1,900 Year Old Wisdom: "An Imbalance Between Rich and Poor Is the Oldest and Most Fatal Ailment of all Republics"

So what is your solution to this inequality problem?

Examine history to see when the most Americans prospered the most, generally recognized as 1960-1990 when tax rates on the wealthy were a lot higher than now and there were some trade barriers keeping most of our jobs and middle class wealth circulating through the system efficiently.

Almost anyone who examines our current setup can see the root of today's poor economy is the rich taking every bit of gain for 30 years and hoarding it - basically taking money out of the economy altogether and racheting up the cost of everything from food to housing to education for everyone else.

Independent at #2.1 -- Put corporate thieves in jail; enforce anti-trust regulations; stop allowing American companies to get tax breaks for taking jobs overseas; tax the wealthy and make them pay their fair share; throw out the current tax code, and don't allow any favored tax loopholes that favor one company over another; sign the Dylan Ratigan call for a constitution amendment getting big bucks our of elections; NEVER vote republican again. Insist on a two party system of conservative democrats (for the people) and progressive democrats (really for the people). Eschew corporations who are ripping people off by ursuping their rights as citizens, such as the Koch brothers and News Corp. Establish a fund to reconstruct the crumlbing infrastructure of the USA -- and insist that only US residents can work on them; enforce laws disallowing interlocking boards of directors; change the rules regarding investing-- "betting"-- on commodities which enrich gamblers at the expense of consumer. Well -- that's a start.

The heart and soul of liberalism is economic egalitarianism.

Wow! Two dirty words in a single sentence! I'm shocked....But I don't suppose you bothered to read my post. By the way, suggest you change your "Independent voter" moniker -- you are a republican. I don't blame you for not wanting to go public, but we already know.

By the way, suggest you change your "Independent voter" moniker -- you are a republican

I believe I asked this very same individual in what way was he "independent" since all he ever does is regurgitate GOP talking points.

I'm pretty sure I got crickets.

It's a rebublicn teapot with a chamber of commerce logo on it's out sides. Odds are you turn it bottom up pouring the sour social coservative pew monkees piss out of it and look inside and you find some cults culture war flag embalmed with a blazing cross and shield.

We need a reformed Capitalism. One that puts America and its freedoms before profits so we will never lose America.

Let the Fascists who are anti-people take their money and run. Pure Capitalism is pure greed. That is what we have going on in America.

So what is your solution to this inequality problem?

Raise the top rate to 75%. Increase corporate taxes or eliminate all the loopholes - I don't care which. Raise capital gains taxes to the same rate as income. There- problem solved. After the damn debt is paid down, we can continue to invest in America's infrastructure or educate the citizens. Stop wasting money on military crap for our Empire.

Pretty much the opposite of anything a republican has proposed over the past 40 years would fix the problem.

When the financial elite have free time and money, they will gamble it and find ways to screw the rest of the population over. Some of us have been saying the warnings for decades now, and every year the problem gets worse. Go ahead and keep voting GOP - when America's water is privatized and nobody can afford it, do you think America will have Bolivian style riots in the streets or will the sheep meekly go along with it because Fox has brainwashed them all to accept the idea they are losers? Maybe your military will give you comfort when you are driving your beater to work on gravel roads to work your third job to pay for food while the rest of the world travels to work on a high speed train...

Like the 1% are going to give a @!$%# - they'll just move on to the next host after they are done sucking the life out of this country.

So what is your solution to this inequality problem?

There is no solution. The closest we have come is socialism and theyn we still have rich and poor. As long as we have this inequality people will work to achieve the status of rich. Why should the slacker have the same as the over achiever? Everything would be for nothing. Who would get an education if there was no reward? Rome fell because there was a change toward equality.

Who would get an education if there was no reward?

7000 drop out of high school every school day, at an average lifetime cost to the taxpayer of ~$500k each. If entitlement programs will keep them surviving, why should they get an education?

Why should the slacker have the same as the over achiever?

I'm sure the slacker will argue they should, as well as the democrat. You would think with the taxpayers paying over $40 million a DAY in child birth costs alone, they would expect more out of the offspring of these parents. The question is...how do you separate the truly needy from the truly greedy & lazy.

Nick46

Rome fell because there was a change toward equality.

HUH?

I think I need to ask for some substantiation for THAT claim. Is that a Glenn Beck hairball? Or just some more of that Republican "New History"?

Rorschach you may find trying to reach out a bit more will help the discussion. These types of responses are what our Nation's capital feeds on. Thanks.

I think I need to ask for some substantiation for THAT claim. Is that a Glenn Beck hairball? Or just some more of that Republican "New History"?

Some people get confused. He thought that he was entitled to his own opinions AND his own facts.

Confer

Well when you post absolute garbage and no link to back of your claims. The Roman Empire fell for a varity of reasons, none of them related to a change toward equality.

1) The Roman Empire became to big and unweildy to rule over.

2) Soldiers and their family's in the far eraches of the Empire took on the customs of the people's they were living with.

3) Constantine established religious toleration in the Roman Empire, he took upon himself the title of Pontiff. Over time, Church leaders became influential and took away power from the emperor. Christian beliefs conflicted with the workings of the empire.

4) Finally in the year 476, the Empire was spread so thin, that the Germanic Odoacer deposed the last Roman emperor to rule the western part of the Roman Empire. Thus started the complete decline of the Roman Empire.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romefallarticles/a/fallofrome.htm

5) There is also a sound theory that lead poisoning was an affliction of the elite and the rulers of Rome, since they had the means to afford plumbing in their homes but the pipes were made of lead. They also stored their wine in lead vessels.

http://sonic.net/kryptox/environ/lead/romans.htm

Perhaps in the early republic -- but Rome was nothing but graft later on.

Putting politicians to death...
Interesting, very interesting.

How about we have a second vote. A year or so after they leave office, which should be after some term limit, and after a good thorough accounting report, we vote to see if they should be hung or not?

3.3 Grinch style grin slowly moves across face.

we vote to see if they should be hung or not?

Not!!!! At first I thought that said "hung or shot."

Perhaps in the early republic -- but Rome was nothing but graft later on.

you mean when it became the "Holy" Roman Empire?

Well, the Holy Roman Empire was not really connected to Rome in any significant way other than political posturing between the ruler and the Pope in Rome. It was actually a German empire for the most part.

It wasn't vice that brought Rome down, it was avarice.

It wasn't vice that brought Rome down, it was avarice.

And chemistry. Lead poisoning of the ruling class was a major contributor.

So, faulty infrastructure as well...

I thought lead poisoning killed slow drawing cowboys.

Here Lies Lester Moore

4 Shots From a .44

No Less No More

From a gravestone out west.

Apoligies to ALL SERIOUS POSTERS

Energy? Not quite. But I would agree we face that problem and need to fix it -- without destroying our air and water. For one, Rome forgot one of it's major principles -- they always offered the people they conquered jobs in their army -- it kept their numbers up without a draft of Roman citizens. In the latter Barbarian invasions, so many crossed the Rhine that the Romans couldn't deal with them, and they were not absorbed into the army -- or the culture. They turned into bands of marauders who terrorized the countryside, ensuring Rome was unable to defend itself when more bands of Barbarians poured into the city. Most of these had previously been at peace with Rome -- but another new group of barbarians was threatening them. They turned into marauders so they could eat. Once upon a time, during the Republic, soldiers were citizens, and were rewarded with land after they mustered out. This built a middle class -- but soon only nobles were in the army, and once they snapped up all the land, they went to a slave class for their army. Not a good idea, as time proved.

One major reason Rome fell is that Rome simply didn't have the manpower to guard their extensive territory, plus there were huge and long-term divisions between the eastern and western divisions. (There were 3 slaves for every free man at the time of Jesus).

It seems to me that you are equating "energy" with "slaves" and saying their was a "slave" shortage- - True. But that's what happens when you have a reliance on slave labor -- nobody wants to work! This is part of the outcome resulting from the huge income disparity in the Roman Empire.

In the end they offered jobs in their armies and Rome put them in special units that were basically cannon fodder. They used these units as front line troops, mainly to be sacraficed. But that was near the end when Rome was handing out second class citizenships to people in their conquered areas. When Rome expanded, not when that expansion had settled down in those areas had been incorporated into its empire, conquered peoples were always made into slaves. That was the price one paid for defying Rome by not allowing it dominion over you and resisting by taking up arms. Even within their provinces, any people who rose up against Rome would face death or slavery. To submit to Rome, Rome offered Peace and Roman civilization, what it called Pax Romana. Accept Rome, and you had Pax Romana. Resist and it was death or slavery. In the end, Rome not only failed to expand to ensure itself a steady supply of slaves, but those who rebelled overwhelmed Rome.

More on what you wrote: You are correct when you say that the ratio of slaves to Roman freemen at the time of Jesus was 3 to 1. This was also around the time of Spartacus, the Thracian Roman slave who rose up to lead an army against Rome, something Rome feared more than anything else. Still, as much as they feared this, they could not live without their slaves. Their slaves did all their heavy lifting for them and moved mountains for them. They worked them to death and couldn't live without their slaves. The Romans are not much different from us. We know the dangers of extracting our own energy and the threat it poses to us, but we still can't turn away from it as we depend upon it, much the same way Romans depended on their slaves despite the risks. One only has to remember the Gulf Oil spill or the leeching of fracking chemicals into our aquifers. This stuff will destroy us one way or the other, either by its absence or by its potential to do great and irreparable harm.

Good insights, Radar.

Luck generally and mooching, very few wealthy people worked any harder or sacrificed any more than your average middle to lower middle income family. There are only so many CEO jobs out there and most of them are buddy buddy votes where everyone greases each other's palm and gets grossly inflated rewards for basically being a high level manager.

There is no single thing that will balance it all out, but it is pretty easy to look over the last 3 decades and see what has caused the most damage, what has inflated the imbalance the most.

Luck generally and mooching,

Wrong...all that statement shows is your envy..nothing more.

Prove me wrong then,

Our income mobility is currently far less than most other developed countries and your average 30 year old born to a middle class family has better chance of getting hit by lightning than becoming a fortune 500 CEO. In the last 10 years 50 million people lost earning power and 3 million gained any.

Luck generally and mooching,

You made the statement....provide evidence.

And no, rhetoric does not amount to evidence.

Stop the thieves at the corporate level-- read the Founding Fathers -- they loathed the idea of money passing from generation to generation and creating a monied class of Lords. You are thinking on a very small scale -- yourself vs the guy in the cublice across the way -- money is much more complex, and the balance is tipped entirely in favor of those who are already wealthy, no matter how lazy or incompetent they may be.

Texas, of course there are wealthy people who worked damn hard to get where they were.

My aunt was kicked out of home at 16 by my very strict, religious Grandfather for getting pregnant. She moved to New York, worked as a maid for a Jewish couple. Went to night school while taking care of her baby. Got her high school diploma. Worked as a clerk, bus driver and did a little decorating on the side. Saved. Took classes on the side, got her college degree, real-estate licence. Now after 30 years of hard work, she is a millionaire.

The difference between her (a stalwart Democrat) and other millionaires who think they should not pay a single extra dime in taxes, is that she knows she did not get where she was without a fair amount of lucky breaks and as she would say, "But for the grace of God," she could have been in a completely different situation.

You also hear many celebrities who are now filthy rich saying, "Please TAX ME more!" because they know it was not just their hard work and talent but luck, providence, grace, blessing whatever you want to call it. And when you truly feel that way, then you get very Oprah-like about your wealth. It was bequethed to you but it is not YOURS. There is NOTHING so magnificent ANY man or woman can do to earn a life of sumptuous luxury every single day. It is a blessing. More importantly, it is a responsibility because wealth is power and with great power comes....you know how it goes.

Some people see wealth as a responsibility given to make the world a better place for more people. Not a crutch for one's self-esteem because you are still wounded about being excluded from the country club when you were growing up or not being able to date the pretty girls in school. or having a small penis.

It is not about not enjoying your wealth or having nice things or even leaving some to your children but having a sense of humility and perspective that makes you go: "For every day I can afford to eat Russian stergeon caviar, I will help 100,000 people eat a nuturitous meal too." 'For every advantage I can buy for my child to enter the upper echelons of power, I will ensure 100,000 children get at least a head start too,"

Without that approach, the balance is offset, you have a few enjoying luxury and many languishing in poverty. And let us not forget what our economic system is based on: exploitation (human and planetary). So if you thrive in this system, it is NEVER without some blood on your hands. Somebody, somewhere or at sometime paid the price. We are all connected. Your individual wealth is someone else's lung cancer.

sunshine girl, feliznavidad and btco

FRs Sent!

So if you thrive in this system, it is NEVER without some blood on your hands. Somebody, somewhere or at sometime paid the price.

Garbage.....and offensive....nothing but envy.

Garbage.....and offensive....

I'm not sure how long you've been on debate forums, but generally speaking, intellectual discussion requires refutation of the points made.

Care to try for that, or just going to continue self-describing your own posts?

nothing but envy.

Hardly. I'd rather be poor and have a social conscience than rich and not give a rat's ass about the workers who put me there, which describes a sadly high majority of the 1%.

But if that helps you to sleep tonight, you keep right on thinking it. 8)

IndependentVoter

Luck generally and mooching,

You made the statement....provide evidence.

And no, rhetoric does not amount to evidence.

I can offer my personal experience...

I was born to a poor single mother and had a working class upbringing until my Mom "lucked out" and ended up becoming the artsy fartsy yoga loving ceramic making wife of a rich real estate guy. At that point we moved and from highschool on my new friends were all upper class kids, although I still kept in touch with my old buddies.

I would say that in both groups you had the same amount of geniuses and dolts, line-towers and trouble-makers. But I can honestly say that the dumb kids of rich families still ended up doing very well for themselves as their parents bailed them out of problems time and time again, usually eventually setting them up in some position or with some business that they just couldn't screw up. The smart, hard working kids of rich parents excelled and took advantage of all the opportunities that were available to them, as you would expect them to.

On the other side, the dumb screw ups fell through the cracks and many ended up with very unhappy circumstances (as will most of their kids, I imagine), while the smart hard workers.. well .. *some* of them prospered and some of them never did, despite their efforts.

I don't know anyone who went rags to riches, or riches to rags.

I know it's just rhetoric, but it's my experience.

"In a single generation, it has become harder to either work or educate your way into the middle class," said Tamara Draut, co-author of "The State of Young America" report.

Draut cites high unemployment, a slump in the housing market and rapidly rising costs for everything from college tuition to rents to medical coverage and child care, as tough hurdles young people have to overcome to get their independent adult lives started.

Amid those challenges, it makes sense then that today's 20-somethings are facing a tough choice: Either put off major milestones, like moving out of mom and dad's place, buying a home and starting a family -- or likely accumulate a staggering amount of debt in the process.

College seniors who took out loans to fund their college education owed an average of $25,250 last year, according to the Project on Student Debt. And in 2007 (the most recent data available) adults ages 25 to 34 held average credit card debt of $6,255 -- 81% higher than that of the same group in 1989.

Even though mortgage rates are at record lows and home prices are the cheapest in eight years, fewer young people are taking advantage of those incentives. Their home ownership rates, after increasing steadily from the 1990s until the early 2000s, have recently decreased.

They're also waiting longer to get married and have children.

All this volatility is causing young people to question what is perhaps the most basic tenet of the American Dream. About 48% of young adults ages 18 to 34 believe their generation will be worse off than their parents, according to the State of Young America poll. Only 22% think they'll fare better, and the rest see no change at all.

And what of the divide between today's youth and their grandparents? While it's common for older generations to have more money because they have more time to accumulate it, a separate study by Pew Research showed that the wealth gap between America's young and old is now at its widest point ever.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/american-dream-better-off-parents-102800685.html

and not give a rat's ass about the workers who put me there, which describes a sadly high majority of the 1%.

intellectual discussion requires refutation of the points made.

Please provide evidence. You make broad brush statement. You catergorize people, based upon what?

So if you thrive in this system, it is NEVER without some blood on your hands. Somebody, somewhere or at sometime paid the price.

Garbage.....and offensive....nothing but envy.

Envy? I have no reason to be envious. Then again, part of the materialistic culture in our country is to relish the idea of people being jealous of you. What good is having if you cannot go, "Neh, neh, neh, na! I'm better than you," to someone who has less. I should know, I work in advertising and it's a reliable hook.

But this is not about envy. This is about how Capitalism based on unbridled consumerism works.

I am fully aware of the fact that in order for me to enjoy even my basic, middle-income lifestyle, SOMEBODY is suffering. It could be the cocoa farmer being paid less than $1 US a day in the Ivory Coast so I can enjoy a moccachino or a child in China who breathes toxins from the textile factory that supplies Gucci with the raw materials for the outfit I just bought. Or the auto-worker who just got fired so I could afford to buy a brand new hybrid because the company cut labor costs.

You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs as they say.

The study, commissioned by the nonprofit group Wider Opportunities for Women, looks at how much income it takes to support a basic standard of living for an American family--and finds that many of the jobs of the future won't pay enough to provide that.

To calculate this "economic security" income, the study's authors certainly didn't assume a lavish lifestyle. They considered basic needs--housing, food, utilities, health care, child-care, and transportation--plus the cost of modest saving for retirement and a small surplus for emergencies. (At at a time when economic "shocks" are increasingly common, that's an essential part of financial security.) They don't factor in some things many of us take for granted, like entertainment or eating out.

The result? To achieve economic security, a single parent with two children needs an income of just over $30,000 a year--nearly twice the federal minimum wage--while a two-income household needs almost $68,000.

The study then finds that, according to Labor Department projections, fewer than 13 percent of jobs to be created by 2018 will meet the economic security threshold for a single parent with two kids. Forty-three percent of those jobs will meet the threshold for a two-income household.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/future-jobs-won-t-support-decent-living-standard-20110401-100929-753.html

In summary, most of the position-relative mobility measures and a couple of the dollarrelative measures show statistically significant declines in mobility between the 1980s and the most recent 1995–2005 period. As other researchers have noted repeatedly, even unchanged mobility leads to widening inequality of long-term incomes as short-term inequality increases.

The significant increase in long-term inequality documented here is further evidence reinforcing the conclusion that year-to-year changes in families’ incomes have become less effective in altering their long-term prospects—their position in the distribution in any one year is an increasingly good predictor of their position during the ensuing 10 years or at the end of that period.

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2011/wp1110.pdf

Thousands more I could find pointing to luck being far more the factor than any kind of hard work.

Independent voter at 7.8 -- Suggested reading: That Dark and Bloody River by Allan W. Eckert -- in it you will see many bloody sociopaths who made their fortunes "colonizing" America.

A 4-year-old stray cat that was rescued from the streets of Rome has inherited a $13 million fortune from its owner, the wealthy widow of an Italian property tycoon.

Maria Assunta left the fortune to her beloved kitty Tommaso when she died two weeks ago at the age of 94. The feline's newfound riches include cash, as well as properties in Rome, Milan and land in Calabria.

As her health began to fail two years ago, Assunta, who had no children, began to seek out a way to see that Tommaso was properly cared for after she died. In November 2009, she bequeathed her entire estate to the alley cat that she'd rescued.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/woman-leaves-13m-fortune-pet-cat-123953959.html

Boy, according to the GOP this cat works harder than 95% of America.

btco; it's @!$%# like this that give decent hardworking Americans a bad name and leave people like me wanting to legislate this type of bull@!$%# away and fast.

Its not always what you know but who you know (or blow). But if it a private company they can do what they want (they have that right) and if you happen to be on the bottom of the totem pole; well you know the rest. Companies strive to make profit; the motivator is greed and there is little to be done about the scenario you described. However, once govt tries to impose legislation to "spread the wealth" - it doesn't work and the guy at the bottom still gets shafted. Sure; raise taxes on the rich and make hard for them to make money; chances are they will cut even more people, go over seas...... search for a way to make those profits. This is just the way it is sometimes. I will stay take this system over what is used in other countries.

Do keep in mind that many rich people didnt get their money handed to them on a silver platter. I think it is just the CEOs who seem to be milking the system for way more than their fair share in some cases..

PS - it was bull@!$%# to bail out wall street and the auto industry. They should have been left to bite the bullet like everyone else.

Please provide evidence. You make broad brush statement. You catergorize people, based upon what?

Based upon the fact that the rich keep getting richer while the middle class stagnates, and this has been going on for over 30 years.

If the rich truly are the "job creators", as so many on the right insist, then the responsibility for all the problems related to those jobs falls squarely onto the shoulders of the job creators.

Workers being laid off in order to increase profits?

Workers having their health benefits cut in order to increase profits?

Workers being given larger workloads so that fewer people can be hired in order to increase profits?

Workers not even being given cost-of-living raises in order to increase profits?

All those issues, which are rampant in corporate America, are solely the fault of the wealthy, i.e., the alleged job creators. They want higher profits and screw the workers.

Anything else I can help you with? 8)

I do not see it as "redistribution of wealth". Not everyone WANTS to live like Bill Gates. Not everyone SHOULD live like Bill Gates. Our planet simply cannot support that. It just cannot.

But some things are not luxuries, but basic needs and there are too many people in this country who cannot meet BASIC NEEDS: proper nutrition, quality education, health-care all because there are too many people trying to keep up with the Jonses and a 1% tax increase will cramp their style.

If you can comfortably afford a Versace t-shirt, in fact, you can afford to play football in the mud in a Versace t-shirt or buy seven and give them all away, then I cannot fault you for preferring to wear a Versace- t-shirt.

So many multi-millionaires and billionaires are saying, "Go ahead and tax me! I can take it!"

They aren't the problem.

Our problem is six-figure makers trying to live like millionaires, millionaires trying to live like multimillionaires and multimillionaires trying to live like billionaires.

They are like the person who buys a Versace t-shirt and have to spend all their time trying not to get it dirty, have to be paranoid about it, scared to lose it. They do not own that t-shirt, it OWNS them and they are slaves to it.

They are not likely to take that shirt off their back even if it is the ONLY thing that could make a tornequet to stop someone's bleeding.

You know neither what Conservatives want nor liberals. The last thing Conservatives want is equality of opportunity. And liberals never expected or wanted equality of outcomes.

They differ, however, in regard to what they mean by equality. Conservatives want equality of opportunity, liberals want equality of outcomes.

Casting a net, so full of holes.

Right -- CONservatives want crony capitalism, so they and all their cronies get all the bucks. Then they can blame the working stiffs they stole it from for being stoopid.

Clean up your language. You are better than that.

Independent - Are you the language monitor? You can set a language filter if you are offended.

That kind of goes against the left wing's entire mantra doesn't it?

Just like forcing everyone to conform with your idea of decency is for the right?

btco

Clean up your language. You are better than that.

I stand corrected. My judgment was flawed.

My judgment was flawed.

We know that but what has any of your comments have to do with the subject being discuss other than your attempts to distract.

Crony capitalism? So what is Jeffrey Immelt doing in Obama's cabinet? "Friendly capitalism?"

Who said Obama is liberal? The US version of 'liberal' is about 300 miles to the right of any other developed nation on earth. Nor does this excuse crony capitalism from anyone who is more transparent about their adherence to the doctrine (read: GOP)

The US version of 'liberal' is about 300 miles to the right of any other developed nation on earth.

So?

So the frequent fall back that "liberals do it too" because someone in the Democratic party does a thing is disingenuous. The Democrats are hardly liberal. They're just slightly more liberal than Republicans.

This all started with a conversation about what liberal and conservative is remember.

So....in your opinion what a true liberal believe?

So....in your opinion what a true liberal believe?

I guess I'll take a stab...

-- does NOT believe the oft-repeated (by conservatives, including most recently Romney) that liberals want equal outcomes. That's nonsense. Better ideas, harder work, better execution should lead to better outcomes. But that doesn't mean unfettered, unlimited $$.

-- believes hard work and effort should be rewarded. But also recognizes that sometimes people work hard, make all the right moves and fate hands them a bum hand anyway.

-- Thinks American Capitalism is the best system yet devised, but at the same time, recognizes the instability of winner-take-all capitalism. Realizes that left to their own, people's greed will cause many of them to cheat, lie and/or steal from their fellow citizen.

-- Believes in capitalism. But also realizes that capitalism, by its very definition, produces both losers as well as winners. And there will be more who 'lose' the game of capitalism than win it.

-- Realizes that unless everyone in the country (including the 'losers' of the capitalism game) is an active participant in the economy, demand will dry up and we will stagnate.

-- believes that Ford had it right when he realized how much better he and his company would be if his workers could afford to buy his new fangled automobiles.

-- believes the various social safety nets we have (Medicare, Medicaid, social security and numerous other programs) help keep everyone an active economic member of society--creating demand and the need for businesses to grow and jobs to be had.

Here's what one of the initial venture capitalists in Amazon.com (Nick Hanauer) had to say just the other day:

"I reject the idea that I am advocating higher taxes for myself and other wealthy people because I'm a good person or because I love you. Let me just be very clear: I do not love you. I value you as a potential customer, and we have rigged the economic system in a way to destroy my customer base."

Both liberals and conservatives care about equality. They differ, however, in regard to what they mean by equality. Conservatives want equality of opportunity, liberals want equality of outcomes.

No liberal I know wants everyone to have the same outcome, because it is an impossible concept, without infringing on civil liberties. So this is just plain illogical. Even more so is the claim that Conservatives want equality of opportunity? Really?

So you are going to ensure inner city schools have the same high teacher to student ratio, well-funded after school programmes and sporting facilities and the very best assessment and teaching tools as schools in the suberbs?

So you are going to end legacy acceptance into university, no more riding on Daddy's name to get in?

So small farmers, mom & pop shops will get the same percentage/ratio of subsidies as large corporations?

So all will have equal access to the same level of health care and policing of their neighborhoods?

I somehow doubt Conservatives actally want equal opportunities for all Americans.

So....in your opinion what a true liberal believe?

A true liberal is against concentration of power at the top which is what our system of crony 'capitalism' and 'free markets' has resulted in. Liberalism is generally accepted to mean the mobilization of state resources in support of the poor or if not that, the largest segments of society. The 'right wing' movements throughout history traditionally support the use of state resources for increased gains by those already at the top along with extra-legal privileges. See: the military governments of Chile and Brazil, fascist Italy and the 30-40 year trend here in the US.

Conservatives will rebrand this hyper-concentration of wealth and power as 'individualism' or 'individual opportunity' (as opposed to 'collectivism' or even *gasp* 'communism') hoping that people would rather hold a lottery ticket than a meal ticket.

Under liberalism, the potential for individual gain is often muted but the collective standard is much better.

Case in point: when the top tax rate in this country was 90%, the rich weren't nearly as rich relative to the degree that they are now but we received the benefit of numerous public works projects as a tradeoff.

"A true liberal is against concentration of power at the top..."

There are very few true liberals, then, as they seem to be fine with a more powerful government. Oh, wait. "Liberalism is generally accepted to mean the mobilization of state resources in support of the poor or if not that, the largest segments of society." So long as that government provides for the sick and needy (who may not be all that sick and needy), right? There's no way to tell those genuinely in need of aid from those who are not. Private charities and the like manage to do it far more efficiently than gov't, but even they can't be perfect. Why does it seem that liberals only want to tax the rich? Can't they understand that less spending on entitlements, in tandem with tax increases, will prove far more effective? That's undesirable, of course, for both sides, which is why it will never be done in a system where reelection depends solely on popularity, and popularity depends mainly on what direct benefit someone or something is providing to the individual. I can dream, though.

Being Liberal or Conservative are not ideologies.

There are very few true liberals, then, as they seem to be fine with a more powerful government.

Power and concentration are not the same thing. A government is made up of people, whom are also governed. Concentration means removing checks and balances.

There's no way to tell those genuinely in need of aid from those who are not.

No, there's a lot of pretty good ways.

Private charities and the like manage to do it far more efficiently than gov't, but even they can't be perfect.

This isn't even remotely true, private charities aren't even capable of providing for all of the sick and needy in a country much less doing it 'more efficiently'. Name one example in any country at any point in history where private charity was sufficient to address the needs of the poor.

Why does it seem that liberals only want to tax the rich?

Because the rich have all the money? And money suffers from diminishing utility the more of it you have?

Can't they understand that less spending on entitlements, in tandem with tax increases, will prove far more effective?

Effective at what?

Private charities and the like manage to do it far more efficiently than gov't, but even they can't be perfect.

Where does this fallacy come from? If this was the case, then there would never have been the public push for any of these programs. Charities were falling woefully short in addressing these problems. That is why the people had government step in. The problem is that the politicians and those that hired them even back then wanted a dependent class of citizens for political and labor reasons. And that is where your concentration of power comes in. The wealthy, large donors and the politicians concentrating power in their hands, not the governments.

As a true liberal I am against this concentration of power through money. Money is a vote and should be redefined as a vote and not as speech. Everyone gets the same vote. One ballot and the same amount of money. The Constitution starts with "We the People" not We the wealthy or we the 0.01%. And the government is here to serve all the people and not just the 0.01%.

Yep. Too bad we can't make a conscious decision to go in another direction. But you see the resistance even on this board -- from people who just won't look at the facts.

They're called quislings. They exist in any system.

'Vive la Revolution' is next?

Independent voter, there is no equality in opportunity if political, social and economic power becomes concentrated in a wealthy and powerful elite that then denies others the opportunity to better themselves by pushing them so far down the ladder the next step is beyond their reach.

People like IV don't care about this fact. They believe in the myth of social upward mobility, even though for the last 30 years, the opportunities to become wealthy in this nation have become fewer and further between.

It's no longer a matter of simply "working hard" because, as you said, more and more of the nation's wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and those people are not spending it, they are hoarding it.

But we'll keep trying to get it through their heads. 8)

Yeah - you have a better shot at upward mobility in any of Europe's socialist nations than you do living in America.

Independent voter, there is no equality in opportunity if political, social and economic power becomes concentrated in a wealthy and powerful elite that then denies others the opportunity to better themselves by pushing them so far down the ladder the next step is beyond their reach.

People like IV don't care about this fact.;

Who are you presume what I care about? Now, you state the above is a fact. Therefore you should have no trouble in detailing exactly how the above is accomplished. I will wait.

you have a better shot at upward mobility in any of Europe's socialist nations than you do living in America.

Move

Move

Yeah that is the American way, give up when things get hard. Most of us have 200+ years of family history and national pride preventing us from just letting the right wing plunder the nation and burn it to the ground.

We disagree as to how to fix it.

What would you do?

Move

Considering the nation was working just fine up till your GOP "Reagan Revolution", I'd prefer you take all your Randian, Straussian, Libertarian, Objectivist, Reactionary, Conservative bull@!$%# and get the @!$%# out of MY country.

What would you do?

Get everyone in the USA to stop voting for the economic terrorists in the GOP.

Another one that is vocabulary challenged.

Who are you presume what I care about? Now, you state the above is a fact. Therefore you should have no trouble in detailing exactly how the above is accomplished. I will wait.

Your flippant, sarcastic statements such as "Garbage" and "Envy" (which do zero to contribute to meaningful discourse) reasonably infer that you absolutely do not care about the fact that social upward mobility has become almost impossible for the lower and middle classes to achieve.

If you're truly interested in learning how this myth has now been debunked, you're free to Google "myth of social upward mobility", but I suspect you won't, so here's a paragraph out of a Washington Post editorial:

In fact, over the past decade, growing evidence shows pretty conclusively that social mobility has stalled in this country. Last week, Time magazine's cover asked, "Can You Still Move Up in America?" The answer, citing a series of academic studies was, no; not as much as you could in the past and — most devastatingly — not as much as you can in Europe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-downward-path-of-upward-mobility/2011/11/09/gIQAegpS6M_story.html

As for "detailing exactly how the above is accomplished", perhaps you should read a bit more closely. The post to which I was responding said,

Independent voter, there is no equality in opportunity if political, social and economic power becomes concentrated in a wealthy and powerful elite that then denies others the opportunity to better themselves by pushing them so far down the ladder the next step is beyond their reach.

I'm not trying to "accomplish" this growing inequality of wealth, so apparently your reading comprehension is a bit flawed.

I hope this helps. 8)

Could it be that the concept of "American exceptionalism" keeps many from really seeing what's happening in this country? Could it be that too many truly believe that America is intrinsically immune to the kind of unrest we've seen in Greece...or Libya, for that matter?

Just askin.'

Agreed. And this is reflected in our trade philosophy, too. We have been following a philosophy of "race to the bottom" since the end of WW2, thinking that we could avoid being dragged to the bottom because of "American exceptionalism". And for a time that was 'true'. It was true in that we had no competition. We were the only economy still functioning at the end of WW2. WE need to take on the role of rebuilding those other economies through trade and investment policies that discriminated against domestic companies. This was actually good for our economy at the time because it created demand in those other countries for our goods and services.

But times have changed. The rest of the world is not crippled in the aftermath of a world war. Other economies are functioning and growing and competing with ours. Yet we still follow a trade philosophy that handicaps our domestic companies. Again, we fail to recognize when a policy has outlived its usefulness and has become detrimental instead. And it is killing us. It makes no sense to tell our companies that they have to pay a living wage, not pollute our air and water, to not except worker injury or death, etc. and allow foreign companies to lower their costs by doing just those things. The answer is not to lower our standards. The solution is to require that our standards be met by every company that brings any goods or services into our markets.

We can't control their governments policies, nor should we try. We can control what enters our country and we should. It is time to stop discriminating against domestic production of goods and services by holding them to higher standards than we do foreign companies. Raise the standards on them.

It is time for a philosophy of "Race to the Top".

I left this country for 7 years. I found that it is not easy to leave this country because in other countries like the U.S. money gets what money wants. I came back to this country to sign up on social security because I had payed in to it. I had planed to leave again and live where I had a little freedom. I found that I would have my Ss shut off if I left the country for 30 days. you might say I'm a prisoner in the country with more prisoners than any country in the world. It is my country and the fight for freedom is here. Those of you braging about being free how miny other countries have you been to? What have you got to compair this with?

TR would be appalled by today's republicans. Heck -- he was even a stalwart environmentalist.

I have been to several central American countries And found that I had more freedom there than here.

Neither do Democrats.

Then explain their "negotiating" behavior during the debt ceiling vote.

The only plausible explanation. Pulling a Donald Trump in bankruptcy. If you force me to go you'll lose more money. That doesn't work with the financial community (issuing of bonds is based on risk).

So, therefore, explain the bagger's behavior during debt ceiling vote.

This planet has no use for anyone really.

Billionaires make good logs for the fires of hell...

Well said!

well said

If a product can be made in China for one tenth of the here, then there needs to be a tariff to equal out the costs.

I differ on this to the point of if that cost advantage is due to differences in regulations and standards. If it is one tenth the cost in China because they are paying a non-living wage relative to their cost of living or because they don't have to control the release of pollutants, then that product should not even be allowed to enter this country even with a tariff. The problem with a tariff is if it is large enough it is considered discriminatory to foreign producers. That violates GATT and WTO. Holding foreign companies to the EXACT same standards that we hold domestic producers to is not discriminatory and does not violate GATT or WTO and generate all the related headaches.

I don't think that everyone should get free handout, just those you need a helping hand, but deceit and theft damages the programs.

And the design of these programs damages them. Gainful employment is discouraged and punished in the current systems. A $50/month raise resulting in a $150/month cut in SNAP (foodstamps) is an example. Loss of housing assistance and other aid in amounts greater than the increase in earned income forces people to choose between the welfare of their families and working to better their self-sufficiency. It is the exact opposite of what these programs should be doing. An increase in earned income should ALWAYS result in a net increase in household income. ALWAYS!!!!

Tim - The thought with tariffs is to force more equality in a global market. It has problems, no doubt. I do have some anger in this topic because I friends that I work with that were hired by Siemens, when we outsourced our I/S department, then on extending the contract, Siemens hired a group of Indians and are firing the people here to cut their costs.

With the social programs, the idea of helping the downtrodded to get back on their feet is noble. But our programs don't do this and I agree, these programs discourages the search for a job. The details have been proven wrong and the execution of the programs was poor at best. But to completely abandon them will only hurt our society. Now, I have no problem having people on these government programs work for the government to receive those benefits, if they are physically able. They could do housekeeping, help on farms or something. There are alternatives if the government is interested to do some work.

"I don't want more government, I want a government that is working."

Everyone wants that, but you must define specifically what you want the government to do. This is where we all disagree. You say you want a level playing field; others, mostly Democrats even if they are unlike you, believe it's the government's duty to take care of its citizens' every need. I'm glad to see you're more moderate, at least. There's a lot of things broken in this country, but few the government can really fix. Tackling major corporations is one thing that only the gov't can do, and thus I agree it is their responsibility. Beyond that, however, it is far less clear.

David Said: "mostly Democrats even if they are unlike you, believe it's the government's duty to take care of its citizens' every need". That irks me as much as "liberals believe outcomes should be equal" which is equally as nonsensical.

With no disrespect intended, I think you should ask a liberal what they believe-- rather than rely on what Rush, Coulter and Hannity say liberals believe. The mainstream Democratic view is much more limited. Something along the lines of "it's the government's duty to assist citizens who through bad luck -- or even sometimes their own incompetence-- with the basic necessities so they can continue to be participants in America."

TReed,

Tim - The thought with tariffs is to force more equality in a global market. It has problems, no doubt. I do have some anger in this topic because I friends that I work with that were hired by Siemens, when we outsourced our I/S department, then on extending the contract, Siemens hired a group of Indians and are firing the people here to cut their costs.

Requiring them to pay a living wage in India would go a long way toward equalizing the trade. Granted it would have more impact on manufacturing with worker conditions and environmental regulations having large impacts on costs. But with more manufacturing, your friends would a better chance of finding other employment.

You say you want a level playing field; others, mostly Democrats even if they are unlike you, believe it's the government's duty to take care of its citizens' every need.

No, they don't. They want people to be able to earn a living wage under safe working conditions that don't poison our air, water, and land. And they want the government to make sure those with wealth and power don't abuse that wealth and power, as history repeatedly demonstrates is the result of wealth and power. Liberals believe everyone should be able to earn a living wage and recognize that different contributions merit different compensations. But that none of those compensations should be below the poverty line or risk the persons ability to meet the necessities of life.

Read the quote again. It places our current problem in a historical context. In any free system there will be of course winners and losers.

The problem is when the winners use their money/power to tilt the system in their favor. History shows they always do. Winners by their very nature play to win. Eventually one individual wins and all the rest lose.

The end result is destruction of society. Competition is not the only human system. We also have co-operation.

You seem to swallowed whole the idea that Capitalism is the answer to every human problem. Do you really think that the game of Monopoly the way we should run this world?

One's money and power cannot buy the system unless the system is for sale. The very system people are wanting to use to destroy the rich is the very system that is in bed with the rich. It is not the system. It is the poeple running the system. You know, the politicians.

You forgot that the government is bought and payed for by the 1%. As long as a ceo makes more before lunch than a person makes in a year we are in trouble.

It is not the system.

It is the system. And to be more specific it is the precedent that money is a form of speech and that intellectual concepts and social constructs are people.

MONEY is a VOTE.

When one contributes to a candidate or a political cause, they are voting for that candidate or cause. And like any vote it must be one person, one vote. And if the entity can't vote, it can't contribute to a political cause or candidate. The amount any individual may contribute in a year can not be greater than the least amount the poorest can afford to contribute. From a practical standpoint I suggest 90% of the population can afford. That is for any one contribution. And a limit of what 50% can afford for total contributions to all campaigns in a year.

This would seriously restrict the ability of some to BUY politicians or public opinion. For politicians I suggest immediate vesting in full pension benefits with the restriction that they can not work in the private sector after holding office for the rest of their lives. This would eliminate buying a politician through a guarantee of high compensation after they retire for services rendered while in office.

Blogenzer above seems to think we must have a totally socialist society to have a more equitable solution. He wastes two paragraphs on this theory. Of course he completely ignores the fact that the happiest citizens in the world tend to live in Socialist Democracies instead pointing to a worst case scenario that has nothing in common with our own society.

And of course he attempts to compare Obama (who has murdered no one) to a man who murdered millions (which truly had nothing to with actual "socialism", rather the misuse of that term). Obama has found himself compared (that I have seen) to Stalin, Mao, and even Pol Pot who killed 1/4 of his citizens. The comparisons are therefore beyond absurd. AND YET HE CLAIMS TO BE CORRECTLY INTERPRETING HISTORY! The evidence says he is instead clearly exposing himself as a fraud!

The Right can't handle the truth. They have never been able to because it assigns responsibility their way and that more than anything they do not want. A Far Right society as they propose has never, and will never, serve the needs of ALL of the people. He cannot possibly post an example where that has been the case. Not a single one. Far Right governments operate in the interests of the few, not the many. History does not lie! And he is the one doing the re-interpreting.

I would suggest he matches his own description at the end! Except for the "useful" part!

Here is a quote that Blogenzer should read

"The problem isn't that conservatives are wrong about the efficiency of markets or the creativity of enterprise. It's that they have made false idols of both, usually without acknowledging that markets work best when well regulated, that private enterprise cannot meet every human need, that government has always played a critical role in our economy, and that the profit motive can be socially and environmentally destructive as well as dynamic." Joe Conason

Neither Capitalism nor Socialism is the answer but they both have some good points.. We should focus on the point where the two systems meet and gain the benefit of both and so avoid the worst excesses also.

Blogengezer welcome to the vine with your very first comment.

tick tick tick tick tick tick tick..........

tick tick tick indeed. Any wagers on when the user is banned as a rereg?

For $10,000 cyber bucks?!?!

True, but you can post that anywhere on newsvine...

Well it's true.

Boeing is the countries largest exporter and paid no taxes. Neither did GE.

The rich now take twice as much from the nations economy as they did 30 years ago. Are they working twice as hard as the rest of us?

Is it greed to point out that the most profitable companies on Earth get huge subsidies from the government. Is that envy?

Every law that is passed somehow always makes someone richer. And the politicians get a donation.

Do we need to recreate the Gilded Age in every detail, right down to removing the child labor laws?

"Is it greed to point out that the most profitable companies on Earth get huge subsidies from the government."

Name one company and one DIRECT PAYMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO THAT COMPANY. So you know, the capitalized text is the true definition of a subsidy. A tax cut is not a subsidy.

Tax Breaks, Subsidies, and Big Oil

Written by Bob Adelmann

Wednesday, 18 May 2011 14:26

Writing for The Freeman, Sheldon Richman explains:

A subsidy is a cash grant from the government…. They are direct transfers from the taxpayers to the beneficiaries….

[This] government intervention enables people to obtain money they were not entitled to; the flip side is that someone else is deprived of money he is entitled to.

On the other hand, a tax break allows the owner of the money to keep more of his own money for his own personal use. As Richman explains:

When someone is given any kind of “tax break,” he keeps money that he is entitled to…. Thus, if a person retains some of his own money because of a government action, we should not condemn this as a subsidy.

as a subsidy.

Exxon’s chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson attempted to defend the tax breaks allowed to his company under the law, noting that raising taxes (removing the tax breaks) would result in lower overall tax revenues for the government. Taxes, he said, are one of several factors the company looks at when making a decision on where best to invest company money, and if tax costs go up, that reduces the opportunities for the company to discover and develop new energy resources.

Also, as noted by Ken Cohen at Exxon’s website, “A tax hike isn’t going to bring down gas prices.”

Oil companies don’t have the ability to control the price of crude oil (which is the single-largest component of the price at the pump).

Oil companies aren’t able to control global events that account for fluctuations in the marketplace.

And, oil companies aren’t able to control the value of the U.S. dollar, which is weak and [is] a factor in rising commodity prices across the board.

But what oil companies are able to do is invest in new energy supplies — if the policy [and tax] environment allows them to.

-Tax Breaks, Subsidies, and Big Oil - The New American

buckeyenut-2225921

"Name one company and one DIRECT PAYMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO THAT COMPANY"

Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Land O'Lakes, Shamrock Foods, Kroger Foods

No one begrudges true wealth but rather the following:

1) How did they get their wealth?

2) How are they keeping their wealth?

3) How are they treating their employees now?

4) How well do they pay now and with what benefits?

5) What are they doing with their wealth today?

When you examine closely the nation's wealthiest some are incredibily philanthropic with working conditions at their companies set high for their employees. While others are continuing a path of low wages, minimal benefits but are innuring billions for themselves with little, if any, philanthropic activities.

An example - Microsoft/Bill Gates vs Wal-Mart/Waltons

Further examples include, Mars, Inc., Campbell Foods, Koch Industries and what are their patriarchs doing both socially AND politically.

If, after reading up on their activities, they don't chill you down to your bones, then you are a true bagger at heart - "me, myself and I".

notsojingo,

I think you miss the meaning most people are using the term "subsidies of all kinds". This is shorthand for direct payments, below market lease agreements, tax breaks, military protection of access and shipping, healthcare expenses related to the pollution generated by the industry, liability caps, etc. etc., etc. Do you get the idea that to write out this list every damn time is a waste of energy, space, and time. So we shorten it to the generic term subsidies. It is not intended to be the "legal" definition since we are not writing the laws or trying a case. Come on it is the English language and we are allowed to use poetic license.

Issuing direct transfers of taxpayers money to the most profitable corporations on the planet is not going to lower the price of oil either, it is an incentive to keep supply down, and do we want give oil companies subsidies to develop new revenue streams?

notsojingo,

I think you miss the meaning most people are using the term "subsidies of all kinds". This is shorthand for direct payments, below market lease agreements, tax breaks, military protection of access and shipping, healthcare expenses related to the pollution generated by the industry, liability caps, etc. etc., etc.

My posting what someone else writes does not mean I am in agreement with it nor in denial of it, unless I specifically say such.

Actually, Tim S, I was not fully aware of this fact until looking it up. I only copy/pasted what appeared to be buckeyenut-2225921's source for his contention in his post #63.2. By the way, it appears to be a Conservative-leaning Publication. The article takes the facts and then twists them towards conclusions, should anyone wish to go to the source and decide for themselves if this is true or not! But it is correct in the fact of subsidy vs tax break, etc.

Yes, I do get the 'concept'!

Personally, I still consider it to be a subsidized manner of Corporate Welfare, which I do not agree with for Corporations such as those running Big Oil, Pharma, Chem, nor Agra, to name a few.

They do not need it, yet claim it unceasingly.

Peace

Thanks,

I commented partly because I use the short hand definition frequently because the list is just too long and I wanted it out there what my usage means.

Personally, I still consider it to be a subsidized manner of Corporate Welfare, which I do not agree with for Corporations such as those running Big Oil, Pharma, Chem, nor Agra, to name a few.

They do not need it, yet claim it unceasingly.

Agree totally.

Newsvine is where I try to Get Smarter; misunderstandiings, when addressed as politely as your's, should more often turn out so well!

I appreciate the passion as well. Too often people are just looking to pick a fight, but this article has had a very good discussion ensue overall. Sometimes I allow myself to get sucked in as well...

Good seed, btco!

I try, don't always succeed. :-)

AHA! You are one of those "Humans"!

Okay, Buddy, you've blown your cover now!!

:-)))

Damn, not again!!!! ;~)

I think it is pretty profound that we are still failing the same way 2000 years later.

The current rich people are apparently as overwhelmed in their gluttony and as short sighted as the rich were back then.

The gluttons are just never satisfied with taking all the eggs they must kill the goose too.

"I think it is pretty profound that we are still failing the same way 2000 years later."

It's called human nature. How is it profound? It's obvious.

What is profound is that we refuse to learn. We claim to be intelligent beings, yet the evidence is not strong in our favor.

We claim to be intelligent beings, yet the evidence is not strong in our favor.

All we learn is that the greedy and the rich always run the game right into the ground, though I find the ability of the masses to be dummied down does support your conclusion. Not everyone, but many.

The fact that our Environment is about to crash, which is followed by our demise, and that most of the world isn't ready to revolt to save it proves that. Understandable when for many, just being free or not humgry to some degree is nearly unattainable.

Instead, we argue over things we can't stop or change, like each other's minds...before it is too late.

Things will only get worse untill we take money out of politics, or the Guillotine Party come back in vogue, whichever comes first.

The fact that our Environment is about to crash, which is followed by our demise, and that most of the world isn't ready to revolt to save it proves that. Understandable when for many, just being free or not humgry to some degree is nearly unattainable.

For the vast majority life gets in the way of policing the psychopaths.

Things will only get worse untill we take money out of politics, or the Guillotine Party come back in vogue, whichever comes first.

Actually Daniel I think this time is different. We occupy every corner of the globe. We are using pretty much all the arable land. Fresh potable water is becoming scarcer globally. And we are changing the climate at a rapid rate, in geological terms. I really don't think we need the Guillotine party or have to worry about money, let alone in politics, very much longer. We are reaching the global carrying capacity of our environment and we are changing it so fast that if we lose any food production or water distribution areas we will be over the new carrying capacity.

This is different than historical analogs. Those where all regional. Europe, the middle east, Africa, Asia, North America and South America. The Mayans did it to their environment but it only affected them. The little ice age affected northern Europe and the northeast of North America. They weren't global. And we had essentially unoccupied territory to emigrate to. Try to find a place a billion people can move to today that isn't already at near capacity.

We are more likely headed toward extinction or an evolutionary leap. The new environmental stresses that are head our way will result in the selection of new traits. No one knows what those traits will be. They could select for greater independence or greater socialization. I tend to think the latter, since that seems to be what the smaller events of the past have resulted in. Those that learned to cooperate, empathize, and form communities prospered better than those that became everyone for their self.

Actually Daniel I think this time is different.

Spoken like a man who hasn't learned anything from history and mistakenly thinks he has a valid opinion, that if conservatives keep doing things the same way, over and over again over thousands of years, as they have always done, eventually the outcome will be different. Sorry. Keep banging your head against that wall pal and you’ll see how passed off a few billion people can get

"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807.

.

I think you misunderstood my comment. I think it is different because I think the consequences are not as mild as a mere revolution that kills a mere tens of millions. We are in a global position now that could just as easily result in the death of 6 to 7 billion or even the extinction of the human species.

I wasn't saying that I think the conservatives or regressives policies would work any better than the utter failures they have been in the past. No they will fail just as badly now as they have throughout history and then some. They threaten the very existence of humanity.

No my comment was that I think you are being overly optimistic.

I wasn't saying that I think the conservatives or regressives policies would work any better than the utter failures they have been in the past.

Aren't those the same Party? ;-)

I do agree with the severe possibilities you offer, though. We are the pretty much the only thing short of a Meteorite scoring a direct hit that can extinguish ourselvesout of existence! At best we only show signs of accelerating the process. Still. Again.

Peace

Aren't those the same Party? ;-)

Actually I think the conservatives have been kicked out of that party. 8~)

I don't think we have to wait for the meteor. We are doiing it ourselves like most species do. We are over consuming our resources and polluting our environment with the waste products. Whether that is mercury in the oceans and air (that we don't "allow" here, but have moved to other shores) or the CO2 that is warming our planet and changing the climates, which will result in a change in where our food can be grown. That will lead to the sudden collapse of our ecosystem and the rapid die-off and stresses on humanity.

What happens when the rain in the Great Plains drowns the crops or comes in July and August and causes them to rot in the fields? Or moves to the southwest where we have no topsoil and the GP dry up? Can the world deal with the loss of this source of food? Will it be the only global bread basket to suffer these changes? If it happens in the 100 to 1000 years it looks like, what will we do when it takes tens of thousands of years for nature to make topsoil?

I think they are still the same Conservtives. Just more willing to show their true nature.

Could be, but I remember a time when Conservatives worked with Progressives to find an intermediate fix to issues. Those days are gone with the regressives. Wanting to go back to a non-existent past is not an option.

The Rise Of The Regressive Right And The Reawakening Of America

Like I said, they are the same at least many of them are. So how long has McCain been in congress? Or Boner? Sure they reached across the isle when it was absolutely necessary for them to. But if you are think about it, this is how it has always gone.....
You are being bipartisan if you cooperate with them, you are being partisan and playing politics if you don't.
Every God Damn Time!

Excellent link notsojingo.

Daniel,

I would think with your penchant for history you would be able to see back beyond 30 years ago. We have had repeated cycles of Progressive, Conservative, and Regressive dominance in our history. One way of looking at this current period of Regressive policy is as a prelude to our next Progressive period. Look at the civil angst in the country right now. There is the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Movement. The thing they have in common and in common with the polls is the conviction that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Sure they disagree at the moment on what direction we should be moving, but that is temporary. As those that are voicing the regressive direction become the victims of this error, they will move to the progressive path, as they have done in the past.

The true Conservatives will reemerge as they see the country deteriorate with the implementations of the regressive movement. They will want to conserve the country and that will require their abandonment of the regressives and joining with the progressives. Sure, they will slow the progressives in their policies. But, that is not all bad. As a progressive, I am not blind to the fact that we can go too fast and miss unintended consequences. A check on us can be quite useful in forcing us to examine our ideas thoroughly.

I would think with your penchant for history you would be able to see back beyond 30 years ago.

How condescending, you think that I don't.

I see what has happened and what is happening now clearer then most Because of my knowledge of the History, not inspite of it, the subversion of social advancements in civilazation and systems by conservtives who, whenever they get the power, turn them on their head or underfund them to point ineffectiveness, then argue they were bad ideas because they put conservtives in charge of them to run them into the ground, who never believed in them from the start. the EPA protects the polluter, The FDA protects the drug companies… The Department of Education stops teaching our children how to think. OSHAH protects the companies interest not the safety of the employees.

"[Those] quondam leaders [who cover] under [a] mask... hearts devoted to monarchy... have a right to tolerance, but neither to confidence nor power." --Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, 1801.

I know you didn't mean to sound so condescending, but give me some credit...

I didn't mean it in a condescending way at all. I meant it as an encouragement to give the history that I know you know. You know ;-).

I guess I was a little tired an hungry. And so many posts that go to 2005, 2006 as the start of everything going on today. And so many others can't see beyond 30 years ago, as if everything before that is totally unrelated.

Newsvine fatigue, I can get punchy as well.

US-Obama Approval: 49% Approve, 47% Disapprove (ABC/Post 12/15-18)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/us-obama-approval-49-appr_n_1159043.html

Thanks for understanding Daniel.

US-Obama Approval: 49% Approve, 47% Disapprove

PollingReport.com results on right direction wrong direction.

Date .............Right.......Wrong.......Unsure
12/8-12/11.....26%.........70%...........4%

And Congress' approval is around 11%. I would interpret these polls as indicating people think it is congress that is driving us in the wrong direction and that we should be following the directions Obama is giving. The difference in his approval rating and the wrong direction numbers is that a lot of people want to go in his direction and don't think he is doing a good enough job of forcing congress to move in that direction. Too mush caving into the obstructionists on the other side of the aisle and leaving too much of the bill writing to his side of the aisle.

Alex. CA

And thats better then Bush or Reagan had after the same duration of their terms.

Falls Church City, Va. Population 12,300. Six miles from D.C.

And what is the population of the US? I guess we need to find out the secret of Falls Church City, Va! Maybe Independentvoter can help.

It could be a suburb where a lot of wealthy democrats live and commute to D.C., Neetu.

I know, Yellow Dog. Precisely.

Sorry, IV never will answer, I guess.

If you are not wealthy leaving permenatly is almost impossible.

Hell, grampsdeer, leaving the HOUSE is too expensive!

;-)