Given the choice, I'm siding with the guys who give a damn about the well-being of the less fortunate. You should, too.
Be a better human being.
I am a better human being. I just expect others to be better, too. There are far too many people worthy of mentoring to waste time with those who repeatedly achieve mediocre results and expect kudos and accolades.
Citation Needed.
You know, political threads are volatile enough without wandering all over the map in terms of what is actually being discussed.
Keep this thread on topic, please. If you want to discuss some other topic, create a thread for it.
Actually, first ask yourself if a gaming website is best venue for such a discussion.
Political discussions are often like that, using other topics kinda relevant to the topic at hand to make points. Especially here.
I think its sad that the political discussion here is more informed, fair minded, and reasonable than the news networks, or congress.
I think its sad that the political discussion here is more informed, fair minded, and reasonable than the news networks, or congress.
Eh. We police ourselves. When shouts too loud or doesn't play fair, we let them know what we think of them.
Yes. What I'm saying is that all, or a good deal, of the core political ideologies stem from that dichotomy. Who scares you more? Can you give me examples that can't be explained by this observation?I think this highlights the only real difference between the two parties, at least in terms of core ideologies.There are tremendous differences beyond that, and it's a little ridiculous to claim otherwise.
Go get your average politically-active Democratic party member and your average politically-active Republican party member, and start asking them questions. The answers you get will be wildly different.
I think that it's deeper than that. I think that, first, we're better off discussing ideological differences in terms of liberalism/progressiveness versus conservatism/traditionalism instead of Republican versus Democrat. Second, I think that progressives have a fundamental belief in the ability of man to be good, and an optimistic outlook on the world. I think that conservatives have a fundamental distrust of others, along with a pessimistic view of the world around them. Progressives embrace knowledge and the spread of ideas. Conservatives shun them. And these aren't hunches; studies have long supported some really startling fundamental differences between conservatives and progressives.
Given the choice, I'm siding with the guys who give a damn about the well-being of the less fortunate. You should, too.
Be a better human being.
I am a better human being. I just expect others to be better, too. There are far too many people worthy of mentoring to waste time with those who repeatedly achieve mediocre results and expect kudos and accolades.
No one is asking for or suggesting kudos or accolades. What people are asking for is the help they need to reach their potential. Your resistance to this speaks miles.
And I am speaking about the total budget- including social security, medicare, and medicaid. We have built a system which promises more than we are capable of delivering.
That's not true. We're more than capable of delivering on our promises, and then some. We just have to reconfigure our priorities. As many have suggested, even fairly moderate cuts in military spending put us on very solid financial ground.
And, really, get out of the way. The Democratic party has had plans on the table for years to get the country on track, and the Republican party resists every single opportunity to make progress. If you're being honest, and you really want to see us able to fulfill our promises, then stop being part of the problem - stop supporting the people who are doing every single thing they possibly can to make sure that nothing gets accomplished over the next five years.
There is no lockbox or totally seperate fund for these benefits. Social security is now being funded through the natins general budget;
This is news to me. Please cite?
First Question
Seriously. Simple internet search took .16 seconds.
Now, since congress can't spend money in the Social Security Trust, Social Security funds are not discretionary funds.
So, would you like to amend your statements?
I think that it's deeper than that. I think that, first, we're better off discussing ideological differences in terms of liberalism/progressiveness versus conservatism/traditionalism instead of Republican versus Democrat. Second, I think that progressives have a fundamental belief in the ability of man to be good, and an optimistic outlook on the world. I think that conservatives have a fundamental distrust of others, along with a pessimistic view of the world around them. Progressives embrace knowledge and the spread of ideas. Conservatives shun them. And these aren't hunches; studies have long supported some really startling fundamental differences between conservatives and progressives.
Except there are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. And social liberals and fiscal liberals. I consider myself to be socially very liberal, and I frankly don't comprehend anyone being otherwise. I'd consider myself to be fiscally moderate; I think we should cut the budget except for what I call the core 5- 1)Roads 2)Universal healthcare 3)Education 4)Environmental protection 5)Defense. The argument ends up being where that money should come from, state or federal.
But I digress. I think you're not only oversimplifying things but painting conservatives as a whole in an unfair light. It's not my job to defend them, however, so I'll leave the shredding to someone more capable.
I think some of these determinations you make are wrong as well. Conservatives embrace knowledge and spread ideas--just not my ideas. Heck they may not be even factual, but they're ideas, and they spread them with alacrity!
I think some conservatives, like libertarians, don't have the fundamental distrust of others, just of the government. They think people are swell and left to their own devices it'll all be A-OK, which I totally disagree with.
Again, conservatives don't seem to inherently distrust the actions of businesses or corporations, but rather governmental regulatory bodies. At least nowadays.
There is no lockbox or totally seperate fund for these benefits. Social security is now being funded through the natins general budget;This is news to me. Please cite?
[http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html]First Question[/url]
Seriously. Simple internet search took .16 seconds.Now, since congress can't spend money in the Social Security Trust, Social Security funds are not discretionary funds.
So, would you like to amend your statements?
The real question isn't why Martin Kauffman said something that wasn't true. We know why: he was told it by someone else, and he trusted them.
The real question is why Martin Kauffman will continue to trust the sources that spread those lies, and will refuse to question why he is being lied to by those he trusts.
But I digress. I think you're not only oversimplifying things but painting conservatives as a whole in an unfair light.
I don't think that I am. I think conservative ideology deserves much more flak than it's getting. It's a dinosaur's school of thought, and it's rotting away.
I think some of these determinations you make are wrong as well. Conservatives embrace knowledge and spread ideas--just not my ideas. Heck they may not be even factual, but they're ideas, and they spread them with alacrity!
The like to spread particular ideas. They don't like the spread of ideas in general. That's a truly fundamental difference.
I think some conservatives, like libertarians, don't have the fundamental distrust of others, just of the government. They think people are swell and left to their own devices it'll all be A-OK, which I totally disagree with.
Libertarians are what I'd term True Conservatives, which are a lot less offensive than modern conservatism. I'd be a lot less up-in-arms if the Republican party were made up of nothing but libertarians, but it's not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Libertarians are what I'd term True Conservatives, which are a lot less offensive than modern conservatism. I'd be a lot less up-in-arms if the Republican party were made up of nothing but libertarians, but it's not.
This is what I'm getting at though. That's why I don't say that I hate conservatism, only the current incarnation of the Republican party. You just said don't let's talk about Rep/Dem, but prog/conservative. But true conservatives don't irk me.
Scott- I, as well, believe that liberals/progressives have a higher belief in the potential goodness of man than do conservatives. We disagree in that I think that the progressive view is much more unrealistic than the conservative one. I also believe that it doesnt take too many rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel. Those countries which have adopted the perfectability of man/society view have tended to skew towards totalitarianisms- whether they be communistic, national socialist or forms of religious dictatorships. All seek to perfect/remake man in their own ideal image: and to subject those who differ to harsh punishment. The framers of our Constitution were very wise in my opinion to recognize the inherent fallability of man and to build many checks and balances into our governmental system so as to hopefully avoid or lessen the pitfalls of mans fallability.
So you must agree that the corporate culture in America has to die a painful and swift death, right? I mean, it allows--NAY REQUIRES-- the worst sociopaths to rise to the top. Surely that's not what we want.
We disagree in that I think that the progressive view is much more unrealistic than the conservative one.
I don't give a damn about what is considered realistic. No one ever got anywhere new by conforming to what was commonly thought of as realistic. Progressive thought is defined by asking yourself what the world you want looks like, and then coming up with a course of action to get it there.
I also believe that it doesnt take too many rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel. Those countries which have adopted the perfectability of man/society view have tended to skew towards totalitarianisms- whether they be communistic, national socialist or forms of religious dictatorships.
If the modern conservative movement has its way, America would be a religious dictatorship. We just watched a state vote to deprive its citizens of civil rights for the sake of a religious agenda all of one week ago. We're trying to stop that nonsense.
Again, please, get out of the way.
Libertarians are what I'd term True Conservatives, which are a lot less offensive than modern conservatism. I'd be a lot less up-in-arms if the Republican party were made up of nothing but libertarians, but it's not.This is what I'm getting at though. That's why I don't say that I hate conservatism, only the current incarnation of the Republican party. You just said don't let's talk about Rep/Dem, but prog/conservative. But true conservatives don't irk me.
Fair enough. I disagree with them, but they're not the festering sore on the country's political conscience that the Republican party is.
I do recognize that corporations fulfill a necessary economic need and function; but that no entity should be completely unregulated. And, since man is fallable, a small number of sociopaths will always exist in all areas.
Yeah, and when those sociopaths run corporations, as they currently do, they have power over the masses that is unchecked by those masses. Unlike government.
This has essentialy co-mingled the regular budget and social security for many decades in the past under both democratic and republican administrations.
It really doesn't comingle anything.
If you bought me lunch, and I scribbled out an IOU (regardless of my intention or a timetable of paying it back) it doesn't mean that our checking accounts are comingled. Make sense.The rest of the stuff is Cato institute garbage. If we taxe ALL income as social security income it would be solvent in perpetuity. Why the crap do rich people get out of paying?
I have a hard time defending social security because I don't feel like I'm likely to see any of that money. But let's be honest about our facts, shall we? The SS trust, by conservative estimates, will be solvent until at least 2037, at which point it will pay out 76% from annual SS taxes.
If you want to talk about drawing down prematurely, as to play it safe, I'm happy to hear it. What I don't want to talk about is getting rid of social security altogether, since we can't, nor should we. Furthermore, if we were to reduce benefits now would REALLY not be the time. Wait until at least 2020.
Just remember that the money multiplier effect works in reverse as well!
We disagree in that I think that the progressive view is much more unrealistic than the conservative one.I don't give a damn about what is considered realistic. No one ever got anywhere new by conforming to what was commonly thought of as realistic. Progressive thought is defined by asking yourself what the world you want looks like, and then coming up with a course of action to get it there.
I also believe that it doesnt take too many rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel. Those countries which have adopted the perfectability of man/society view have tended to skew towards totalitarianisms- whether they be communistic, national socialist or forms of religious dictatorships.If the modern conservative movement has its way, America would be a religious dictatorship. We just watched a state vote to deprive its citizens of civil rights for the sake of a religious agenda all of one week ago. We're trying to stop that nonsense.
Again, please, get out of the way.
Thats the problem, you don't care about realistic. After all its the tax dollars of the American citizen, the productive Americans, hard working business owners who are fattening the pockets of the entitlement masses and the bureacrats.
I'm with Kauffman on your religious dictatorship scare tactic. I'm also with Kauffman shoulder to shoulder on your "get out of the way" comment. I think you should know that I checked behind the DM's screen and you rolled a 1 on that intimidation check.
Anti gay marriage does not mean anti gay. Your being demogogic.
I really want to stay away from your comment b/c your hijacking this thread and its going nicely, but I just can't.
There are far more conservative gays than you think, or gay activist think. Its the gay left that tells gays to think like a leftist.
You, Democrats and others on the left are engaging in smears when they accuse conservatives and Republicans of being anti-woman, anti-minority, and anti-gay.
Thats the problem, you don't care about realistic. After all its the tax dollars of the American citizen, the productive Americans, hard working business owners who are fattening the pockets of the entitlement masses and the bureacrats.
That explains why the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer...oh wait. Sorry your hypothesis has been refuted.
The conservative mind boggles me. You have this self-determined narrative that it's this mass of lazy so and sos leeching off your hard earned money, and they need to be weened. So you only look for things that fit your narrative. When you utterly fail to find any facts or data that support it, because they don't exist, you either make some up (Cato institute, et al.) or just put your fingers in your ears.
You use the word "entitlement" like it's dirty. You equate it to the term entitled, like oh that entitled little brat. Except these entitlements? Those people are ACTUALLY entitled to them. They paid into social security, and medicare, and medicaid, and their employer paid into UI, and they're entitled to payouts.
Real per capita income has been trending down. Especially in the bottom 2 quintiles The household income statistics are a non sequitur because less and less households have a single earner. Productivity is up, pay is down. The culprit? Greed.
If you want to talk about realistic, it's unrealistic that we'll ever win a war on an emotion (terror) or on an everyday part of most peoples' lives (drugs) so we should stop that since it's very expensive and doesn't get us anywhere.
|
I'm retired; and my income is my own private business. Suffice it to say i'm far from wealthy. But I am concerned when proponents of big government and high and ever increasing taxes continue to pile up deficits which can only lead to economic ruin. Why is it that big government proponents hardly ever look towards cutting costs rather than spending more and more.
I'm guessing you refuse your Medicare and Social Security?
And what was your business?
|
|
In fact, government spending on social programs far exceeds military spending. Obamacare deficits are estimated by Obama's administration to add an additional trillion dollars to the deficit; and this includes some very tricky accounting, since some of its income is backloaded and many of its expenses do not incur during the period in which initial additional income is counted. I am not arguing against all military cuts- everyone needs to sacrifice if the nation is to weather the coming storm.
Yes, those social programs being Social Security and Medicare, which I'm guessing you aren't turning down at this point.
Let's say you pay 1000 dollars in federal taxes..
Of that about 270 goes to the military,Military $270.00, including about $6.83 for Nuclear Weapons.
Medicare and Health would be $214.0o, including a whopping $0.01 for Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program
Social Security,
Unemployment and Labor is about $122.00, including $5.93 for TANF (Welfare)
General Government expenses would be about $45.00 Including $0.31 for Postal Service
Veterans Benefits are about $44.00 Including $3.66 for Education, Training, and Rehab for Veterans.
Food and Agriculture is about 43.00, which includes $26.89 for SNAP (Food Stamps)
Housing and Community is $39.00 which includes $3.52 for Disaster Relief
Education is $25.00 which Includes $0.15 for Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Energy and Environment is $19.00 which Includes $2.33 for Energy Conservation
Transportation is $13.00 is which includes $0.11 for High Speed Rail
International Affairs is $12.00 which includes $0.10 for Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Thats the problem, you don't care about realistic. After all its the tax dollars of the American citizen, the productive Americans, hard working business owners who are fattening the pockets of the entitlement masses and the bureacrats.That explains why the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer...oh wait. Sorry your hypothesis has been refuted.
The conservative mind boggles me. You have this self-determined narrative that it's this mass of lazy so and sos leeching off your hard earned money, and they need to be weened. So you only look for things that fit your narrative. When you utterly fail to find any facts or data that support it, because they don't exist, you either make some up (Cato institute, et al.) or just put your fingers in your ears.
You use the word "entitlement" like it's dirty. You equate it to the term entitled, like oh that entitled little brat. Except these entitlements? Those people are ACTUALLY entitled to them. They paid into social security, and medicare, and medicaid, and their employer paid into UI, and they're entitled to payouts.
Real per capita income has been trending down. Especially in the bottom 2 quintiles The household income statistics are a non sequitur because less and less households have a single earner. Productivity is up, pay is down. The culprit? Greed.
If you want to talk about realistic, it's unrealistic that we'll ever win a war on an emotion (terror) or on an everyday part of most peoples' lives (drugs) so we should stop that since it's very expensive and doesn't get us anywhere.
I'm not talking about social security (going to be broke sooner than expected) or any of the other federally mismanaged programs. People paid into it and they should recieve the benefits but its Broke!
Nearly one in six Americans depending on federal money through the food stamps program, while costs of the giveaway more than doubled in the last four years. In part, that’s because the Obama administration loosened restrictions and boosted benefits as part of its so called “stimulus” package.
Yeah I want to talk realistic. To win the war on terror we should stop being politically correct and start calling out who the enemy is. We all know who they are, we all know the profile. As far as the drug war goes I do not believe its an everyday part of "most" peoples' lives. We should all blame 40 years of 'if it feels good do it.' Not to mention poor parenting and lax law enforcement.
I also find that there is a direct correlation between illegal drug trafficking and illegal immigration. IMO.
|
|
@Aretas
Where do you find this correlation? Can you link to your findings? Or is it a feeling in your gut?
As noted about, food stamps are maybe 2.7% of the budget, or about 27 dollars a year if you pay 1000 dollars in taxes.
It is also money that is immediately spend in American stores, unlike defense spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.
@Aretas
Where do you find this correlation? Can you link to your findings? Or is it a feeling in your gut?
As noted about, food stamps are maybe 2.7% of the budget, or about 27 dollars a year if you pay 1000 dollars in taxes.
It is also money that is immediately spend in American stores, unlike defense spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'll research it but its my gut feeling (IMO).
Yes it is spent in American stores. I do not see food stamps helping Americans reach financial independence. I see that they are becoming more dependant. I also read somewhere that depending what state your looking at $3-6 dollars out of $100 are distributed to individuals that are not eligible. Its somewhere over 2 billion per year based on 60 billion in total payouts +/-.
Defense spending on the other hand allows us to sleep well at night b/c some men are doing things we don't have the stones to do. ;)
On topic, don't forget those dollars go to the pockets of many Americans in various industries involved with the military. Tax paying Americans.
Also, isn't defense spending 18%?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obama has done a mediocre job applying 'democrat' economic principles and been further hampered by the fact that a majority of the states have Republican governors and/or legislatures applying reverse principals.
However, the fact that the US government went with stimulus (i.e. increased spending) and their economy improved while Europe went with austerity (i.e. spending cuts) and their economy worsened should really be all anybody needs to know.
You do not cut government spending in a recession. Individuals and businesses typically cut back on spending during recessions because they are concerned about their economic prospects. This is a logical decision for EACH of them, but exactly the wrong thing to do en masse. If everyone is cutting back on spending then earnings go down commensurately... people cannot earn more money than other people spend. Most people won't accept a pay cut, especially during a recession, so the usual way to respond to decreased income is... layoffs. Which means people are out of work and therefor spending less... which means less earnings for others. Et cetera. Basically, when everyone cuts back out of concern that the economy may get worse... they make the economy worse. Unfortunately, there is no magical way to get a majority of individuals and businesses to stop being concerned about the economy and start spending again all at the same time. They will generally only do so when they believe the economy is healthy. However, there is the federal government... a single 'entity' with massive financial power which CAN decide to spend to offset the caution being displayed by everyone else.
It is basic logic... less spending = less earning = higher unemployment. All inescapably true... and yet directly at odds with 'republican' economic policy / European 'austerity'. I find it maddening that so many political 'leaders' argue for economic policies which defy logic... even as history proves them wrong over and over and over again. The Europeans are starting to get the message and voting the austerity parties out, but in the US there is a real danger of a GOP win and changeover to economic insanity.
No one is asking for or suggesting kudos or accolades. What people are asking for is the help they need to reach their potential. Your resistance to this speaks miles.
No, they're demanding that which the successful have earned.
There are plenty of people who humbly ask for help. There are far more who demand it, and there are lots of people who enjoy commandeering the fruits of others labor in order to fulfill some codependent need to "do something."
P-BO is one of those people. He has never had to make payroll, but presupposes to know what's best for business. His experience in the "real world" is basically nonexistent, but he informs us that higher expenses on businesses and individuals leads to economic success. He can't quote biblical sources, but says we should be our brother's keeper (for the ignorant, that was Cain's excuse when God asked him where his brother was). He doesn't understand how the energy markets work, but blames "speculators" for driving up the price of energy (no, they don't). All in the name of "doing something."
If he really wanted to do something, he'd let the successful people do what they do best, which is succeed.
His experience in the "real world" is basically nonexistent
That's kind of a ridiculous thing to say. Obama has more than a decade of private firm experience. He's got plenty of "real world" experience, unless "real world" experience actually means experience running a private, for-profit business. In which case very few of us have any "real world" experience; so few, in fact, that it probably shouldn't be called "real world".
If he really wanted to do something, he'd let the successful people do what they do best, which is succeed.
Successful people have been doing a bang-up job of succeeding for the past five years. Man, that sure went well for us!
Thats the problem, you don't care about realistic. After all its the tax dollars of the American citizen, the productive Americans, hard working business owners who are fattening the pockets of the entitlement masses and the bureacrats.
And if I were not one of those productive Americans, that would be one thing.
I'm with Kauffman on your religious dictatorship scare tactic. I'm also with Kauffman shoulder to shoulder on your "get out of the way" comment. I think you should know that I checked behind the DM's screen and you rolled a 1 on that intimidation check.
That wasn't intimidation. That was a suggestion, or fair warning, depending on what you want to do about it.
Anti gay marriage does not mean anti gay.
Yes it does. By the way, the courts agree. If you are against gay marriage, you're a bigot. We know this. You know this. Everyone knows this. And, for whatever reason, you're still trying to deny it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was just wondering, Doug's Workshop, which "gimme class" you were referring to: the one that lines up, a million strong, for shiznitty jobs at McDonald's? Or the ones who tank the economy, get bailed out by the gov't and give themselves million dollar bonuses?
Most of you probably already know, but for those who don't: I work part-time loading trucks at UPS which, historically, has been the quintessential job for college students. Except that I'd wager less than 10% of the new hires we get are college students. Most of them are men and women in their 40s+. Life sucks, I know, but there is nothing more depressing than schlepping 70+ lb. packages with a 50-year-old man who got laid off from a lucrative gig in electronics, or whatever, spent a year and a half looking for a job and then ended up working with us lazy, shiftless Teamsters for a fraction of what they used to make. EDIT: Hyperbole alert! There are more depressing things.
The welfare state is a poor substitute for full employment, I'm pretty sure everyone would agree. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any capitalist society that has ever achieved full employment. If you'd like everybody to labor for their livelihood, perhaps you'd consider joining me in international proletarian socialist revolution? (Hee hee! I can't believe this thread has gone 275+ posts without me saying that! In yo' face, Citizen Meatrace!)
Also, I hate to be pedantic, but Cain didn't use being his brother's keeper as an excuse. When God asked him where Abel was he replied "Am I my brother's keeper?" which is Biblical for "how the f%~& should I know?"
And, finally, before I forget: Obama sucks.
If you want to see the benefits of being successful, you've got to put in the energy to make the right decisions and learn from the poor ones. The successful do not have a duty to "share" their success with you. You want success? It's not hard to find. Looks a lot like hard work.
"People who are unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity, no matter how impressive their other talents."
Since Andrew Carnegie uttered those words, we've had a century of data proving them to be true.
But somehow, "this time" things will be different. "This time" we can prop the mediocre on the backs of the successful and it'll be different. How about "no." If you would like to try to haul around someone who can't motivate himself, feel free. I'll stick with the people who want to do the hard work necessary to improve their lives.
Comrade, yes, I'm aware of what Cain said. Obama said his view was that we are our brother's keeper. Thus the misrepresentation of biblical principles.
And no society, capitalist or otherwise, ever reaches 0% unemployment. Not even your Proletariotized world. "Full Employment" still means somewhere between 3-4% unemployment. There are always people who can't work for one reason or another, whether infirm, elderly, or manufacturing excuses why their ability isn't as great as their neighbor's.
While I appreciate your inviation to join your proletariot revolution, I much prefer "From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability." I don't agree with your beliefs, but at least you're honest about them.
Regarding oil: I see lots of links to editorial and opinion pieces about how speculators supposedly drive up the price of oil, but no real facts. In fact, the CNN.Money article states "While the CFTC does periodically find isolated examples of speculator wrong doing, previous CFTC investigations have found no evidence that oil speculators are artificially driving up the price of oil over the long term." Even the article itself mentioned that there was no impact to oil prices. Speculators end up regulating the price of oil, because some bet that the price goes up, and some bet the price goes down. Surprise, if all they do is bet the price goes up, not a single speculator makes any money. There are speculators in the stock market, too, but I don't see anyone claiming they drive up stock prices.
Have a great day. Gotta go be successful now.
Pfft. I finished succeeding at 9 this morning. You should get up earlier.
As a conservative (fiscal), all I want to see is everyone have the shot to be rich themsleves. That's what I believe is the spirit behind the conservative core values. It may not be practiced today, by anyone in the Republican Party, but that's why I identify myself as such.
I'm not upset with welfare programs or food stamp programs. We are a wealthy nation. We should help each other out. I don't think the gov't should be in the charity business, but it's there and it's seen.
I would like the system better, if folks used it to get a hand up, then did for themselves, and put back into the sytem for others. Conservative to me also means temperance. Let's not dive into more and more federal programs before making sure it's money well spent, that the value meets the obligation. Compassion dictates that we help the less fortunate, but it also dictates we don't let them stay less fortunate.
Right now, the attitude seem to be (Scott probably disagrees) that it's better for everyone to lower to a mean income, than try to get everyone up above middle class income. The capitalist in me says horseshit, lets make everyone rich, distribute the American dream equally. Constantly paying for someone to remain on the dole indefinately will not accomplish this.
How do we do this?
The capitalist in me says h~%~%*&~~,
I can't, for the life of me, figure out what that is.
The closest we've ever come was the years between WW2 and the '80s. What we built that on was unions, relatively high minimum wages, and high marginal taxes to keep wealth from accumulating at the top.
Please don't forget imperialist exploitation of the Third World, Comrade Jeff. That helped quite a bit, too.
Hellzapoppin? Nope.
Hallellujah? Nope.
Higgildy Piggildy? Nope.
I give up.
[Recognition dawns]
Oh. Hee hee!
Sure. But I don't think that America's relative slippage from undisputed world master and the growth of domestic income disparity are a coincidence. Do you?
EDIT: Changed a word.