we need to address the disparity in “ownership and equity” in the United States...

[code1211]

It seems that many posters hate for Polosi seems to be the topic on this thread. I thought that maybe there would be thoughts about the substance of Pelosi's statement.
Basically Pelosi is addressing the wealth gap in the US which is at a record level. The last couple of times we have reached such a large gap was just prior to the Great Depression and again just prior to the Great Recession (which effects are still lagging around). I can post many, many links that verify that there is a true wealth gap, it's not a fantasy. Facts show that wages, in Real Dollars, have been very flat for the last eight-nine years. As a matter of fact this trend really raised it's ugly head during the recovery from the 2001 recession. The flat wage growth of the working middle class certainly led to the credit crunch that helped spearhead the recession that started in 2007.
Over two-thirds of the US economy is driven by consumer spending. How can the US continue a captialistic consumer driven economy when the middle class is losing wealth? Wealth has redistributed upwards and thus the great gap in wealth. It's no wonder that the US has experienced it's two largest economic downturns when the wealth gap has reached it's apex. It only makes economic sense.
Now, I'm no lover of Nanvy Pelosi, but I'm glad she made her comment. It is something that needs to be addressed. The big question is how does the US turn this probllem around?

I say we follow Nancy's advice: The best way to help the economy is to have more people using food stamps.

California Liberals! Is there anything they don't know?

 

[code1211]

It is something that needs to be addressed.

If by "addressed" you mean more central planning, I would disagree.

===================
Could you be more specific?
I'm not pointing at the dreaded "socialism", but there must be an approach that would reverse this trend. Currently we are heading towards plutocracy and as I pointed out, this would eventually destroy the US economy.
The problem that has risen is that many companies have stopped the ole "a fair days pay for a fair day's work" standard and have directed those monies towards exec pay and larger dividends. Thus flat wages, even in enviroments when there is high worker productivity and good profits. This has been evident since the 2001 recession.
How does this trend get reversed?

Are you high?

The rule of business is and always has been to do everything that can be done for least expense and remain competitive. As long as the economy is in the dumper, and it will be as long as the spectre of uncertainty looms, there will be too many workers chasing too few jobs and the wage rates will stay low.

When unemployment in real terms returns to the levels of the decades preceeding 2008, there will be wage inflation once again.

Labor is like any other other commodity. When there is too much available, it's cheap. When there isn't enough to go around, it gets expensive.

Find a way to incent spending by the consumer and that will drive sales which drives the econonomy. Scare the bejeebrs out of everyone screaming that we are in the next Great Depression {{{{{{{{ Jarring Chord }}}}}}}}} and you'll see everyone sewing their cash into the mattress.

Our leaders are so busy trying to show us how brilliant they are they forget to actually be brilliant.

 

[code1211]

So let's discuss this honestly.

Is poverty in America something we want to eliminate/get as close to eliminating as possible?

or do we want to just let those who are impoverished just fall to the wayside without any help to let things happen "naturally"?

I personally DO think the government has a role in diminishing poverty. What say you all?

And what is the minimum annual income that the government should guarentee in your unicorn corral?

 

[daveman]

It is hypocritical to criticize Nancy Pelosi that she does not give to charity or does not support the working person.

Why is it hypocritical to criticize her for not practicing what she preaches?

In other words, why is it hypocritical to point out her hypocrisy?

How would you know that?

Her tax returns are public record.

And since greed is a conservative value why does it even matter?

I feel no obligation to defend against your silly stereotypes.

 

[saveliberty]

It seems that many posters hate for Polosi seems to be the topic on this thread. I thought that maybe there would be thoughts about the substance of Pelosi's statement.
Basically Pelosi is addressing the wealth gap in the US which is at a record level. The last couple of times we have reached such a large gap was just prior to the Great Depression and again just prior to the Great Recession (which effects are still lagging around). I can post many, many links that verify that there is a true wealth gap, it's not a fantasy. Facts show that wages, in Real Dollars, have been very flat for the last eight-nine years. As a matter of fact this trend really raised it's ugly head during the recovery from the 2001 recession. The flat wage growth of the working middle class certainly led to the credit crunch that helped spearhead the recession that started in 2007.
Over two-thirds of the US economy is driven by consumer spending. How can the US continue a captialistic consumer driven economy when the middle class is losing wealth? Wealth has redistributed upwards and thus the great gap in wealth. It's no wonder that the US has experienced it's two largest economic downturns when the wealth gap has reached it's apex. It only makes economic sense.
Now, I'm no lover of Nanvy Pelosi, but I'm glad she made her comment. It is something that needs to be addressed. The big question is how does the US turn this probllem around?

I say we follow Nancy's advice: The best way to help the economy is to have more people using food stamps.

California Liberals! Is there anything they don't know?

Just say no?

 

[code1211]

So, despite historical evidence based facts, people want to stay with the status quo and just let our middle class driven consumer driven economy become a thing of the past?
Why do I say this? Because with less and less expendable income, the working middle class (who makes up the majority of the consumer class) won't be able to contribute to our economy. There is no demand if people can't afford to create demand.
"Business/producers are free to act on their judgment, they generate the kind of wealth that has lifted us out of poverty" And extended flat wages lift the working class out of poverty? Recent facts don't bear that quote out!
So, how about someone factaully refute what I have been posting about? So in a nutshell I am saying, there's a record wealth gap, we have a consumer driven economy, the consumer has less and less expendable income due to and extended (and current) period of flat wages and this poses a threat to our econonical stability.
Where am I wrong?

You are wrong in your assumptions, train of logic and conclusion.

I grew up in a family that was post Depression. Both of my parents were Depression era kids. I grew up knowing for a fact that all of the toys that I had were not the best ones out there and that only rich people had those things.

One car, one bathroom, no braces on teeth and get a job when you're 11 cause the allowance stops when you're 12. Does this sound like the "Good ol' days" you are describing?

My father in law built his house with his "own two hands". Our across the street neighbor did the same and dug the basement with a hand shovel. RUKidding me?

The difference between those folks and the ones growing up today is guts and determination. You want to live in the good ol' days? You wouldn't last 'til you walked over to the Zenith hi-fi and finished surfing through all three channels on the black and white TV.

There have always been the poor. The bottom is stable. That's why they call it the bottom. The top is always rising. A larger gap between the bottom and the top represents to you greater inequlity and to me greater opportunity.

Same situation. Which of us has a better chance of being happy?

 

[code1211]

I do think that private individuals play the primary role in beating poverty...but i think the whole "screw the poor" "the government sucks" attitude is ridiculous. Government has to work and be viable, otherwise why do it. Of course once we're past that...the devil's in the details of size and scope.

Almost all countries have centrally planned economies whether you can adjust your brain to that or not. And helping the poor helps all of us...but yes there should be a limit to the government's powers to do so.

I just think it's hilarious to act like helping the poor is a bad thing.

With this in mind:

Doing for anyone what they could and should do for themselves is the greastest harm you can do.

What do you propose be done?

 

[thereisnospoon]

In her latest stunning declaration, San Francisco socialist Nancy Pelosi told the Steelworkers Union on Monday, that we need to address the disparity in “ownership and equity” in the United States.
Click on Image for Video–

“We’re talking about addressing the disparity of income where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier and some other people are falling out of the middle class when we want to bring many more people into the middle class. But that disparity is not just about wages alone, that disparity is about ownership and equity. It’s all about fairness in our country,”

Who is she kidding...The Pelosis are very wealthy people. And we don't see Nancy Pelosi handing over any of her cash.
Pelosi is pandering to class envy to drum up support for democrats.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It seems that many posters hate for Polosi seems to be the topic on this thread. I thought that maybe there would be thoughts about the substance of Pelosi's statement.
Basically Pelosi is addressing the wealth gap in the US which is at a record level. The last couple of times we have reached such a large gap was just prior to the Great Depression and again just prior to the Great Recession (which effects are still lagging around). I can post many, many links that verify that there is a true wealth gap, it's not a fantasy. Facts show that wages, in Real Dollars, have been very flat for the last eight-nine years. As a matter of fact this trend really raised it's ugly head during the recovery from the 2001 recession. The flat wage growth of the working middle class certainly led to the credit crunch that helped spearhead the recession that started in 2007.
Over two-thirds of the US economy is driven by consumer spending. How can the US continue a captialistic consumer driven economy when the middle class is losing wealth? Wealth has redistributed upwards and thus the great gap in wealth. It's no wonder that the US has experienced it's two largest economic downturns when the wealth gap has reached it's apex. It only makes economic sense.
Now, I'm no lover of Nanvy Pelosi, but I'm glad she made her comment. It is something that needs to be addressed. The big question is how does the US turn this probllem around?

Ok....Question....Have you nay ideas to combat this phenomenon?
Quite frankly I am sick to death of discussing the "wealth gap". I am even more sick of never seeing idea one from any of the whiners..
So, I guess this "gap " issue is more about bitching and moaning then anything else.
BTW, I'm middle class and I haven't lost wealth. I challenge anyone to show evidence of widespread "wealth loss" in the middle class.
BTW loss of employment doesn't count. There are plenty of jobs to be had.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It is something that needs to be addressed.

If by "addressed" you mean more central planning, I would disagree.

===================
Could you be more specific?
I'm not pointing at the dreaded "socialism", but there must be an approach that would reverse this trend. Currently we are heading towards plutocracy and as I pointed out, this would eventually destroy the US economy.
The problem that has risen is that many companies have stopped the ole "a fair days pay for a fair day's work" standard and have directed those monies towards exec pay and larger dividends. Thus flat wages, even in enviroments when there is high worker productivity and good profits. This has been evident since the 2001 recession.
How does this trend get reversed?

"many companies have stopped the ole "a fair days pay for a fair day's work"

That's an opinion not based in fact. That is a "feeling" you have about pay rates.
If it's true.....then answer this...Why is it that every Friday and Saturday evening is every single restaurant aorund here ( there is every single chain eatery here one can think of) seeing long lines to wait for a table? hwy are these places packed from 5pm until 10pm if people are struggling, pay is being reduced and no one has any money?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The alternative to market based economics is government central planning, wage and price controls.
For those of you who are concerned about the so-called wealth gap, is central planning and government control something preferable?
Think very carefully before you answer. Think of your home and your poseessions that you have worked for. Think of your freedom of mobility state to state, no papers.
For those of you comitted to the great socialist/Marxist society, in each instance where equality of outcome is mandated by government, there is always a very small number who make up an elite ruling class that controls all wealth then redistributes it as they see fit. In thes eplaces ,there is no chance of the masses achieving or succeding. If you are not born into the ruling class, you are destined for labor class status.
Go for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do think that private individuals play the primary role in beating poverty...but i think the whole "screw the poor" "the government sucks" attitude is ridiculous. Government has to work and be viable, otherwise why do it. Of course once we're past that...the devil's in the details of size and scope.

Almost all countries have centrally planned economies whether you can adjust your brain to that or not. And helping the poor helps all of us...but yes there should be a limit to the government's powers to do so.

I just think it's hilarious to act like helping the poor is a bad thing.

The one factor you are missing is that the United States was set up to be different from all other countries. To be different from any other country that has ever existed. The Founders envisioned a nation that had no 'king', no 'monarch', no "dictator', no central authority that would govern the people. They envisioned a nation by which the Federal government would be charged with securing and defending the unalienable rights of the people and then leave the people alone to govern themselves. Americans are the only nation on Earth with a Constitution that attempts to accomplish that.

The people may decide to set up central agencies to help the poor--I personally have been heavily involved in just such efforts--but it must always be at the local level or certainly no higher than the state level. Once the Federal government has power to take property from the people in order to strengthen and enrich and empower itself, we are then no different than any other nation and lose the precious gift of liberty that our Founders blessed us with.

Charity should never be the prerogative or function of the Federal government. The temptation to corrupt government and/or the beneficiaries is too great. And the screwed up mess we now have is evidence of that.

 

[midcan5]

This is not a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic and we are trying to keep it.

Do you feel that some personal failure or short coming is preventing you from going out and doing your own armed robberies rather than enlisting the unconstitutional power of government to perform this for you? If you want to steal, to satisfy some moral code of altruism, do it yourself.

The usual non answers from the corporate tools or is that fools. You may want to call it a corporate republic after citizens united. And your last paragraph is beyond idiotic, but then again you are wingnut. But a dictionary may help, may? At least try to make sense, ask mommy to help you express yourself next time. LOL


22 Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America

"The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace."

 

[Claudette]

I do think that private individuals play the primary role in beating poverty...but i think the whole "screw the poor" "the government sucks" attitude is ridiculous. Government has to work and be viable, otherwise why do it. Of course once we're past that...the devil's in the details of size and scope.

Almost all countries have centrally planned economies whether you can adjust your brain to that or not. And helping the poor helps all of us...but yes there should be a limit to the government's powers to do so.

I just think it's hilarious to act like helping the poor is a bad thing.

The one factor you are missing is that the United States was set up to be different from all other countries. To be different from any other country that has ever existed. The Founders envisioned a nation that had no 'king', no 'monarch', no "dictator', no central authority that would govern the people. They envisioned a nation by which the Federal government would be charged with securing and defending the unalienable rights of the people and then leave the people alone to govern themselves. Americans are the only nation on Earth with a Constitution that attempts to accomplish that.

The people may decide to set up central agencies to help the poor--I personally have been heavily involved in just such efforts--but it must always be at the local level or certainly no higher than the state level. Once the Federal government has power to take property from the people in order to strengthen and enrich and empower itself, we are then no different than any other nation and lose the precious gift of liberty that our Founders blessed us with.

Charity should never be the prerogative or function of the Federal government. The temptation to corrupt government and/or the beneficiaries is too great. And the screwed up mess we now have is evidence of that.

Agree.

Welfare is nothing but charity we taxpayers are forced to give. Golly gee. There is no charity in the Constitution. Wonder how that happened??

I don't know about you but I like to pick my charities not have the Govt decide who is deserving of my tax dollars.

As for Pelosi I'll be waiting with baited breath for her and her extremely wealthy husband to divvy up their wealth with the poor and downtrodden. She can even open up her vinhyard to the homeless.

She is a liberal elite after all and isn't that what they live for??

Oh wait. I forgot. They are all about spreading everyone elses wealth .

 

[Vanquish]

The history of humanity is that people with wealth and power use their wealth and power to retain their wealth and power...at the cost of other people. That's just a fact.

That being said, people should be responsible for their own prosperity and happiness...to a point. While there are lazy ***** who want handouts, the majority of the people who are poor don't enjoy it and fell on hard times due to no fault of their own. (Eight Great Myths About Welfare - read it chumps) And what part of helping others helps ourselves DONT people get?

OK so you say that helping poor people shouldn't be the scope of the government. Well you're wrong about that too. If we don't have social programs that foster stable families and the health of the population we'd be a third-world country right now. Mentally handicapped children whose parents can't afford to educate them would be left to suffer.

Just because something is for the collective good doesn't make it socialism or red-commie-bullshit.

Conservatives LOVE to control people's social habits (no gay marriage, no abortion, outlaw drugs, etc. etc.) when it's to enforce THEIR values. But social programs to help our own people is all waste?


Bahahahahahahahahahahahahhaa

 

[saveliberty]

What poor person are you helping today Vanquish?

 

[Foxfyre]

I do think that private individuals play the primary role in beating poverty...but i think the whole "screw the poor" "the government sucks" attitude is ridiculous. Government has to work and be viable, otherwise why do it. Of course once we're past that...the devil's in the details of size and scope.

Almost all countries have centrally planned economies whether you can adjust your brain to that or not. And helping the poor helps all of us...but yes there should be a limit to the government's powers to do so.

I just think it's hilarious to act like helping the poor is a bad thing.

The one factor you are missing is that the United States was set up to be different from all other countries. To be different from any other country that has ever existed. The Founders envisioned a nation that had no 'king', no 'monarch', no "dictator', no central authority that would govern the people. They envisioned a nation by which the Federal government would be charged with securing and defending the unalienable rights of the people and then leave the people alone to govern themselves. Americans are the only nation on Earth with a Constitution that attempts to accomplish that.

The people may decide to set up central agencies to help the poor--I personally have been heavily involved in just such efforts--but it must always be at the local level or certainly no higher than the state level. Once the Federal government has power to take property from the people in order to strengthen and enrich and empower itself, we are then no different than any other nation and lose the precious gift of liberty that our Founders blessed us with.

Charity should never be the prerogative or function of the Federal government. The temptation to corrupt government and/or the beneficiaries is too great. And the screwed up mess we now have is evidence of that.

Agree.

Welfare is nothing but charity we taxpayers are forced to give. Golly gee. There is no charity in the Constitution. Wonder how that happened??

I don't know about you but I like to pick my charities not have the Govt decide who is deserving of my tax dollars.

As for Pelosi I'll be waiting with baited breath for her and her extremely wealthy husband to divvy up their wealth with the poor and downtrodden. She can even open up her vinhyard to the homeless.

She is a liberal elite after all and isn't that what they live for??

Oh wait. I forgot. They are all about spreading everyone elses wealth .

Yep. Vanquish's heart is probably in the right place, but he is refusing to debate the issue or what is actually being said here, And he refuses to see the difference between the intent of the Constitution re governance and how the people choose to organize the society they wish to have. He isn't acknowledging the difference between local and Federal government.

Charity is not saying to the other guy that HE should or must use HIS
resources to help that other person or those other people out. That is the liberal view of charity.

Charity is voluntarily giving of your own time, talent, and resources to help out somebody. I've seen lots of studies showing that conservatives are much more likely to do that than liberals. In fact I've never seen a study that showed liberals are more likely to do that period.

And Charity is not just throwing money at a problem that continues to get worse. Charity includes good stewardship that requires effort to solve the problem and improve the situation.

And whenever you have a situation in which the government can take the people's money and use it to increase its own power, prestige, privilege, size, influence, and personal wealth, you create a situation in which government will choose to do mostly that. And you create a situation in which the people choose government who promises to take other people's money to benefit themselves. That is not charity. That is corruption.

 

[saveliberty]

I used eight words Foxfyre. lol

 

[Vanquish]

The one factor you are missing is that the United States was set up to be different from all other countries. To be different from any other country that has ever existed. The Founders envisioned a nation that had no 'king', no 'monarch', no "dictator', no central authority that would govern the people. They envisioned a nation by which the Federal government would be charged with securing and defending the unalienable rights of the people and then leave the people alone to govern themselves. Americans are the only nation on Earth with a Constitution that attempts to accomplish that.

The people may decide to set up central agencies to help the poor--I personally have been heavily involved in just such efforts--but it must always be at the local level or certainly no higher than the state level. Once the Federal government has power to take property from the people in order to strengthen and enrich and empower itself, we are then no different than any other nation and lose the precious gift of liberty that our Founders blessed us with.

Charity should never be the prerogative or function of the Federal government. The temptation to corrupt government and/or the beneficiaries is too great. And the screwed up mess we now have is evidence of that.

Agree.

Welfare is nothing but charity we taxpayers are forced to give. Golly gee. There is no charity in the Constitution. Wonder how that happened??

I don't know about you but I like to pick my charities not have the Govt decide who is deserving of my tax dollars.

As for Pelosi I'll be waiting with baited breath for her and her extremely wealthy husband to divvy up their wealth with the poor and downtrodden. She can even open up her vinhyard to the homeless.

She is a liberal elite after all and isn't that what they live for??

Oh wait. I forgot. They are all about spreading everyone elses wealth .

Yep. Vanquish's heart is probably in the right place, but he is refusing to debate the issue or what is actually being said here, And he refuses to see the difference between the intent of the Constitution re governance and how the people choose to organize the society they wish to have. He isn't acknowledging the difference between local and Federal government.

Charity is not saying to the other guy that HE should or must use HIS
resources to help that other person or those other people out. That is the liberal view of charity.

Charity is voluntarily giving of your own time, talent, and resources to help out somebody. I've seen lots of studies showing that conservatives are much more likely to do that than liberals. In fact I've never seen a study that showed liberals are more likely to do that period.

And Charity is not just throwing money at a problem that continues to get worse. Charity includes good stewardship that requires effort to solve the problem and improve the situation.

And whenever you have a situation in which the government can take the people's money and use it to increase its own power, prestige, privilege, size, influence, and personal wealth, you create a situation in which government will choose to do mostly that. And you create a situation in which the people choose government who promises to take other people's money to benefit themselves. That is not charity. That is corruption.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt at least.

I'm not sidestepping or refusing to debate anything. If so, what?

You're the one who is equivocating. You're equating social programs with charity. No, there's nothing in the Constitution that mandates charity. There, happy? But there is taxation for the common good. I've admitted something...can you be just as even-handed and admit that?

The purpose of government, the reason why people get together rather than live alone, apart, and at gun's length, is because together we can do more than we can separately. And when we lift others up, we lift ourselves up

What you're failing to recognize is that it IS the scope of the government that we have created (not just in the constitution but all the legislators that have come after...some conservatives seem to want to side step what their legislators have done themselves and just make "EVUL LIBRALS" out to be Constitution haters...it gets really old and tiresome, seriously) to tackle the issues of public health, education, and

Are you one of those that doesn't understand that federal agencies DO have constitutional roots and authority? Should we get rid of the dept of education? how about the EPA? or the FDA? Don't be selective with your constitutional literalism.

Your conservative Supreme Court was the one that expanded the Commerce Clause to basically mean any interstate commerce can be regulated...so don't come crying home to me when the legislature's scope has been expanded.

I'm just as pissed about wasted tax money as you are. I HATE paying taxes. I pay multiple taxes for my family, my father (I pay his taxes for him, it's a long story) as well as the 2 businesses I own. But just because I hate it, doesn't mean I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I get it...the less they get...the less they can **** up. Seriously. I get it.

It's funny that you talk about corruption. If you'll go to the Education section of this forum, I posted several days ago about an utterly DEPLORABLE state education case that I'm working...the utter corruption of education and the tax money that's supposed to be spent on the children of the state of Alabama. My client spoke out against the corruption of federal grant money being diverted from deserving children due to improper political influence and she got fired for it by corrupt officials. We're fighting it and hope to prevail.

Without those federal dollars going to underprivileged kids you'll have a work force of insanely stupid, terribly unhireable workers. And then your economy tanks. Good luck with that.

 

[saveliberty]

"Please cite where the Constitution provides for "the common good". No such language.