wealth concentration

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre
My question to those who think they have a solution to the problem of a shrinking middle class is, why exactly is the middle class shrinking?

A number of reasons. More people are falling into the poverty class and more people are falling into the "rich" class. Although it isnt really defined, I think most can presume middle class to be somewhere around $24k-$75k/yr.

I couldn't disagree more. $75k/year per family is going to be lower class in most urban areas of the country; $75k per working parent will allow you to purchase a shitty home in a shitty neighborhood in most urban areas. If you consider this to be upper class then you are insane, if you consider it to be upper middle class then you are delusional.

Have you ever driven through Boston or New York or San Francisco? Do you have any idea how much one of those modest homes costs? Do you think that if you can drop $2 million on a 1000 square foot place in Manhattan that it makes you upper class? Think again. The bar is steadily rising, and always has been. If you think for a minute that the bar is lowering to include more people, or that a greater percentage of people are simply rising above a static marker due to their capitalistic ingenuity then you are mistaken.

I couldnt agree more. to add to your example, $75k in Jenks, OK is rich. Get it? Its subjective. I never claimed it was universal.

Ahh.. You're from OK.
That explains SO MUCH.

BBZZZ wrong. Try again

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
It's not about the size of govt, it's about the purpose of govt...

This is akin to telling us the only thing wrong with a Monarchy is the Monarch.

Takes big tools to deal with big problems.

We are not some shit backwater 13 colonies anymore.

Which is why "Conservatism" will always be a fail in the modern era.

But...but...GW Bush/Reagan/etc etc was not a REAL fiscal conservative.

That's right, because the whole concept is smoke blown up your ass by guys trying to make a buck kissing ass to the system on hate radio/selling books. And you are their useful idiots as Stalin liked to say.

Edit: This was not directed at you personally, but at all the Conservatives/Capitalist-Libertarians on here who STILL don't get why time and time again they are let down by Conservative politics and keep listening to these numbskulls on the radio sell their discredited, destructive and divisive drivel regardless of how far down the shitter we go everytime we give it a try again. (Yes, I am sick of this since Reagan)

I hate to say it but I am very much looking forward to a Democrat in power even though I cannot stand Clinton or his DLC cronies.
At least they know how to not run us into massive debt.
1 more week and Conservatism is pretty much a toothless regional minority party ftw.

bwahahahaha (breath) hahahahahahah

Good one!

As we stare at a 1 trillion\year deficit from a democrat congress and president for a min of two years. Bu bu bu but that is Bush's fault!

The buck stops where?

...

It stops at the administration who created and signed said budget. Duh.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
It's not about the size of govt, it's about the purpose of govt...

This is akin to telling us the only thing wrong with a Monarchy is the Monarch.

Takes big tools to deal with big problems.

We are not some shit backwater 13 colonies anymore.

Which is why "Conservatism" will always be a fail in the modern era.

But...but...GW Bush/Reagan/etc etc was not a REAL fiscal conservative.

That's right, because the whole concept is smoke blown up your ass by guys trying to make a buck kissing ass to the system on hate radio/selling books. And you are their useful idiots as Stalin liked to say.

Edit: This was not directed at you personally, but at all the Conservatives/Capitalist-Libertarians on here who STILL don't get why time and time again they are let down by Conservative politics and keep listening to these numbskulls on the radio sell their discredited, destructive and divisive drivel regardless of how far down the shitter we go everytime we give it a try again. (Yes, I am sick of this since Reagan)

I hate to say it but I am very much looking forward to a Democrat in power even though I cannot stand Clinton or his DLC cronies.
At least they know how to not run us into massive debt.
1 more week and Conservatism is pretty much a toothless regional minority party ftw.

bwahahahaha (breath) hahahahahahah

Good one!

So, Mr. Hyena, when hs a Democrat 'run us into *massive* debt', other than a world war?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

I don't care who's in charge, over time wealth will accumulate. It's what it does. Tax the wealthy at 99%, redistribute it to the "poor" and elect Democrats for 50 years. You'll still end up with all of the wealth accumulated at the top.

Explain the *de-concentration* of wealth under the 20 years of FDR/Truman compared to before them under your allegation that it can't happen. Hint: get the facts first next time.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

/snip

The buck stops where?

...

It stops at the administration who created and signed said budget. Duh.

You'd think that this would be a little more obvious. Final step before a bill becomes law? The desk of the President. President Truman had a saying about this regarding responsibility a long time ago....how did it go?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87
As we stare at a 1 trillion\year deficit from a democrat congress and president for a min of two years. Bu bu bu but that is Bush's fault!

Yes, it is. Who *increased* the deficit so much for the first time in history outside of war? Reagan/Bush. Did Clinto skyrocket it?

Even in a terrible economy, did Carter skyrocket it?

With the Great Society, and Viet Nam, and the moon landing program, and a tax cut and more, did JFK/LBJ skyrocket it? No, LBJ actually *balanced the budget*.

If it's not clear to you the Republicans in making the 'biggest economic crisis since the great depression and one that will be worse without massive government intervenation' have created a problem for years to come - just as it took many years to get over the Great Depression - out of the same flawed ideology that lets the wealth have what they want and some of that is disastrous for the nation...

Traditional conservatives: don't spend on good investments in the long term interests of the nation, and leave poverty and problems unfixed

Liberals: Invest in the nation, and increase the prosperity, the 'rising tide that lifts all boats' as Kennedy popularized; do it with fiscal responsibility, Keynesian economics

Modern right-wing: political whores who trade the public interest for campaign donations and cause economic ruin, failing to make investments while bankrupting the taxpayers.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
It's not about the size of govt, it's about the purpose of govt...

This is akin to telling us the only thing wrong with a Monarchy is the Monarch.

Takes big tools to deal with big problems.

We are not some shit backwater 13 colonies anymore.

Which is why "Conservatism" will always be a fail in the modern era.

But...but...GW Bush/Reagan/etc etc was not a REAL fiscal conservative.

That's right, because the whole concept is smoke blown up your ass by guys trying to make a buck kissing ass to the system on hate radio/selling books. And you are their useful idiots as Stalin liked to say.

Edit: This was not directed at you personally, but at all the Conservatives/Capitalist-Libertarians on here who STILL don't get why time and time again they are let down by Conservative politics and keep listening to these numbskulls on the radio sell their discredited, destructive and divisive drivel regardless of how far down the shitter we go everytime we give it a try again. (Yes, I am sick of this since Reagan)

I hate to say it but I am very much looking forward to a Democrat in power even though I cannot stand Clinton or his DLC cronies.
At least they know how to not run us into massive debt.
1 more week and Conservatism is pretty much a toothless regional minority party ftw.

bwahahahaha (breath) hahahahahahah

Good one!

As we stare at a 1 trillion\year deficit from a democrat congress and president for a min of two years. Bu bu bu but that is Bush's fault!

The buck stops where?

...

It stops at the administration who created and signed said budget. Duh.

Some policies have effects for years to come.

Spending trillions *we don't have, borrowed against the future revenue, eating it up*... destroying the infastructure of the financial industry...

Some presidents don't hand off big problems. Others do.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Craig234
Another idiotic non-sequitor. It's pointed out you are defending terrible and harmful policies, and the best you can do is make another irrelevant cliche.

Totally Subjective Craig, the fact is that not everyone is in favor of government oversight and regulation to this degree and are more open to a truly "free market system"...whereas there are the socialists like yourself who would rather have maximum salary caps and massive regulation.

Personally if given the choice I would rather be a part of the top 1% than bitch about how unfair it is not to be them...

So what wrong with regulation that levels the playing field? That outlaws fraud and other deceptive practice??

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Some policies have effects for years to come.

WOW.

All of a sudden this argument is coming out of a liberals mouth? The rest of us were not aloud to use such arguments the past 8 years.

Policies such as rubber stamping NAFTA, giving China "Preferred Trade Partner" status ?? Thos kinds of policies?

The economy was in a STEEP slide when Bush took office. Nafta and China were probably 2 of the top 3 reasons (The over hyped tech boom, which I wont blame on Clinton entirely, being the third)

Those factories in China and Mexico didn't pop up overnight, but after Clinton bent over and took a giant Chinese cock up the ass, the construction began. He left office extremely popular... its too bad he wasnt around just 6 more months to take credit for its crash. We are still fighting off the effects of Chinese influence on our economy. Clinton, like FDR, got a lot of credit for doing serious damage to the economy.

You gotta pick one... Bush's bad economy was Clintons fault... Or Obama's bad economy is his own damn fault. But you cant argue againt both of these. You can't use the same reasoning to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Steeplerot]

Poor Craig and others, actually try to provide insightful posts full of researched information. Righties come in here with one liners from talk radio. I do not see why these folks bother with you really.
These same right-wing folks dropping the one-liners are as dogmatic as a fundamentalist even though Conservatism is shown to be utterly bankrupt.
Enjoy further marginalization, let us know when you are ready to play with the adult Americans again after you turn your radio off.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Train

Policies such as rubber stamping NAFTA, giving China "Preferred Trade Partner" status ?? Those kinds of policies?

I will concede that these were very bad ideas. This is what you get when you have a liberal try to be centrist, bad policies fail in their hands too.
Neo-liberalism is a scourge that will be the undoing of the empire.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Poor Craig and others, actually try to provide insightful posts full of researched information. Righties come in here with one liners from talk radio. I do not see why these folks bother with you really.
These same right-wing folks dropping the one-liners are as dogmatic as a fundamentalist even though Conservatism is shown to be utterly bankrupt.
Enjoy further marginalization, let us know when you are ready to play with the adult Americans again after you turn your radio off.

Which one liners, exactly, are you referring to?