time I say 'pus bucket', it makes me laugh. While I would rather be called a subversive, though I do like saying 'pus bucket' more. Being called a subversive, I think people would take me more seriously. Who's gonna take a pus bucket seriously?

Well, I could always go with "asshole"....That'll keep the gullible knuckle draggers, whom overbearing blowhards like you enable, from having to Google big words like "bombastic" and "apostate", pus bucket.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Americans Are Horribly Misinformed About Who Has Money

The top row shows the actual distribution of wealth in America. The richest 20 percent, represented by that blue line, has about 85 percent of the wealth. The next richest 20 percent, represented by that red line, has about 10 percent of the wealth. And the remaining three-fifths of America shares a tiny sliver of the country's wealth.

Below that, the "Estimated" rows show how different groups think wealth is distributed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

If people have no money, then the economy will NOT expand. It's just that simple. All the tax breaks in the world don't mean anything if you don't have a job.

What are some suggestions on nation building. Not building Iraq or China, but "THIS" nation. The most important nation. Home.

How does it feel to be one of the richest people in the world rdean?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wealth isn't distributed...It's earned and accumulated, despite gubmint's best efforts to expropriate as much of it as possible.

earnings and accumulation are other forms of redistribution. That's a fact, Jack.

So true. Steve Jobs redistributed wealth from the world of imagination and is still making people richer all over the world.

 

[georgephillip]

Americans Are Horribly Misinformed About Who Has Money

The top row shows the actual distribution of wealth in America. The richest 20 percent, represented by that blue line, has about 85 percent of the wealth. The next richest 20 percent, represented by that red line, has about 10 percent of the wealth. And the remaining three-fifths of America shares a tiny sliver of the country's wealth.

Below that, the "Estimated" rows show how different groups think wealth is distributed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

If people have no money, then the economy will NOT expand. It's just that simple. All the tax breaks in the world don't mean anything if you don't have a job.

What are some suggestions on nation building. Not building Iraq or China, but "THIS" nation. The most important nation. Home.

According to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released on Monday (1/3/11) 61% of Americans want taxes raised on the wealthy "as a first step in tackling the deficit."

20% pick cuts to defense spending.

4% choose cuts to Medicare and 3% would cut Social Security.

"The poll included a random sample of 1,067 adults across the United States from November 29 to December 2. The margin of error may be plus or minus 3 percentage points, 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair said."

 

[daveman]

Very, very interesting, georgephillip. Spot on, I think.

I have always said that the right wing simply want a strong military so that no foreign interest can come into interfere with the conservative machinations. And, they want a strong police force domestically to enforce the laws that favor their advantage, and that's about the extent of their view for government. Conservatives are consistently against most all other applications of government including but not limited to protection of any kind of the consumer, education, medical care, etc. They are nearly libertarian like Milton Friedman who was against almost any kind of licensing and scrutiny.

For some peculiar reason they keep harkening back to the framers of the constitution and the constitution itself when it was first written. You know, there were only 3 million people in 1776, there was rudimentary science in application, most people were illiterate, the germ theory did not exist, education was severyly limited, monolithic western european culture, they were still burning witches, women couldn't vote, the economy was primarily aggrerian, slavery was everywhere practiced, poor to nonexistant communications, and the country was in the throws of trying to thow off colonial mercantilism. Conservatives believe that environment, limited knowledge, and paradigm that existed at that time was capable of producing a constitution without much alteration and certainly no need for reinterpretation or judicious reapplication bringing it up to dealing with the complexities and reality of today's life in a pluralistic, technologially advanced America and in the world. I don't understand it completely, but there seems to be some connection in the right wing mind between a government limited to a military and a police force, and desire see themselves as 1776 revolutionaries. Very primitive, simplistic, dangerous, out of touch, destructive and unworkable.

In his book The Political Mind, George Lakoff contends conservatives and progressives have completely different conceptions of morality.

For progs empathy serves as their moral bedrock.
If you don't want someone else killing your children for money, don't kill theirs.

Cons define morality as obedience to a (presumably) legitimate authority. Lakoff mentions a sign he spotted outside a southern US military base: "OBEDIENCE IS FREEDOM"

I'm starting to worry conservatives are reaching back to Moses more than Washington and Jefferson. The absolute First Principle of conservative morality seems to stem from a "god" who hated queers, women and adultery more than chattel slavery.

I don't know how a "free" people ever dig themselves out of that hole. We have managed to make slavery illegal, but it walks among us yet, and seems to be growing stronger.

George Lakoff: The Political Mind copyright 2008 pp 47-61

Neither one of you knows any conservatives in real life, do you?

 

[georgephillip]

Some of the first "real life" conservatives I met were notable for their racist support of Jim Crow in this country and their equally racist fealty to the US invasion and occupation of South Vietnam.

****** and gook featured prominently in the conservative vocabulary of the day, and "proud conservatives" like you are their spiritual/intellectual descendants.

What's worth knowing?

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's the 80 / 20 rule.

If you have 100 people making money for you

20% of them will bring in 80% of the money
The other 80% will bing in 20%

This is a common business fact. And it's a fact that only the ignorant ignore in the name of some foolish attempt to make life fair.

Lifes not fair.

 

[georgephillip]

Life is not fair.

Is that a good reason for making life less fair than it already is?

Repubs and Dems are united in telling us our current economic problems stem from a government that's too large.

Therefore the only fair solution is to shrink government.

Others believe our economy suffers from the most unfair concentration of wealth and income at the top of the economic food chain since 1928, combined with stagnant incomes for the majority of workers.

"The result: Americans no longer have the purchasing power to keep the economy going at full capacity.

"Since the debt bubble burst, most Americans have had to reduce their spending; they need to repay their debts, can’t borrow as before, and must save for retirement."

Is fairness increased by shifting even more of the tax burden onto the lower 80% of earners?

The Big Lie

 

[Two Thumbs]

Life is not fair. True

Is that a good reason for making life less fair than it already is? How is anyone making it less fair?

Repubs and Dems are united in telling us our current economic problems stem from a government that's too large. Only the GOP says that, the dems clearly want to make it bigger and more expensve to run.

Therefore the only fair solution is to shrink government. It's a duty. It's grown beyond what was ever intended.

Others believe our economy suffers from the most unfair concentration of wealth and income at the top of the economic food chain since 1928, combined with stagnant incomes for the majority of workers. childish whiners think that, yes.

"The result: Americans no longer have the purchasing power to keep the economy going at full capacity. simply not true.

"Since the debt bubble burst, most Americans have had to reduce their spending; they need to repay their debts, can’t borrow as before, and must save for retirement." These are something everyone should do anyway. The other 2 are libs taking advantage of a problem they created. A problem they had a cure for, before it was a problem. Take from the rich that earned it and give it to the poor that didn't, so the poor vote for them.

Is fairness increased by shifting even more of the tax burden onto the lower 80% of earners? Is it far to tax anyone more than me? What has anyone done to not pay taxes?

The Big Lie

As one of the working poor I resent the idea that you, the left and gubmint think I need thier help to get by. Especially since it was thier interferance that helped put me here.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, you need to be a more careful reader and even more careful writer. Reread very carefully what you have written in your previous posts concerning the ‘flaw’ issue. You have managed to change your message by narrowing it down, finally, but it took you several posts to do it with accuracy. You have to make sure that the context of your statements are accurately written to the limit of your actual meaning and not to reasonably include things that you don’t mean.

YOU need to be the more careful reader you condescending prick. As a 'lefty' you read what you wanted to read. My message has never changed. YOU told me that I said people who aren't wealthy are flawed. I said no such thing. There is nothing morally righteous (or evil) about the pursuit of wealth, thus there can not be a 'flaw' in those that aren't.

Actions taken in the pursuit of wealth however CAN be flawed. It's simple objective fact that some actions are more likey to be beneficial in reaching that goal than others....if indeed it has been made a goal.

Statements viewed as criticisms of the poor, especially blanket criticisms made by those who are not among the poor, along with other things, contribute to the instigation of class warfare. Bern80 is doing it yet again saying “many of the poor are poor because of the choices they've made”. He said it twice in the same paragraph. Saying “many of the rich are wealthy because of their greed” or “many of the top 10% wealthy people are getting away with being greedy” and then leave it at that, would be viewed as a criticism of the rich. Naivite about what constitutes criticism in the real world is no defense. Again I challenge Bern80 to be forthright and honest and say what he really thinks and stand up and tell us just what proportion of the poor (there are over 43.6 million Americans living in poverty today) you think are poor because of their poor choices. Don’t wimp out again by being intellectually dishonest and evasive like you did on the question of what proportion of lopsided wealth would be bad in YOUR OPINION (not the ‘actual’ proportion in the real world, just your opinion). I would have given you the benefit of the doubt because of your lack of careful reading, but, I am beginning to see a pattern of spin that I view as becoming quite deliberate.

If you want to have a conversation with me, have a conversation with ME. Knock off the third person rudeness. First from a strictly income level, yes I would be considered poor and I live in the real world like everyone else. I have told what I really think. The 'problem' of wealth disparity in this country is not the result of some amorphous, unseen force holding people down. It is the result of the people not making improving their income a priority. You wouldn't know intellectual dishonesty if it bit you in the ass. Intelectual dishonesty is spitting out numbers just because someone demands it of you, without any evidence as to their basis in reality. I did already state the point at which lopsided would be bad. If your brain can only handle unsubstatiable numbers, that is not my problem.

Wow, “Tax breaks to wealthy people are arguably the most beneficial of tax breaks because that group has more money at their disposal to be used for a variety of things”. Bern, are you insane? “…used for a variety of things”, really? First of all, I would argue that “giving” (your term) money to the rich is the worst thing for the economy. That would just make the lopsidedness of the concentration of wealth and income at the top even worse. You already sheepishly admitted that too lopsided is probably bad. Then you went on to cowardly say that you have “no idea” what degree of lopsidedness would be bad. What a massive cop out. I’m pretty sure now that if I asked Bern80 “would it be bad for the economy if the top 1% owned 60% of the wealth and the top 10% owned 90% of the wealth and 91% of all the voting corporate stock?”, Bern80 would say “uh, I don’t know, I have no idea”. At best Bern might say, “it might or would ‘PROBABLY’ be bad for the economy”. He likes to use the word ‘probably’ because he’s afraid of being on record as being committal to a truth that weakens his arguments. Very, very common and ubiquitous language by righties when they are cornered.

Sheepishly admitted? Who's spinning now? It's observably obvious that too much of that would be a bad thing. I'm not 'sheepishly' admitting anything there. That would be the equivalent of 'sheepishly' admitting the sky is blue. Ridiculous. I have never contested there is disparity in where money is distributed, nor have I contested that too much disparity (more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer) is 'okay' or meaningless....All I have contested is that if we want this problem solved it would beneficial to figure out WHY it is happening in the first place and what the end goal is.

If the 'problem' is wealth is not evenly distributed then the goal must be to RE-distribute it more evenly. What would that actually look like? Forgetting how we would do that for a minute, somehow or other more money would be distributed to those with little, or money taken from those with more or a combination of both.

NOW we get into how to do that and how we do it depends on why it happened. If the way in which wealth is distributed was purely random, again some benevolent figurehead distributes random amounts of a finite pile of money to everyone, then you would have a moral argument for taking from some and giving to others if some semblance of even distribution is what is best for society. Well of course that is NOT how money is distributed. Money isn't 'distributed' from a finite pool. It is more accurate to say that people attain money through the resources they have and/or choose to avail themselves of. Very broadly, that could be being paid for their skill sets in some job, in few instances, inheriting money, running a business, or owning assets that generate income. The point is the individual has to actually DO one or a combination of those actions to generate income. The point is, if a person wants money, some action of some kind is required on the individuals part to obtain it. Our society has accepted that. Therefore if there is a disparity in who has how much and where it is concentrated, the logical thing to do, knowing that income is generated via action of some sort by the individual, would be to examine the actions of those individuals and find out what actions were or were not taken.

There are of course mitigating circumstances. Not everyone has access to the same resources, etc. The problem with 'you lefties' is your inefficiency in solving problems. There is an order to which one should rule out reasons why they are in the position they are in. Lefties look externally first. 'What thing or person can I blame for my problem?' What you should do is objectively look at yourself and your actions FIRST. Lefties do that last, if ever. Consequently problems never get solved because they never even consider the possibility that their own actions are the reason they are where they are.

The righties will say glibly, “this tax break money in the hands of the wealthy will be invested in production that employs people”. Well, I ask, “How much of it will go directly and only into production that employs people, and how much per annum will that specific investment generate in increase in employees earnings in 2011 and/or 2012 and/or 2013?” Bern, you don’t have a damn clue. Even Milton Friedman said that spending patterns don’t change either predictably nor generally at all in the short term with increases to income. .

So we don't want businesses to be able to create jobs now? That sounds fucking brilliant.

I’m going to pull a right wing ploy and ask this admittedly ad hominem-like question, “If the tax break for the wealthy is so great for the economy, why is our unemployment rate so high today after 10 years of the tax break?” I enjoy myself by throwing the very common right wing illogic into the right wing face.

It isn't a right wing ploy. It's a faulty premise on your part and a strawman. I enjoy watching the left attribute positions to people they don't have in a pathetic attempt to win an argument.

By the way, Bern, can you give us some specifics on what “…providing care to those that need it” in the context of this discussion looks like? You kind of rambled on positing almost rhetorical questions like you usually do while being noncommittal. I know you’re trying to go somewhere with it, hopefully more definitive than, “Can’t we all just get along”.

I mean we continue to do as we do now. We accept that there will always be a certain number of people that simply can not pay for their health care. So we agree as a compassionate society that we will treat them anyway.

Boy, your anti-minimum wage argument is a tired old argument. When the cost of production goes up, be it labor or materials or overhead, it reduces profit in the short term. But, the significant thing to know is that labor is just an element in the cost, the price doesn’t change in the short term because prices are determined by the market generally and are slow to change. And, when profit is made both before or after an increase to cost of production, by using deductive reasoning, all the costs were indeed covered, and low and behold, there is still a profit, albeit smaller than before the cost increase. If the price were to increase, say by the exact amount of cost increase, then generally the profit would increase a bit but yield less profit than before the cost and price change. That is classical economics, neoclassical economics, and the more recent ‘fusion economics’. The point being that for profitable businesses, increase in the marginal unemployment rate to keep pace with the general price level makes sense on a variety of levels. Generally, for the breakeven or unprofitable enterprises, it is up to them to get more efficient, market better, manage better, innovate, or change the product, same for those that were profitable and became breakeven or unprofitable. After all, they are getting the market price, and if their competition can make a profit, they need to get back to the drawing board. That’s the American way.

To hide behind the argument that raising the minimum wage just hurts the very people it is intended to help is specious. While there may be a theoretical short term increase to the unemployed (would love to see the stats), the overall all income to them is increased, and in the short term hiring does attain and regain the previous equilibrium at the new wage. It is an overall benefit to the minimum wage earners and it is good for the country, and it is good for the minimum wage earners.

All of the above I would say is true.....and that's the point. Like it or not some businesses are not run well and in those businesses jobs will be lost when the cost of productin goes up via a min wage increase. I doubt the laid off worker gives a rats ass whether they lost their job because the min wage went up or they lost their job because the company was run poorly and the min wage increase was the straw that broke the camels back. Either way they're still out of a job. It may be a tired argument, but it's a true one. You think that laid off worker really cares whether his lost job is only 'theoretical'? Who's the uncompassioante prick now?

If the minimum wage is kept the same forever or if it is eliminated as the righties would love to do, you know and I know that would lead to an increase in the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top. Come on, a minimum wage of $7.25 only yields only $15,080/yr full time if you can get full time. A person can barely function if at all on that in this country, especially if that is supposed to take care of more than one person. $3,000 tax break for the household earning $350,000 per year juxtaposed to not raising the minimum wage by a few cents for the family on minimum wage, that’s just blatantly sick. Now that wreaks of greed! There are “many” rigties out there that should be ashamed of themselves, “probably”.

It should be elminiated because it's meaningless. It effects less than 10% of the population. That's the percentage of the labor force that makes min wage. Realistically it's even less than that because not all min wage workes are depenent solely on that source of income. Do you really want to open the can of warms and debate whether or not the minimum wage should be enough to live on?

 

[Bern80]

Life is not fair.

Is that a good reason for making life less fair than it already is?

Repubs and Dems are united in telling us our current economic problems stem from a government that's too large.

Therefore the only fair solution is to shrink government.

Others believe our economy suffers from the most unfair concentration of wealth and income at the top of the economic food chain since 1928, combined with stagnant incomes for the majority of workers.

Probably some of both. But again WHY is so important. And I continue to have the belief that the place for people to start looking is at their own actions first. Is one possibility perhaps that the work force isn't adapting quickly to changing demands? That's one possiblity as to why incomes aren't keeping up with cost of living isn't it? Maybe because as a collective we are expecting what worked before to yield the same results now. That the same skill sets that yielded a decent standard of living before will do the same now. This is where I think college does a bit of disservice to new members of the labor force. There is really no effort or guidance given that tells students 'here are the fields the skills in demand, plan your education accordingly.

Is fairness increased by shifting even more of the tax burden onto the lower 80% of earners?

Sure it's fair. Not everything that is fair is all roses though. You've heard of share the misery. Same concept. An honest objective look at tax structure in this country has to be looked at and some realization of some brutal truths. The tax structure in this country is not fair by any definitin of the term. The wealthy carry the bulk of the tax burden, pure and simple. It's math, not politics. Maybe that's the way it has to be if we conciously or otherwise decide this is the size of government we want maintained. The poor and middle class mathematically could NEVER contribute a fair share to maintain that. The math just doesn't work out. But let's not continue this delusion that the structure is fair or that the poor and middle class are baring on unfair tax burden.

 

[Care4all]

Life is not fair.

Is that a good reason for making life less fair than it already is?

Repubs and Dems are united in telling us our current economic problems stem from a government that's too large.

Therefore the only fair solution is to shrink government.

Others believe our economy suffers from the most unfair concentration of wealth and income at the top of the economic food chain since 1928, combined with stagnant incomes for the majority of workers.

Probably some of both. But again WHY is so important. And I continue to have the belief that the place for people to start looking is at their own actions first. Is one possibility perhaps that the work force isn't adapting quickly to changing demands? That's one possiblity as to why incomes aren't keeping up with cost of living isn't it? Maybe because as a collective we are expecting what worked before to yield the same results now. That the same skill sets that yielded a decent standard of living before will do the same now. This is where I think college does a bit of disservice to new members of the labor force. There is really no effort or guidance given that tells students 'here are the fields the skills in demand, plan your education accordingly.

Is fairness increased by shifting even more of the tax burden onto the lower 80% of earners?

Sure it's fair. Not everything that is fair is all roses though. You've heard of share the misery. Same concept. An honest objective look at tax structure in this country has to be looked at and some realization of some brutal truths. The tax structure in this country is not fair by any definitin of the term. The wealthy carry the bulk of the tax burden, pure and simple. It's math, not politics. Maybe that's the way it has to be if we conciously or otherwise decide this is the size of government we want maintained. The poor and middle class mathematically could NEVER contribute a fair share to maintain that. The math just doesn't work out. But let's not continue this delusion that the structure is fair or that the poor and middle class are baring on unfair tax burden.

but our "productivity" of American workers has gone through the roof the past few decades....we ARE producing more....we are the most productive workers in the world....

KNOWING THIS, I think it is a mistake to blame the workers in this country.

 

[Bern80]

Some of the first "real life" conservatives I met were notable for their racist support of Jim Crow in this country and their equally racist fealty to the US invasion and occupation of South Vietnam.

****** and gook featured prominently in the conservative vocabulary of the day, and "proud conservatives" like you are their spiritual/intellectual descendants.

What's worth knowing?

Conservativism is a bit more nuanced than that. There are social conservatives who I would dub, your ant-gay, religious right, racists, etc. And there are those that are fiscal conservatives who believe in limited government. Contrary to the way some may like it to be for convenience sake. A conservative is not a conservative, is not a conservative. THAT'S what's worth knowing.

 

[georgephillip]

Life is not fair. True

Is that a good reason for making life less fair than it already is? How is anyone making it less fair?

Repubs and Dems are united in telling us our current economic problems stem from a government that's too large. Only the GOP says that, the dems clearly want to make it bigger and more expensve to run.

Therefore the only fair solution is to shrink government. It's a duty. It's grown beyond what was ever intended.

Others believe our economy suffers from the most unfair concentration of wealth and income at the top of the economic food chain since 1928, combined with stagnant incomes for the majority of workers. childish whiners think that, yes.

"The result: Americans no longer have the purchasing power to keep the economy going at full capacity. simply not true.

"Since the debt bubble burst, most Americans have had to reduce their spending; they need to repay their debts, can’t borrow as before, and must save for retirement." These are something everyone should do anyway. The other 2 are libs taking advantage of a problem they created. A problem they had a cure for, before it was a problem. Take from the rich that earned it and give it to the poor that didn't, so the poor vote for them.

Is fairness increased by shifting even more of the tax burden onto the lower 80% of earners? Is it far to tax anyone more than me? What has anyone done to not pay taxes?

The Big Lie

As one of the working poor I resent the idea that you, the left and gubmint think I need thier help to get by. Especially since it was thier interferance that helped put me here.

A recent example of how life is being made less fair for about 98% of Americans is the bipartisan willingness to renew the Bush tax cuts. Although the extension is for "just" two more years, how likely is it Republicans or Democrats will vote to "raise" taxes during the 2012 presidential race?

The richest 2% of Americans, thanks to the $13trillion Wall Street bailout and a bipartisan tax policy that has favored debt over equity investing for the last three decades, now receive an estimated 75% of all returns to wealth, nearly double what it received one generation ago.

The political maxim at work here is big fish eat little fish:

"There’s not enough tax money to continue swelling the fortunes of the super-rich pretending to save enough to pay the pensions and related social support that North American and European employees have been promised.

"Something must give – and the rich have shown themselves sufficiently foresighted to seize the initiative.

"For a preview of what’s in line for the United States, watch neoliberal Europe’s fight against the middle and working class in Greece, Ireland and Latvia; or better yet, Pinochet’s Chile, whose privatized Social Security accounts were quickly wiped out in the late 1970s by the kleptocracy advised by the Chicago Boys, to whose monetarist double-think Obama’s appointee Ben Bernanke has just re-pledged his loyalty."

In my mind fairness depends on increasing the taxes of those who crashed the US economy NOT on cutting the Social Security and Medicare benefits of those who are victims of the crash.

Obama's Greatest Betrayal

 

[daveman]

Some of the first "real life" conservatives I met were notable for their racist support of Jim Crow in this country and their equally racist fealty to the US invasion and occupation of South Vietnam.

****** and gook featured prominently in the conservative vocabulary of the day, and "proud conservatives" like you are their spiritual/intellectual descendants.

What's worth knowing?

Sooo...you condemn an entire group for the actions of a few?

I'd say that makes you a bigot, George.

 

[georgephillip]

What makes you think it was a minority of conservatives who regularly used the words ****** or gook?