Really? I can't deny it anymore.

[Popcorn Sutton]

We're in a predicament.

 

We are broke, we are unemployed or at risk of losing our jobs, and we are incapable of investing a large amount of money to get even richer.

 

Most of us... all the people I know at least, are in debt. The people collecting our debt don't get the "denied" feature of taking out the money if it's not there. Our debt literally requires to be paid and will be paid even if the money is not there. Not only that, but the bank (my bank) charges a thirty five dollar overdraft fee for every overdraft.

 

I saw a recent video about the wealth distribution. They said that they showed the actual distribution of wealth (which made me tear up), but I don't think that what they showed was REALLY what the wealth looks like. If they did, they would need to add a new axis extending downward to account for the negatives.

 

In light of this, here is an alternative.

 

Newspeak, goodthink, crimespeak.

 

This is how the wealth should be distributed.

For every new sequence of evidential thought, tge person gets one more significant point. Treat significant points as dollars. It gives people an incentive to act at least, rather than just allowing ourselves to get sick and be afraid of increasing our debt.

 

Our economy would be much more productive.

 

"But how about the mafia?"

 

Let the leaders lead anonymously. Monitor all data. Tag the crimespeak as disaster prevention priority.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[Endy0816]

What all have you done to get out of debt?

[Bignose]

Newspeak, goodthink, crimespeak.

You do realize that there is a large, large portion of the population that would refuse to live under such conditions, right? Even if it made us more efficient, giving up these basic freedoms can't be worth it.

 

You present a list of serious problems but I don't see how loving under an arbitrary dictatorial government would really help.

 

In my mind, the only real solution is to help mankind mature more quickly to realize that true happiness doesn't come from material goods and hence wealth. Once most of mankind realize this, wealth won't be directly equal to power and the wealthy will use their wealth for the good of all.

 

I feel like your system treats mankind very immaturely. Kind of like 'you kids be good or else Santa won't come' It works for a while, but if it works on your kid when they are 18, you've failed as a parent. What we really ought to strive for isa system where we all willingly help one another, not because we are forced to our because the government gives us credits for saying the right thing, but because we all realize it is just the right thing to do.

 

And really... I don't see how your system is very different from fascism. You are telling us what we have to think after all. I am very dumbfounded that sometime really thinks fascism is a good idea.

[iNow]

I am very dumbfounded that sometime really thinks fascism is a good idea.

Me too, but a quick glance at the Tea Party in the US and the strong support it receives suggests that this thought is not only somewhat common, but also gaining traction and trending upward.

[Bignose]

Me too, but a quick glance at the Tea Party in the US and the strong support it receives suggests that this thought is not only somewhat common, but also gaining traction and trending upward.

I think while it is undeniable that there are extreme members in the Tea Party, the majority of the people at their rallies and such aren't really fascists. Maybe, anarchists to some level in that they are anti-government, but I don't get a sense that the majority of them want thought control.

[waitforufo]

Relax. Nobody wants a totalitarian government. I have been listening to such BS since high school in the 70's. Never going to happen in the US. Remember, we all have guns.

With regard to wealth redistribution please leave me out. I earned my money and it belongs to me. I feel that way about everyone else's money as well. I have never looked at another person and thought there money or wealth belonged to me or anyone else but that person. When I see a wealthy or successful person I think "good for them." If you start doing that yourself it will improve your happiness.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Relax. Nobody wants a totalitarian government. I have been listening to such BS since high school in the 70's. Never going to happen in the US. Remember, we all have guns.

With regard to wealth redistribution please leave me out. I earned my money and it belongs to me. I feel that way about everyone else's money as well. I have never looked at another person and thought there money or wealth belonged to me or anyone else but that person. When I see a wealthy or successful person I think "good for them." If you start doing that yourself it will improve your happiness.

We don't all have guns. I am a pacifist, and while I do have a Bear Grylls pocket utility, I only use it when it is useful for something. I assume the same about people with guns though, although guns really only serve one purpose. This argument is relevant to the topic because of the mafia principle but I'm going to leave it aside for the time being.

 

You can't be honest when you're telling me that the wealthiest 1%, who carry most of the money in the country, really earned their money. The wealthiest 1% own more than half of the stock. You can't really be telling me that those people who invest their money and literally own 50% of the stock have earned their money. Their investments grow exponentially, and by investing a large amount of money, they are just soaking up all of the assets. Most of us can't even afford to invest $50. $50 is the minimum amount required to invest in IRAs at Primerica. Primerica offers a 12% return on your investment, so if you understand the rule of 72, you'll know that it takes approximately 6 years for your money to double at 12%. So the wealthy people, who are able to invest large portions of their money, are able to watch their assets grow exponentially over time. Do you seriously think that they earned that money?

 

Wrt happiness, let me personally tell you how difficult it is for someone to be truly happy when they are stuck with all their bills, the bills will get paid whether the money is there or not, they are afraid to see a doctor because then they have more bills, in the meantime they have to live day by day knowing that something is wrong with their lungs, their liver, their heart, their brain, their mind, and/or their gallbladder, whatever it may be. They just peed or threw up blood and they know for a fact that something is wrong with them, but they are afraid of having an extra bill to take care of, so they wait. What do they wait for? They wait for "the opportunity" to get a job that will pay them anything between $7.50 (plus taxes and union fees) and $15 if they get lucky. That's $30,000 a year at most.

 

Next time you look at they 99% of people in the country who are struggling to get by and drowning in debt, why don't you also look at the clothes they're wearing. Keep a list of the number of pants they have, the length and width of the pants (to see if they fit), and their shirts. Ask yourself, how many garments do they actually have? Do you think that they have the time to get more clothes? Half of my wardrobe is work uniforms that I can't even use anymore. Do you really think that I have the ability to go to the store and buy a shirt that is priced at $200? That's what makes someone attractive right? A shiny shirt.

 

Look, the people who have "earned their money" literally earn as much money in one hour as it takes one of their employees to work an entire month (full time) to raise. So what you're saying is that the people who sit in their office, talk on the phone, laugh and play with their colleagues, and look at spread sheets all day, are literally working 8 times harder than their employees who do the heavy lifting, who do the labor, who destroy their backs and dislocate their shoulders all while putting a fake smile on their face and shaking the hands of their customers and their employers, who go home at the end of the day not knowing if they will have their job in the morning because one customer, one miserable lousy customer, gave them 0's on a survey. I used to be the third best repair technician out of 90 others, but I lost my job, which was giving me indecent wages to begin with, because one customer didn't like that she had to reschedule because I was having too much anxiety on the job and couldn't put on a happy face after my district manager told me that I was a loser and that I wasn't going anywhere in my life.

 

Tell me again what you are trying to say.

It really is a tragedy.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[waitforufo]

You can't be honest when you're telling me that the wealthiest 1%, who carry most of the money in the country, really earned their money. The wealthiest 1% own more than half of the stock. You can't really be telling me that those people who invest their money and literally own 50% of the stock have earned their money. Their investments grow exponentially, and by investing a large amount of money, they are just soaking up all of the assets. Most of us can't even afford to invest $50. $50 is the minimum amount required to invest in IRAs at Primerica. Primerica offers a 12% return on your investment, so if you understand the rule of 72, you'll know that it takes approximately 6 years for your money to double at 12%. So the wealthy people, who are able to invest large portions of their money, are able to watch their assets grow exponentially over time. Do you seriously think that they earned that money?

Even the 1%. It's their money. It belongs to them. If you simply say "good for them" and forget about it you will become a happier person.

 

Did the 1% really earn their money? If not them then someone in their family. They got ownership of it somehow. I hope to leave money behind for my kids. Why should the Kennedy's be any different? What did Bill Gates ever do to me but make my life better? Same with Steve Jobs.

 

The rich are not soaking up all the assets.

 

Other people's problems are just that. Other peoples. I would encourage those in the 1% to be charitable, but there is a big difference between charity and entitlement. Do you know the difference?

 

Wrt happiness, let me personally tell you how difficult it is for someone to be truly happy when they are stuck with all their bills, the bills will get paid whether the money is there or not, they are afraid to see a doctor because then they have more bills, in the meantime they have to live day by day knowing that something is wrong with their lungs, their liver, their heart, their brain, their mind, and/or their gallbladder, whatever it may be. They just peed or threw up blood and they know for a fact that something is wrong with them, but they are afraid of having an extra bill to take care of, so they wait. What do they wait for? They wait for "the opportunity" to get a job that will pay them anything between $7.50 (plus taxes and union fees) and $15 if they get lucky. That's $30,000 a year at most.

There bills. Those bills belong to them, not me. I wish them the best in paying them off. I got to where I am by waiting for opportunity and taking risks. I appreciate that many think success is really just another word for luck, but those people are wrong. You put yourself in the way of luck. You can't win if you don't play.

 

Next time you look at they 99% of people in the country who are struggling to get by and drowning in debt, why don't you also look at the clothes they're wearing. Keep a list of the number of pants they have, the length and width of the pants (to see if they fit), and their shirts. Ask yourself, how many garments do they actually have? Do you think that they have the time to get more clothes? Half of my wardrobe is work uniforms that I can't even use anymore. Do you really think that I have the ability to go to the store and buy a shirt that is priced at $200? That's what makes someone attractive right? A shiny shirt.

I'm curious where you are getting this 99% number? I don't know anyone personally who is in the 1% but I know lots of people in the 20% plus club. They are all doing great. Almost all of them had zip in their 20's, but with work made it into the 20% plus club later in life. Well some of those 20% plus people don't appreciate how to live within their means and borrow too much money, but again that is their problem. It's not the fault of preditory lenders. Caveat emptor,

ever hear of that one?

 

Look, the people who have "earned their money" literally earn as much money in one hour as it takes one of their employees to work an entire month (full time) to raise. So what you're saying is that the people who sit in their office, talk on the phone, laugh and play with their colleagues, and look at spread sheets all day, are literally working 8 times harder than their employees who do the heavy lifting, who do the labor, who destroy their backs and dislocate their shoulders all while putting a fake smile on their face and shaking the hands of their customers and their employers, who go home at the end of the day not knowing if they will have their job in the morning because one customer, one miserable lousy customer, gave them 0's on a survey. I used to be the third best repair technician out of 90 others, but I lost my job, which was giving me indecent wages to begin with, because one customer didn't like that she had to reschedule because I was having too much anxiety on the job and couldn't put on a happy face after my district manager told me that I was a loser and that I wasn't going anywhere in my life.

Where I work I make more money in a week than it takes others to make in a month. I didn't get here overnight. It took lots of hard work. That didn't happen by accident. My father was a drunk. I grew up with very little. Same is true for most in the neighborhood I grew up in. I know pleanty of people from that old neighborhood that are in the 20% plus club. They are all nice people and I don't belive they screwed anyone to get there. Why do you think you or anyone else is entitled to their money?

 

Personal property is the cornerstone of the middle class. Why are you trying to kill the middle class? Why arn't you happy for them?

 

Sorry if there is bad spelling. I'm in a hurry.

Edited October 22, 2013 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

I think while it is undeniable that there are extreme members in the Tea Party, the majority of the people at their rallies and such aren't really fascists. Maybe, anarchists to some level in that they are anti-government, but I don't get a sense that the majority of them want thought control.

It's not a majority yet, but it's apparently their plan.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/texas-gop-s-2012-platform-opposes-teaching-of-critical-thinking-skills

[overtone]

 

Did the 1% really earn their money? If not them then someone in their family. They got ownership of it somehow.

It is almost impossible to "earn" that much money. Getting ownership and earning are not nearly as closely connected as you seem to assume.

 

 

 

Personal property is the cornerstone of the middle class.

Especially, equity in their house and retirement savings. So when a coterie of pals like Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy deregulated the financial and commodities markets (one of her specific contributions was called "The Enron Exemption" at the time - before the scandal) and W&Co turned these deregulated financiers loose on the accumulated wealth of American's middle class (by various executive decisions set up the bubble that destroyed so much middle class housing equity, after successfully campaigning for White House power in an Enron jet), you of course recognized such bad governance for what it was, and such robbery as a criminal event. Right?

 

 

 

I hope to leave money behind for my kids. Why should the Kennedy's be any different? What did Bill Gates ever do to me but make my life better?

The Kennedys made a good share of their fortune supplying the Nazi millitary with gas and steel in the early years of WWII.

 

Bill Gates did a fair amount of damage, actually, to many people's lives - the general clumsiness and poor design of Microsoft software probably would have eliminated it from a competitive marketplace had it not been for Gates's truly superior predatory corporate skills, and the resultant drag on almost everyone's lives as these dysfunctional software setups moved in to dominate the US economy was and is a serious, multifaceted problem (example: we have seen the phenomenon of "Microsoft level reliability" in hardware built by others - glitch prone hardware designed to function at a level just good enough that its failures would be obscured by the Microsoft breakdowns - taking the market from better hardware because the consumer can't tell the difference). So Gates, like the biggest hedge fund operators, the biggest energy trading corporations, and so forth, made much or all of his money by making people's lives worse.

 

 

 

The rich are not soaking up all the assets.

Yes, they are. In the US, anyway, that is simply a physical fact.

 

 

 

Maybe, anarchists to some level in that they are anti-government, but I don't get a sense that the majority of them want thought control.

Of all the terms for the Tea Party folks, "anarchists" would be the least or one of the least accurate. These people are by and large natural born authoritarians advancing a program of government intrusion - they want to expand the military and the prisons, build electrified walls with armed guards across the national borders, make and rigidly enforce via numerous armed police a great many laws sharply restricting individual behavior and expression, support by law the authoritarian privileges of ownership, executive status, etc, in the private sector, and so forth.

 

The current Tea faction was the Ku Klux Klan a few decades back, and the John Birch Society, and so forth. "Anarchist" does not apply.

[waitforufo]

It is almost impossible to "earn" that much money. Getting ownership and earning are not nearly as closely connected as you seem to assume.

If my children inherit the wealth I created in my lifetime they will be "getting ownership" of my wealth. This is what the Kennedy's do. This is what Steve Jobs heirs have done. Earning is not the only way to achieve wealth. You can also create wealth out of nothing. That is what Steve Jobs did. Inventors to it every day. So do bakers. Where before there were ingredients, now there is a pie. In the end however that wealth is owned by someone. I own mine and you own yours. If you want a slice of pie, bake your own.

 

Especially, equity in their house and retirement savings. So when a coterie of pals like Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy deregulated the financial and commodities markets (one of her specific contributions was called "The Enron Exemption" at the time - before the scandal) and W&Co turned these deregulated financiers loose on the accumulated wealth of American's middle class (by various executive decisions set up the bubble that destroyed so much middle class housing equity, after successfully campaigning for White House power in an Enron jet), you of course recognized such bad governance for what it was, and such robbery as a criminal event. Right?

I agree. Crime is bad. By hey, Phil Gramm was coming up with a government solution to his wealth problem. I've stated many times that I'm not in favor government intervention is such issues.

 

The Kennedys made a good share of their fortune supplying the Nazi millitary with gas and steel in the early years of WWII.

And I thought they made all their money running liquor during prohibition. Such a fine example for those in the Democratic Party. Why does the Democratic Party worship at the altar of the Kennedys anyway? And the Rockefellers too.

 

 

Bill Gates did a fair amount of damage, actually, to many people's lives - the general clumsiness and poor design of Microsoft software probably would have eliminated it from a competitive marketplace had it not been for Gates's truly superior predatory corporate skills, and the resultant drag on almost everyone's lives as these dysfunctional software setups moved in to dominate the US economy was and is a serious, multifaceted problem (example: we have seen the phenomenon of "Microsoft level reliability" in hardware built by others - glitch prone hardware designed to function at a level just good enough that its failures would be obscured by the Microsoft breakdowns - taking the market from better hardware because the consumer can't tell the difference). So Gates, like the biggest hedge fund operators, the biggest energy trading corporations, and so forth, made much or all of his money by making people's lives worse.

Well it's a dog eat dog world out there. Bill did give us a common software platform that allows us to share documents and ideas easily. I say good for him. I hope he enjoys his wealth. See, I feel better already.

 

 

Yes, they are. In the US, anyway, that is simply a physical fact.

Perhaps you should check out this web site. Wealth is traded there every day. I have never had any trouble purchasing wealth or assets.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/

 

 

Of all the terms for the Tea Party folks, "anarchists" would be the least or one of the least accurate. These people are by and large natural born authoritarians advancing a program of government intrusion - they want to expand the military and the prisons, build electrified walls with armed guards across the national borders, make and rigidly enforce via numerous armed police a great many laws sharply restricting individual behavior and expression, support by law the authoritarian privileges of ownership, executive status, etc, in the private sector, and so forth.

Be careful. Obama has the NSA listening to you.

 

My favorite part of that rant is "support by law the authoritarian privileges of ownership." Please elaborate. I don't think I'm getting my share of those privileges and I own the wealth I have earned. I must be getting screwed somehow.

 

 

The current Tea faction was the Ku Klux Klan a few decades back, and the John Birch Society, and so forth. "Anarchist" does not apply.

Somehow in your lineage you forgot the Democratic party. You know the people whose actions lead to the death 2% of the US population in an effort to keep slaves. The party of sedition, jim crow, segregation, and the KKK. Please don't forget them in the future.

[overtone]

 

 

In the end however that wealth is owned by someone. I own mine and you own yours.

And the manager's of the big hedge funds that engineered the Crash of "08 own some of what was everybody's - especially the middle class's - before they ran their long con. The executives and traders at Enron, the ones that were not indicted, still own quite a bit of many Californian's - especially the middle class's. The heirs of Sam Walton own a considerable chunk of what was formerly owned by the middle class residents of thousands of American towns - they didn't "earn" a penny of any of it. The Kennedys own much of the wealth produced by the same people who went to war overseas to fight the people their patriarch was supplying, often with the very war materials they had produced - again, middle class and working poor.

 

Notice a pattern?

 

 

 

By hey, Phil Gramm was coming up with a government solution to his wealth problem. I've stated many times that I'm not in favor government intervention is such issues.

No, you haven't been paying attention: Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy were following your recommendation and your favor. They were removing government intervention in a market, and thereby solving not their own wealth problems but Kenneth Lay's, Lloyd Blankfein's, et el Likewise W&Co - they worked hard to get rid of government intervention in those markets. That's why you supported them, remember?

 

 

 

And I thought they made all their money running liquor during prohibition. Such a fine example for those in the Democratic Party.

According to you, the Democratic Party needs lessons in free market capitalism. So you should be pleased that the Kennedys provided them. The next step is to learn them - you might want to look into that, yourself.

 

 

 

Why does the Democratic Party worship at the altar of the Kennedys anyway? And the Rockefellers too.

The Kennedys provided competence, or at least not Reagan level incompetence. The Rockefellers are and have been of course long standing Republicans - like most people of great unearned wealth in the US these days. Although, being not completely incompetent and bereft of sanity, many members of the family have withdrawn somewhat from public support and participation in that Party's activities over the past couple of decades.

 

 

 

Well it's a dog eat dog world out there. Bill did give us a common software platform that allows us to share documents and ideas easily.

The point was that he made his money by making other people's lives worse, not better, than they would have been without him. That was the result of his winning that dogfight. That contradicts your claims about the wealthy, using your examples.

 

btw: Bill Gates, like several others of the computer world elite, as a teenager in high school was provided (by the community, not his lawn mowing money) with one of the very first interactive computer terminals in the civilian world and allowed almost as much time as he wanted on it. That was at a time when even colleges did not have such equipment, and very few people even with it had free access and daily hours of unsupervised time.

 

 

Yes, they are. In the US, anyway, that is simply a physical fact.

Perhaps you should check out this web site. Wealth is traded there every day. I have never had any trouble purchasing wealth or assets.

So? The fact remains: the wealthy in the US are steadily soaking up the assets of the country. Class based inequality in wealth and income is as high as it's ever been, and growing, mostly because additions to the national wealth are going almost entirely to the already wealthy. This has consequences - in every measure of wellbeing there is. The country becomes poorer, less free, less healthy, dirtier, weaker, less well educated, and more vulnerable in every way except one - we have lots of billionaires.

 

 

The current Tea faction was the Ku Klux Klan a few decades back, and the John Birch Society, and so forth. "Anarchist" does not apply.

Somehow in your lineage you forgot the Democratic party. You know the people whose actions lead to the death 2% of the US population in an effort to keep slaves. The party of sedition, jim crow, segregation, and the KKK. Please don't forget them in the future.

I mentioned neither Party, did I. You want me to harp on Prty labels, rather than actual ideology and relavant allegiancs, for some reason - - - OK: although it gets a bit complicated since the Confederacy had no such Parties (it was certainly not Democratic) and the Union was a scene of shifting allegiances - here's bit of Wiki info:

 

As the American Civil War broke out, Northern Democrats were divided into War Democrats and Peace Democrats. - - - - - Most War Democrats rallied to Republican President Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans' National Union Party in the election of 1864, which featured Andrew Johnson on the Republican ticket even though he was a Democrat from the South.

 

The Ku Klux Klan in its early days opposing Reconstruction was mostly Democratic affiliated, although even then in the northern States (such as Indiana in the 1920s) it had begun its transition to the more hospitable Republican Party that is its modern home (the Democratic Party was trending left and supporting civil rights and stuff like that, at the time, and the KKK has always been a rightwing capitalist authoritarian organization with strong ties to business leaders and the military).

 

Note that the future Tea Party folks were solidly Dem in reaction to Lincoln's ostensible Party affiliation, despite the Party affiliation many of the War supporters in the North and of President Andrew Johnson (who actually ran the Reconstruction, and less forgivingly than Lincoln seemed to favor), demonstrating that the current manifestations of mental acuity and political sophistication they display now have a long tradition.

 

Which brings us to 1968, and the consequences of Lyndon Johnson's great betrayal of the Tea folk - enforced civil rights for black people. The first of the Great Republican Disasters realizes that the Tea folk are unhappy with the Dems, and wins election by appealing to them with lies and innuendo - Nixon's famous Southern Strategy. The Republican candidate has won a majority of the white male vote between 35 and 65 in almost every Presidential election since, in just that way. The Republicans no longer have to put a Democratic VP on the ticket to get the Tea vote.

 

And in the times when that is enough, we get the kind of governance the old Confederacy first established:

[waitforufo]

And the manager's of the big hedge funds that engineered the Crash of "08 own some of what was everybody's - especially the middle class's - before they ran their long con. The executives and traders at Enron, the ones that were not indicted, still own quite a bit of many Californian's - especially the middle class's. The heirs of Sam Walton own a considerable chunk of what was formerly owned by the middle class residents of thousands of American towns - they didn't "earn" a penny of any of it. The Kennedys own much of the wealth produced by the same people who went to war overseas to fight the people their patriarch was supplying, often with the very war materials they had produced - again, middle class and working poor.

 

No, you haven't been paying attention: Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy were following your recommendation and your favor. They were removing government intervention in a market, and thereby solving not their own wealth problems but Kenneth Lay's, Lloyd Blankfein's, et el Likewise W&Co - they worked hard to get rid of government intervention in those markets. That's why you supported them, remember?

......

 

So? The fact remains: the wealthy in the US are steadily soaking up the assets of the country. Class based inequality in wealth and income is as high as it's ever been, and growing, mostly because additions to the national wealth are going almost entirely to the already wealthy. This has consequences - in every measure of wellbeing there is. The country becomes poorer, less free, less healthy, dirtier, weaker, less well educated, and more vulnerable in every way except one - we have lots of billionaires.

So maybe we can find some common ground in this. I told Popcorn "With regard to wealth redistribution please leave me out. I earned my money and it belongs to me." So if I'm one of those extremely rare members of the middle class who have somehow, against all odds, acquired a modicum of wealth through their own effort, then I and my wealth should be protected. I should be exempt from these government engineered wealth redistribution schemes. I should be considered the ideal goal of the US economic system. In order to preserve this rare example of what our economic system should be producing, I should be exempt from redistribution. Sure, I should continue to pay routine taxes like gas taxes, car tabs, property taxes, and such. Can't anger the fake Cherokee princess. (Now don't go hating now, I'm a registered member of the Cherokee Nation, I even have my card from the Department of the Interior.) I think we can all agree that whatever the government does, it should not damage the financial and economic ecosystem that produced such a fine specimen of the American middle class. Distributing my hard earned wealth would simply be immoral. It would only produce fewer middle class people. Keep tilting your jousting stick at the 1%. Let's see how far you get with that. Just don't redistribute what is mine and those like me.

 

Fair enough? I don't have a pension. I need my wealth for retirement. Also, I NEED and new boat. The boat sellers NEED me to buy that boat. Also in NEED are the boat makers and those that supply them with materials. Don't forget the NEED of outboard motor makers. They NEED me to by a new boat as much as the fishing tackle manufacturers do. Take my money and you screw all those NEEDy people. I'm sure some of them are in that rare middle class group with me. They must be protected as well. And what about those trying to reach the dizzying heights that I have reached. Don't want to discourage them. Like I sad, back off with trying to redistribute my wealth.

 

The Ku Klux Klan in its early days opposing Reconstruction was mostly Democratic affiliated, although even then in the northern States (such as Indiana in the 1920s) it had begun its transition to the more hospitable Republican Party that is its modern home (the Democratic Party was trending left and supporting civil rights and stuff like that, at the time, and the KKK has always been a rightwing capitalist authoritarian organization with strong ties to business leaders and the military).

 

Note that the future Tea Party folks were solidly Dem in reaction to Lincoln's ostensible Party affiliation, despite the Party affiliation many of the War supporters in the North and of President Andrew Johnson (who actually ran the Reconstruction, and less forgivingly than Lincoln seemed to favor), demonstrating that the current manifestations of mental acuity and political sophistication they display now have a long tradition.

 

Which brings us to 1968, and the consequences of Lyndon Johnson's great betrayal of the Tea folk - enforced civil rights for black people. The first of the Great Republican Disasters realizes that the Tea folk are unhappy with the Dems, and wins election by appealing to them with lies and innuendo - Nixon's famous Southern Strategy. The Republican candidate has won a majority of the white male vote between 35 and 65 in almost every Presidential election since, in just that way. The Republicans no longer have to put a Democratic VP on the ticket to get the Tea vote.

 

And in the times when that is enough, we get the kind of governance the old Confederacy first established:

 

The above is just slander. Nixon broke the solid racist Democrat South by encouraging Democrats, tired of their parties racism, to join Lincolns party of freedom. Democrats never complained about the congressional majorities that their racist party members gave them now did they? Instead they catered to their racism. Bad mouthing those Democrats with the courage to force change in this countries racist history by joining the Republican party is simply disgraceful.

Edited October 23, 2013 by waitforufo

[Popcorn Sutton]

I guess I must've been born at the wrong time. This country was founded on freedom and independence. I have neither and I'm in whats considered to be a good position in todays society. I have a degree and a clean record.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[waitforufo]

I'm rooting for you Popcorn. I'm just not going to give you any of my money. A degree and a clean record is a good start. Build from there. Get knocked on your ass? Well get back up. I have been knocked on my back side several times and always got back up. Now I'm doing fine. I'm just trying to stop the government from stealing redistributing the fruit of my labor. I know there are those that believe that any of the money I make and the government lets me keep is just a government subsidy, but those people are wrong.

 

Do you really want to live off the sweat of my brow? What gives a person that right?

 

I'm just curious. What is your degree and how old are you? A ballpark figure on your age would be fine.

Edited October 23, 2013 by waitforufo

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable with releasing my age. I have a bachelors degree in philosophy with a concentration in linguistics.

 

I'm just saying that when you look at the actual distribution of wealth, it's not fair to most of the people who are living in our system. If we distribute the wealth equally and annually, we would all be making $50,000/yr. I'm looking at getting a job for $30,000/yr if I get lucky. So if you look at it that way, anyone who is making over $50,000/yr is technically stealing money from other people.

I hate to put it that way, there should be at least some incentive for people to be productive, but the way it is right now is not fair.

[waitforufo]

Why would anyone be productive if they could receive 50 grand regardless?

 

Just curious if you know what typical people with your degree make. If you do, when did you find this out?

 

I don't know much about your degree field, but it doesn't sound like one that will ever produce high income. If you are struggling financially why choose a field that employs few and at low pay?

 

You have a degree in philosophy and yet you can claim that a person making 100 grand a year is stealing half of that from you? Based on what moral justification?

 

The reason I asked about your age is that young people always make less than older more experienced people. Lets say you get a job in linguistics fresh out of college. You really think you should start at $50k. You really think that someone working at the same company for 20 years should also be making $50k. If that is how you feel, you are living in a dream. Wake up.

[Iota]

Never going to happen in the US. Remember, we all have guns.

 

False sense of security.

[waitforufo]

Wow. A Brit that that thinks Americans shouldn't have guns. What a surprise.

[Phi for All]

It took quite a while for the 1% to redistribute the wealth in their favor. It's been happening all my life. You're never going to suddenly reverse that. You're never going to take it from those who have it unless you do it the way they did it, slowly but surely over time.

 

We're in dire straits because of wage disparity. When the US was really strong, our economy was driven by all the folks earning great money for hard work. They made good money and spent it while paying taxes on it all. The government had plenty of revenue. It was common back then that the top people at any corporation were making ten times what the average worker beneath them made, and that was fine and folks were happy and we were prosperous.

 

Now, those middle class wages have been trimmed down, benefits cut to the bone, so the top people can make two-hundred seventy-three times what the average worker makes. Those people at the top got Reagan and the Bush's to drop their tax liabilities, so now that money that used to sustain our economy and procure revenue for the government sits with the 1% where it's now being spent overseas to make them more tax-sheltered money they can keep out of the US economy.

 

Talking about redistributing the wealth plays right into their hands. Even I don't like the thought of giving Popcorn Sutton $50K a year just because he thinks that would be "fair". The 1% can easily make that seem like theft while what they did was simply "tightening the belt" or "downsizing to stay competitive" or "sharpening their pencils" or "cost-cutting", or any of the phrases that hide what they really did, which was robbing from the middle class to give to the 1%. The US will NOT come back as a prosperous country while so much of its wealth is concentrated in the hands of those who really aren't invested in seeing us all prosper.

[swansont]

 

Somehow in your lineage you forgot the Democratic party. You know the people whose actions lead to the death 2% of the US population in an effort to keep slaves. The party of sedition, jim crow, segregation, and the KKK. Please don't forget them in the future.

 

Last time you made a similar comment you passed it off as levity. Twice, though, and I don't think it is.

 

For a start, it's just mudslinging, which makes it a crappy argument for anything. Seeking to paint anyone by their association is dubious even before one gets into the details, but this goes even further. The implication that anyone alive today is responsible for the actions of their ancestors defies the laws of physics (causality and time travel and all that). Beyond this is the disingenuous notion that democrats today, rather than modern republicans, would somehow identify with the democrats of the civil war era. That's something that would earn a failing grade in even a high-school essay.

 

Maybe this sort of comment gets a good response when you're preaching to the choir, but if you go down that road, do you really want to answer for all the awful things done by people with whatever lineage you possess?

It took quite a while for the 1% to redistribute the wealth in their favor. It's been happening all my life. You're never going to suddenly reverse that. You're never going to take it from those who have it unless you do it the way they did it, slowly but surely over time.

 

We're in dire straits because of wage disparity. When the US was really strong, our economy was driven by all the folks earning great money for hard work. They made good money and spent it while paying taxes on it all. The government had plenty of revenue. It was common back then that the top people at any corporation were making ten times what the average worker beneath them made, and that was fine and folks were happy and we were prosperous.

 

 

Yes.

 

Any dialog along the lines of "they earned it, they deserve to keep it" ignores the fact that they have skewed the rules in their favor, and are quite the bunch of socialists when it suits them — they love corporate welfare and other programs to funnel government money to their pals

[Iota]

Wow. A Brit that that thinks Americans shouldn't have guns. What a surprise.

 

Whether or not Americans choose to have guns doesn't interest me a great deal, because I know I'm not a national. Though I think it has little to do with the fact I'm a Brit that when I see a news report on another mass school shooting every other month in America I feel a certain way about that. I just find the notion that guns are defending you from any form of oppressive government ludicrous.

[overtone]

 

 

So if I'm one of those extremely rare members of the middle class who have somehow, against all odds, acquired a modicum of wealth through their own effort, then I and my wealth should be protected.

We've been trying. We've been trying really hard, we libertarian lefties and actual liberals. But we can't get the white men between 35 and 65 to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

At some point, we look at you guys voting for Palin, voting for W, voting for Dole, voting for Reagan, voting to get themselves and everything they care about boned hard by sociopaths and robbed blind by professionals and perverted by religious fanatics and covered with poo by incompetent children, and we throw up our hands.

 

 

I think we can all agree that whatever the government does, it should not damage the financial and economic ecosystem that produced such a fine specimen of the American middle class.

So you would join me in returning to the pre-Reagan setup? That was the system that produced what middle class we have left. You don't seem to favor it, though

 

On the one hand, you guys say perfectly reasonable things about protecting successful arrangements that have worked for decades. On the other, you vote for - in sequence, repeatedly, over many years, after seeing the destruction right in front of your eyes: Reagan/Bush, Reagan/Bush, Bush/ Quayle, Bush/Quayle, Dole/Kemp, W/Cheney, W/Cheney, McCain/Palin, and Romney/ Ryan. So: WTF?

 

Sounds like common ground, if all there was to go on was the talk: - the first step would be revocation of all the tax breaks and financial corruptions Reagan and his subsequent followers handed out to the wealthy, and a return to the systematic regulation of the financial system that Roosevelt imposed (for very good reasons) in the wake of the previous Republican crashing of the US economy. I would look forward to your support, in these restorations of sane government, if I didn't have the record of behavior in front of me.

 

You don't give a dead rat for the social, political, and financial "ecosystem" that provided you opportunities unique in human history. You just vote for the most plausible jackass who promises to lower your taxes.

[Phi for All]

Somehow in your lineage you forgot the Democratic party. You know the people whose actions lead to the death 2% of the US population in an effort to keep slaves. The party of sedition, jim crow, segregation, and the KKK. Please don't forget them in the future.

Wow. A Brit that that thinks Americans shouldn't have guns. What a surprise.

 

This could actually be a good discussion if you could please curb your stereotyping by a few orders of magnitude. I don't think these groups deserve your blanket condemnation, especially given that this is, what, 2013?

I just find the notion that guns are defending you from any form of oppressive government ludicrous.

 

Oh, that's just magical misdirection. If you have enough money to buy legislation, you can afford to let the People think their assault rifles will protect them from "the government" (which, ironically, is supposed to be the People). It's much more likely that those freedom-loving, arms-bearing patriots will quickly become "armed domestic terrorists" if they ever cross the 1% who control the real weapons.

I know there are those that believe that any of the money I make and the government lets me keep is just a government subsidy, but those people are wrong.

 

Until one of them shows up and offers that argument, would you mind not trying to use it to refute what's actually been said?

 

 

 

I've been dying to ask you, waitforufo, what you thought of Eisenhower. We know you liked Reagan, but what's wrong with Ike, other than the fact that he's dead and only a few national level Republican politicians seem to remember him?

[Iota]

Oh, that's just magical misdirection. If you have enough money to buy legislation, you can afford to let the People think their assault rifles will protect them from "the government" (which, ironically, is supposed to be the People). It's much more likely that those freedom-loving, arms-bearing patriots will quickly become "armed domestic terrorists" if they ever cross the 1% who control the real weapons.

 

My thoughts exactly.