What Leftism Does to People

[Billy000]

This poll is completely biased. There is such a thing as moderates, you know....

 

[Billy000]

This poll is completely biased. There is such a thing as moderates, you know....

 

[Mr.Nick]

This poll is completely biased. There is such a thing as moderates, you know....

How does one have a "moderate" opinion on the constitution, especially the Bill of Rights?

Let me guess you don't agree with the second amendment but you agree with the first so you're a moderate??

 

[Billy000]

This poll is completely biased. There is such a thing as moderates, you know....

How does one have a "moderate" opinion on the constitution, especially the Bill of Rights?

Let me guess you don't agree with the second amendment but you agree with the first so you're a moderate??

You speak as though liberals hate the constitution, and that is where you and I disagree. Believe it or not, there is such a thing as a MODERATE LIBERAL. You are fooled by the propaganda of Fox News that says that liberals are completely against the second amendment. Not true. Many liberals support owning hand guns, but believe that there should be restrictions on owning semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

I like to think I am a left-leaning moderate. I think the second amendment is very important, however I also believe that it needs limitation.

 

[Foxfyre]

…rebuttal on the thesis.

One isn’t required to rebut a flawed thesis, if you understood objective historical analysis you’d realize the thesis is flawed. If you argued 4 + 4 = 6, it’s not incumbent upon me to rebut your ‘argument.’

Some don't seem too thrilled with actual conversation...Go figure... I thought thats what we were supposed to be doing here.

Conversation is fine – provided there’s an actual topic.

You are most welcome to find a 'topic' elsewhere. Others seem to see this to be a topic and as USMB threads go, most have been better than average staying on topic in this thread.

And saying that the thesis is flawed does not make it so. I believe so far several, including Klavan, have used 'objective historical analysis' to show that the thesis is valid. When you make a statement that the thesis is flawed, it is incumbant upon you to show how the thesis is flawed; else your statement that it is flawed looks like so much more whining and denial from the Left who have nothing with which to rebut it.

Meanwhile, those instructed by their own observation, logic, reason, current examples as well as those from 'objective historical analysis' are making a very good case for how the thesis is on target.

Listen, I have never said all leftists are anti social numbnuts, selfish parasites, or miscreants. In fact most aren't. But using all the examples that have been posted so far, with the Occupy groups as the most glaring current one, leftism does seem to provoke violent and antisocial behavior among the dissatisfied in a way that conservatism does not.

And personally, I find that an interesting topic. As I said, those who don't are certainly welcome to go find a topic that is of interest.

 

[Ropey]

…rebuttal on the thesis.

One isn’t required to rebut a flawed thesis, if you understood objective historical analysis you’d realize the thesis is flawed. If you argued 4 + 4 = 6, it’s not incumbent upon me to rebut your ‘argument.’

Some don't seem too thrilled with actual conversation...Go figure... I thought thats what we were supposed to be doing here.

Conversation is fine – provided there’s an actual topic.

You are most welcome to find a 'topic' elsewhere. Others seem to see this to be a topic and as USMB threads go, most have been better than average staying on topic in this thread.

And saying that the thesis is flawed does not make it so. I believe so far several, including Klavan, have used 'objective historical analysis' to show that the thesis is valid. When you make a statement that the thesis is flawed, it is incumbant upon you to show how the thesis is flawed; else your statement that it is flawed looks like so much more whining and denial from the Left who have nothing with which to rebut it.

Meanwhile, those instructed by their own observation, logic, reason, current examples as well as those from 'objective historical analysis' are making a very good case for how the thesis is on target.

Listen, I have never said all leftists are anti social numbnuts, selfish parasites, or miscreants. In fact most aren't. But using all the examples that have been posted so far, with the Occupy groups as the most glaring current one, leftism does seem to provoke violent and antisocial behavior among the dissatisfied in a way that conservatism does not.

And personally, I find that an interesting topic. As I said, those who don't are certainly welcome to go find a topic that is of interest.

As do I Foxfyre, which is why I continue to come into this thread awaiting something definitive. When even the forums 'bright' Democrats come in here with one line sound bites... Well, it isn't from lack of you trying.

I will now likely ghost until a response comes as a debatable and definitive rebut.

 

[Foxfyre]

and yet it's trickle down voodoo economics that has screwed up this country.

go figure...

Depends on your definition of trickle down. I don't see conservatives protesting Wall Street or any other businesses, or the government for that matter, for not giving them what somebody else has. On the news, I DO see numerous Occupy groups protesting, mostly supported by leftist organizations and groups, all over the country, and most disrupting private commerce and/or occupying and damaging public propert even when they are peaceful. Several of the groups have not been peaceful.

If you mean trickle down via government initiative who take property from those who lawfully and ethically earned it and give it to those who didn't, then I would agree with you. Such a system creates a sense of entitlement as well as dependence. Then when money gets tight, those who have adopted that sense of entitlement and/or who have been made dependent lash out, demonstate, protest, riot, etc. etc. etc. in order to get what they have come to seen as their right to have. And it is that sense of entitlement and dependence that in my opinion has indeed screwed up this country.

If you mean trickle down via those who have achieved success providing jobs and oppportunity for others to achieve success, then I don't understand how anybody, even the Left, objects to that.

 

[Nosmo King]

and yet it's trickle down voodoo economics that has screwed up this country.

go figure...

Depends on your definition of trickle down. I don't see conservatives protesting Wall Street or any other businesses, or the government for that matter, for not giving them what somebody else has. On the news, I DO see numerous Occupy groups protesting, mostly supported by leftist organizations and groups, all over the country, and most disrupting private commerce and/or occupying and damaging public propert even when they are peaceful. Several of the groups have not been peaceful.

If you mean trickle down via government initiative who take property from those who lawfully and ethically earned it and give it to those who didn't, then I would agree with you. Such a system creates a sense of entitlement as well as dependence. Then when money gets tight, those who have adopted that sense of entitlement and/or who have been made dependent lash out, demonstate, protest, riot, etc. etc. etc. in order to get what they have come to seen as their right to have. And it is that sense of entitlement and dependence that in my opinion has indeed screwed up this country.

If you mean trickle down via those who have achieved success providing jobs and oppportunity for others to achieve success, then I don't understand how anybody, even the Left, objects to that.

Let's think about Trickle Down and its effect.

The Reagan notion of Trickle Down (or "Supply Side" economics) posits the notion that if the rich are coddled by giving them tax breaks and loosening regulations that protect the environment and consumers, the resulting rush of money will incentivise those rich to expand their operations thus creating jobs.

The effect has been a grab at larger profits by outsourcing those jobs to countries where slave wages and filthy environment is not really a concern of the ruling class.

That means that while the rich have seen an expansion of their wealth, the middle class has seen a stagnation (at best) or a reduction in their incomes as well as fewer and fewer American jobs.

If you're troubled by the fact that 48% of Americans qualify for food stamps while 10% of Americans have substantially larger wealth, why would anyone support the policies that made this possible?

As far as the Occupy Wall Street folks go, I've read much more criticism of their tactics and appearance than their message. I wonder why those who are the most critical of Occupy Wall Street are fixated on these ancillary issues and not the bigger picture. One could take the intellectually leisurely tact and call out Tea Party types for shouting down town hall meetings in 2009 and arriving four month after Obama's inauguration but not while the Bush administration bailed out banks and Wall Street after loosening the regulations that prevented them from driving the economy into the ditch in the first place.

 

[PoliticalChic]

and yet it's trickle down voodoo economics that has screwed up this country.

go figure...

Depends on your definition of trickle down. I don't see conservatives protesting Wall Street or any other businesses, or the government for that matter, for not giving them what somebody else has. On the news, I DO see numerous Occupy groups protesting, mostly supported by leftist organizations and groups, all over the country, and most disrupting private commerce and/or occupying and damaging public propert even when they are peaceful. Several of the groups have not been peaceful.

If you mean trickle down via government initiative who take property from those who lawfully and ethically earned it and give it to those who didn't, then I would agree with you. Such a system creates a sense of entitlement as well as dependence. Then when money gets tight, those who have adopted that sense of entitlement and/or who have been made dependent lash out, demonstate, protest, riot, etc. etc. etc. in order to get what they have come to seen as their right to have. And it is that sense of entitlement and dependence that in my opinion has indeed screwed up this country.

If you mean trickle down via those who have achieved success providing jobs and oppportunity for others to achieve success, then I don't understand how anybody, even the Left, objects to that.

Let's think about Trickle Down and its effect.

The Reagan notion of Trickle Down (or "Supply Side" economics) posits the notion that if the rich are coddled by giving them tax breaks and loosening regulations that protect the environment and consumers, the resulting rush of money will incentivise those rich to expand their operations thus creating jobs.

The effect has been a grab at larger profits by outsourcing those jobs to countries where slave wages and filthy environment is not really a concern of the ruling class.

That means that while the rich have seen an expansion of their wealth, the middle class has seen a stagnation (at best) or a reduction in their incomes as well as fewer and fewer American jobs.

If you're troubled by the fact that 48% of Americans qualify for food stamps while 10% of Americans have substantially larger wealth, why would anyone support the policies that made this possible?

As far as the Occupy Wall Street folks go, I've read much more criticism of their tactics and appearance than their message. I wonder why those who are the most critical of Occupy Wall Street are fixated on these ancillary issues and not the bigger picture. One could take the intellectually leisurely tact and call out Tea Party types for shouting down town hall meetings in 2009 and arriving four month after Obama's inauguration but not while the Bush administration bailed out banks and Wall Street after loosening the regulations that prevented them from driving the economy into the ditch in the first place.

"...the middle class has seen a stagnation (at best) or a reduction in their incomes..."

Wrong.


1. The statistics that claim the above fail to include the value of benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits, etc., which have represented a growing share of compensation over the years. See Cox and Alm, “The Myths of Rich and Poor,” p.21

a. Nor do these sophists separated full time workers from part time (part time work has been growing, another indicator of rising prosperity). Of course, including the weekly wages of part timers pulls down the statistical average.

2. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Inflation/Price-Index/CPI.html

 

[Foxfyre]

and yet it's trickle down voodoo economics that has screwed up this country.

go figure...

Depends on your definition of trickle down. I don't see conservatives protesting Wall Street or any other businesses, or the government for that matter, for not giving them what somebody else has. On the news, I DO see numerous Occupy groups protesting, mostly supported by leftist organizations and groups, all over the country, and most disrupting private commerce and/or occupying and damaging public propert even when they are peaceful. Several of the groups have not been peaceful.

If you mean trickle down via government initiative who take property from those who lawfully and ethically earned it and give it to those who didn't, then I would agree with you. Such a system creates a sense of entitlement as well as dependence. Then when money gets tight, those who have adopted that sense of entitlement and/or who have been made dependent lash out, demonstate, protest, riot, etc. etc. etc. in order to get what they have come to seen as their right to have. And it is that sense of entitlement and dependence that in my opinion has indeed screwed up this country.

If you mean trickle down via those who have achieved success providing jobs and oppportunity for others to achieve success, then I don't understand how anybody, even the Left, objects to that.

Let's think about Trickle Down and its effect.

The Reagan notion of Trickle Down (or "Supply Side" economics) posits the notion that if the rich are coddled by giving them tax breaks and loosening regulations that protect the environment and consumers, the resulting rush of money will incentivise those rich to expand their operations thus creating jobs.

The effect has been a grab at larger profits by outsourcing those jobs to countries where slave wages and filthy environment is not really a concern of the ruling class.

That means that while the rich have seen an expansion of their wealth, the middle class has seen a stagnation (at best) or a reduction in their incomes as well as fewer and fewer American jobs.

If you're troubled by the fact that 48% of Americans qualify for food stamps while 10% of Americans have substantially larger wealth, why would anyone support the policies that made this possible?

As far as the Occupy Wall Street folks go, I've read much more criticism of their tactics and appearance than their message. I wonder why those who are the most critical of Occupy Wall Street are fixated on these ancillary issues and not the bigger picture. One could take the intellectually leisurely tact and call out Tea Party types for shouting down town hall meetings in 2009 and arriving four month after Obama's inauguration but not while the Bush administration bailed out banks and Wall Street after loosening the regulations that prevented them from driving the economy into the ditch in the first place.

I thanked this post, not because I agree with all of it, but because it is one of the first I've seen from the left that is reasoned, not ad hominem, not personally insulting, not condescending or patronizing, and is a reasoned and well organized argument. Kudos!!!! (See? There are intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful liberals out there people.)

The phrase 'trickle down' as Reagan used it has unfortunately oft been misused and mistranslated. It was a too-easily-misunderstood term that I think Reagan would have rethought and not used that metaphor if he had known how often it would be mischaracterized and misused and become a perjorative term when used by the Left. It didn't even originate with Reagan but rather with Will Rogers speaking on the economics of the Great Depression.

Contrary to how it is often described, however, the so-called "Supply Side" theory in a free market creates a business environment that encourages success and keeps the money and jobs at home. Over tax and over-regulate corporations--the USA has the second highest corporate tax in the world and some of the most onerous and ridiculous regulations--and you almost force American commerce and industry to move to countries that are more business friendly and produce better profits. And if you not only taxed the top 5% more but confiscated ALL their wealth, the money generated would run the U.S. government for at most a few weeks. And once you obliterate their wealth, you have killed the golden goose and almost all would then be in poverty. Conservatives see the most profitable policy of all is to encourage the top 5% to keep their money and do business in the USA.

What drives wages up is full employment and competition for available labor. Who among those willing to work for a living will work for 'food stamp' qualifying wages if there are better jobs available? The goal should be to achieve full employment, not bemoan the fact that so many qualify for food stamps.

Those unwilling to work for a living aren't going to be convinced they SHOULD work for a living so long as they don't have to via entitlements that they come to see as a right, not a hand up. And we should be doing everything we can to discourage that kind of mentality too.

Once we take entitlements and leftist notions of 'equality' out of the equation, I think we will see far less of the kind of antisocial behavior we are seeing in the Occupy groups.

The difference between leftism and modern American conservatism is that leftism looks to government to accomplish that. Conservatism looks to government getting out of the way and allowing a free people and free market accomplish that.

 

[Nosmo King]

Actually, what the Left wants is a level playing field. Corporations have skewed the rules so they are favored at the expense of those without the means to really access law makers.

Policies have been enacted to make it not only easier, but more profitable to take jobs out of America. CEOs in the executive suite are making exponentially more than those responsible for actually producing the goods. Golden parachute bonuses cover the tracks of those who hit the throttle so hard that the companies over heat and fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle. Executives are lauded for their ability to dismantle American companies and sell off the productive parts. Bankers dream up nefarious schemes to defraud their customers by imposing petty fees and surcharges. Wall Street investors 'create' wealth from junk bonds and derivative while pension funds suffer the consequences.

And that's the way American Capitalism was designed to work via Supply Side policy.

I love Capitalism. But I want rules to apply. The same way society works better when rules of compartment are imposed, Capitalism can easily run awry when nothing but the profit motive is considered.

And those rules are regulations. Regulations with consequences other than "too big to fail".

Social Conservatives are big on rules. A woman cannot control her reproductive fate. A homosexual cannot marry the person they love. Christian ethics and Christian dogma should be applied to American secular governance.

But the same people championing such repression are perfectly willing to let Capitalism run rough shod over the working class so larger profits might be gleaned.

I wonder why folks who advocate smaller, less intrusive government only want it in the personal arena, but not when their very livelihoods are in the balance?

 

[Nosmo King]

Depends on your definition of trickle down. I don't see conservatives protesting Wall Street or any other businesses, or the government for that matter, for not giving them what somebody else has. On the news, I DO see numerous Occupy groups protesting, mostly supported by leftist organizations and groups, all over the country, and most disrupting private commerce and/or occupying and damaging public propert even when they are peaceful. Several of the groups have not been peaceful.

If you mean trickle down via government initiative who take property from those who lawfully and ethically earned it and give it to those who didn't, then I would agree with you. Such a system creates a sense of entitlement as well as dependence. Then when money gets tight, those who have adopted that sense of entitlement and/or who have been made dependent lash out, demonstate, protest, riot, etc. etc. etc. in order to get what they have come to seen as their right to have. And it is that sense of entitlement and dependence that in my opinion has indeed screwed up this country.

If you mean trickle down via those who have achieved success providing jobs and oppportunity for others to achieve success, then I don't understand how anybody, even the Left, objects to that.

Let's think about Trickle Down and its effect.

The Reagan notion of Trickle Down (or "Supply Side" economics) posits the notion that if the rich are coddled by giving them tax breaks and loosening regulations that protect the environment and consumers, the resulting rush of money will incentivise those rich to expand their operations thus creating jobs.

The effect has been a grab at larger profits by outsourcing those jobs to countries where slave wages and filthy environment is not really a concern of the ruling class.

That means that while the rich have seen an expansion of their wealth, the middle class has seen a stagnation (at best) or a reduction in their incomes as well as fewer and fewer American jobs.

If you're troubled by the fact that 48% of Americans qualify for food stamps while 10% of Americans have substantially larger wealth, why would anyone support the policies that made this possible?

As far as the Occupy Wall Street folks go, I've read much more criticism of their tactics and appearance than their message. I wonder why those who are the most critical of Occupy Wall Street are fixated on these ancillary issues and not the bigger picture. One could take the intellectually leisurely tact and call out Tea Party types for shouting down town hall meetings in 2009 and arriving four month after Obama's inauguration but not while the Bush administration bailed out banks and Wall Street after loosening the regulations that prevented them from driving the economy into the ditch in the first place.

"...the middle class has seen a stagnation (at best) or a reduction in their incomes..."

Wrong.


1. The statistics that claim the above fail to include the value of benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits, etc., which have represented a growing share of compensation over the years. See Cox and Alm, “The Myths of Rich and Poor,” p.21

a. Nor do these sophists separated full time workers from part time (part time work has been growing, another indicator of rising prosperity). Of course, including the weekly wages of part timers pulls down the statistical average.

2. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Inflation/Price-Index/CPI.html

So,Middle Class people should feel wealthier because the cost of health care is higher and their employer is supposedly shouldering the difference?

 

[jgarden]

Leftism will kill America and the Western World!

How Canada stole the American Dream
June 25, 2008

The numbers are in. Compared to the U.S., we work less, live longer, enjoy better health and have more sex. And get this: now we're wealthier too.

..... we live longer and have fewer diseases. We have more sex, more sex partners and we're more adventurous in bed, but we have fewer teen pregnancies and fewer sexually transmitted diseases. We spend more time with family and friends, and more time exploring the world. Even in crime we come out ahead: we're just as prone to break the law, but when we do it, we don't get shot. Most of the time, we don't even go to jail.

...... there's a subset of Americans who are just like Canadians. "Left-wing urban Americans," he says. "Canada is just a country of left-wing urban Americans."

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080625_50113_50113

- work less
- wealthier
- less debt
- more holidays
- live longer
- enjoy better health
- more sex
- more sex partners
- more adventurous in bed
- fewer teen pregnancies
- fewer sexually transmitted diseases
- more time with family and friends
- more time exploring the world
- fewer divorces
- less violent crime

Given that Canada has been described as a nation of "left-wing urban Americans" by US standards, in what part of "The American Dream" are they missing out?"

 

[Foxfyre]

Leftism will kill America and the Western World!

How Canada stole the American Dream
June 25, 2008

The numbers are in. Compared to the U.S., we work less, live longer, enjoy better health and have more sex. And get this: now we're wealthier too.

..... we live longer and have fewer diseases. We have more sex, more sex partners and we're more adventurous in bed, but we have fewer teen pregnancies and fewer sexually transmitted diseases. We spend more time with family and friends, and more time exploring the world. Even in crime we come out ahead: we're just as prone to break the law, but when we do it, we don't get shot. Most of the time, we don't even go to jail.

...... there's a subset of Americans who are just like Canadians. "Left-wing urban Americans," he says. "Canada is just a country of left-wing urban Americans."

Special Canada Day Report: How Canada stole the American Dream | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features

- work less
- wealthier
- less debt
- more holidays
- live longer
- enjoy better health
- more sex
- more sex partners
- more adventurous in bed
- fewer teen pregnancies
- fewer sexually transmitted diseases
- more time with family and friends
- more time exploring the world
- fewer divorces
- less violent crime

Given that Canada has been described as a nation of "left-wing urban Americans" by US standards, in what part of "The American Dream" are they missing out?"

I don't begrudge Canada a thing. A beautiful country with some really neat people in it.

But. . . .

Canada also has far stricter immigration policies than does the USA, is far less culturally or ethnically diverse, occupies the largest land mass in North America but has a cohesive population of little more than the State of California alone, i.e. about 13% or so of the USA total population and you don't have liberal Democrats in power or Obama for President. Give any group of Americans the same conditions plus our Constitution and we will give you a run for your money on any statistic you want to compare.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's think about Trickle Down and its effect.

The Reagan notion of Trickle Down (or "Supply Side" economics) posits the notion that if the rich are coddled by giving them tax breaks and loosening regulations that protect the environment and consumers, the resulting rush of money will incentivise those rich to expand their operations thus creating jobs.

The effect has been a grab at larger profits by outsourcing those jobs to countries where slave wages and filthy environment is not really a concern of the ruling class.

That means that while the rich have seen an expansion of their wealth, the middle class has seen a stagnation (at best) or a reduction in their incomes as well as fewer and fewer American jobs.

If you're troubled by the fact that 48% of Americans qualify for food stamps while 10% of Americans have substantially larger wealth, why would anyone support the policies that made this possible?

As far as the Occupy Wall Street folks go, I've read much more criticism of their tactics and appearance than their message. I wonder why those who are the most critical of Occupy Wall Street are fixated on these ancillary issues and not the bigger picture. One could take the intellectually leisurely tact and call out Tea Party types for shouting down town hall meetings in 2009 and arriving four month after Obama's inauguration but not while the Bush administration bailed out banks and Wall Street after loosening the regulations that prevented them from driving the economy into the ditch in the first place.

"...the middle class has seen a stagnation (at best) or a reduction in their incomes..."

Wrong.


1. The statistics that claim the above fail to include the value of benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits, etc., which have represented a growing share of compensation over the years. See Cox and Alm, “The Myths of Rich and Poor,” p.21

a. Nor do these sophists separated full time workers from part time (part time work has been growing, another indicator of rising prosperity). Of course, including the weekly wages of part timers pulls down the statistical average.

2. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Inflation/Price-Index/CPI.html

So,Middle Class people should feel wealthier because the cost of health care is higher and their employer is supposedly shouldering the difference?

If we could stick to sequiturs, my post was designed to disabuse you of the notion that either the middle class is treading water, or drowning.

Since you have found no errors in said post, wouldn't it be wise to rethink your premises, and consider the source of said errors, and who benefits from your thinking so?

1. The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.

2. There is neither a perpetual wealthy class nor a perpetual poor class. This Marxist thinking has been proven wrong time and again.

3. Those who push such philosophies play to the envy and covetousness of people. It suits their polices and provides them with power.

4. America is the land of opportunity. For all. The wealthiest are those who work hardest, longest, and/or make the best choices in life.

BTW...do you know the group that makes up the largest proportion of the top 1% of earners?
No, not Wall Street.

Doctors. 16% of the top 1%.
Got a beef with them?

Be well.
That seems appropriate here....

 

[Jroc]

"...the middle class has seen a stagnation (at best) or a reduction in their incomes..."

Wrong.


1. The statistics that claim the above fail to include the value of benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits, etc., which have represented a growing share of compensation over the years. See Cox and Alm, “The Myths of Rich and Poor,” p.21

a. Nor do these sophists separated full time workers from part time (part time work has been growing, another indicator of rising prosperity). Of course, including the weekly wages of part timers pulls down the statistical average.

2. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Inflation/Price-Index/CPI.html

So,Middle Class people should feel wealthier because the cost of health care is higher and their employer is supposedly shouldering the difference?

If we could stick to sequiturs, my post was designed to disabuse you of the notion that either the middle class is treading water, or drowning.

Since you have found no errors in said post, wouldn't it be wise to rethink your premises, and consider the source of said errors, and who benefits from your thinking so?

1. The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.

2. There is neither a perpetual wealthy class nor a perpetual poor class. This Marxist thinking has been proven wrong time and again.

3. Those who push such philosophies play to the envy and covetousness of people. It suits their polices and provides them with power.

4. America is the land of opportunity. For all. The wealthiest are those who work hardest, longest, and/or make the best choices in life.

BTW...do you know the group that makes up the largest proportion of the top 1% of earners?
No, not Wall Street.

Doctors. 16% of the top 1%.
Got a beef with them?

Be well.
That seems appropriate here....

Exactly right..Liberals just don't get it. There is no set amount of wealth, And unless they inherited it, most of the so-called "1%" started out in the so-called "99%" as Newt pointed out. Big, powerful, overreaching government creates the conditions were "Crony Capitalism" thrives. it’s not corporations that do it, It is these big government politicians of both parties.

 

[Ropey]

Leftism will kill America and the Western World!

How Canada stole the American Dream
June 25, 2008

The numbers are in. Compared to the U.S., we work less, live longer, enjoy better health and have more sex. And get this: now we're wealthier too.

..... we live longer and have fewer diseases. We have more sex, more sex partners and we're more adventurous in bed, but we have fewer teen pregnancies and fewer sexually transmitted diseases. We spend more time with family and friends, and more time exploring the world. Even in crime we come out ahead: we're just as prone to break the law, but when we do it, we don't get shot. Most of the time, we don't even go to jail.

...... there's a subset of Americans who are just like Canadians. "Left-wing urban Americans," he says. "Canada is just a country of left-wing urban Americans."

Special Canada Day Report: How Canada stole the American Dream | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features

- work less
- wealthier
- less debt
- more holidays
- live longer
- enjoy better health
- more sex
- more sex partners
- more adventurous in bed
- fewer teen pregnancies
- fewer sexually transmitted diseases
- more time with family and friends
- more time exploring the world
- fewer divorces
- less violent crime

Given that Canada has been described as a nation of "left-wing urban Americans" by US standards, in what part of "The American Dream" are they missing out?"

I don't begrudge Canada a thing. A beautiful country with some really neat people in it.

But. . . .

Canada also has far stricter immigration policies than does the USA, is far less culturally or ethnically diverse, occupies the largest land mass in North America but has a cohesive population of little more than the State of California alone, i.e. about 13% or so of the USA total population and you don't have liberal Democrats in power or Obama for President. Give any group of Americans the same conditions plus our Constitution and we will give you a run for your money on any statistic you want to compare.

For certain. You must speak and understand English to enter Canada as anything but a refugee and we don't allow all that many refugees since the boat people. We sent back the Tamils en masse.

 

[xotoxi]

I am a numbnut who has nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

But thanks for asking.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, what the Left wants is a level playing field. Corporations have skewed the rules so they are favored at the expense of those without the means to really access law makers.

Policies have been enacted to make it not only easier, but more profitable to take jobs out of America. CEOs in the executive suite are making exponentially more than those responsible for actually producing the goods. Golden parachute bonuses cover the tracks of those who hit the throttle so hard that the companies over heat and fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle. Executives are lauded for their ability to dismantle American companies and sell off the productive parts. Bankers dream up nefarious schemes to defraud their customers by imposing petty fees and surcharges. Wall Street investors 'create' wealth from junk bonds and derivative while pension funds suffer the consequences.

And that's the way American Capitalism was designed to work via Supply Side policy.

I love Capitalism. But I want rules to apply. The same way society works better when rules of compartment are imposed, Capitalism can easily run awry when nothing but the profit motive is considered.

And those rules are regulations. Regulations with consequences other than "too big to fail".

Social Conservatives are big on rules. A woman cannot control her reproductive fate. A homosexual cannot marry the person they love. Christian ethics and Christian dogma should be applied to American secular governance.

But the same people championing such repression are perfectly willing to let Capitalism run rough shod over the working class so larger profits might be gleaned.

I wonder why folks who advocate smaller, less intrusive government only want it in the personal arena, but not when their very livelihoods are in the balance?

But why is it the leftists look to the corporations to "fix it" and not to government? Because to the leftist, the government is the supreme power and therefore must be revered, respected, and deemed to be without serious sin. Therefore the anger, dissatisfaction, and frustration must be directed to somebody else and the "rich" or the "corporations" are convenient targets.

How about we level the playing field and take away the corporations ability to buy influence by making it illegal for the federal government to dispense ANY form of charity or benevolence or favor on ANYBODY unless they do the same simultaneously for EVERYBODY? That takes away the ability of anybody to buy influence. And it takes away the ability of those in government to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

At the same time require those in Congress to fund their own retirement plans and health plans out of their salaries as most of us have to do, and end the liftime salaries and benefits for retiring elected officials. And that gives nobody an incentive to run for public office for personal benefit but rather would again encourage true public servants to serve.

This would seem to be attractive to those who have not been made dependent on entitlements or given an entitlement mentality.

Not so attractive to the Occupy folks, I would think, who should be occupying Washington and demanding their elected leaders clean up THEIR act. They are definitely targeting the wrong people to punish.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I am a numbnut who has nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

But thanks for asking.

yours is however one of the few honest and self-aware posts.