8 of 11
8
What Reganomics has accomplished.
Posted: 10 October 2013 07:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Bryan - 09 October 2013 11:06 AM
Lois - 09 October 2013 10:55 AM

Bryan wrote


“That’s somewhat out-of-context, given that we’re talking about disparities in wealth, not about poverty.  Does anybody actually think that the “greater part” of the U.S. population lives in poverty?”

No, the capitalist aim is to keep te majority of the population hovering just a milimeter above poverty and no more so they can be kept in line and they won’t notice that all the wealth is flowing to the top.  They also like to spread the fiction that it’s capitalism that keeps the poor from falling into abject poverty. They should be grateful for capitalism.

Lois

Lois, you’re not engaging the argument.  You’re just offering assertions from one point of view.  The U.S. standard of living for its poor is way above the standard of living for most of the world—and you know it.


Not above the Scandinavian countries, or Germany.

The way to assess it is to compare the average income of the lowest segment of the population to the Gross Domestic Product and the difference between the average incomes of the highest compensated and the lowest. Comparing the incomes of people in one of the richest countries in the world to those in third world countries is comparing apples to oranges and tells us nothing about the economics or the standards of living in either country. You are on the verge of telling the poorest people struggling to stay alive, “You should be happy with what you have, look at all those other people who are worse off than you are. Be grateful for the opportunity to do back-breaking labor for 12 hours a day for your bowl of gruel. Stop complaining. “

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2013 11:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Lois - 10 October 2013 07:30 PM
Bryan - 09 October 2013 11:06 AM
Lois - 09 October 2013 10:55 AM

Bryan wrote


“That’s somewhat out-of-context, given that we’re talking about disparities in wealth, not about poverty.  Does anybody actually think that the “greater part” of the U.S. population lives in poverty?”

No, the capitalist aim is to keep te majority of the population hovering just a milimeter above poverty and no more so they can be kept in line and they won’t notice that all the wealth is flowing to the top.  They also like to spread the fiction that it’s capitalism that keeps the poor from falling into abject poverty. They should be grateful for capitalism.

Lois

Lois, you’re not engaging the argument.  You’re just offering assertions from one point of view.  The U.S. standard of living for its poor is way above the standard of living for most of the world—and you know it.

Not above the Scandinavian countries, or Germany.

The way to assess it is to compare the average income of the lowest segment of the population to the Gross Domestic Product and the difference between the average incomes of the highest compensated and the lowest.

lol
That method is unquestionably rigged against any system with very high-income individuals.  Let’s ignore things like availability of technologies, living space, transportation, etc.

To cherry pick a handful of countries where the poor live better than the poor in the U.S. is not a serious way to address the argument.  And (again) I think you know it.

Comparing the incomes of people in one of the richest countries in the world to those in third world countries is comparing apples to oranges and tells us nothing about the economics or the standards of living in either country.

I’m not comparing incomes.  I’m just telling you the standard of living is higher.  And that’s true, measured by any reasonable means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living

You are on the verge of telling the poorest people struggling to stay alive, “You should be happy with what you have, look at all those other people who are worse off than you are. Be grateful for the opportunity to do back-breaking labor for 12 hours a day for your bowl of gruel. Stop complaining. “

You’re on the verge of suggesting the ridiculous.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2013 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 11 October 2013 11:08 AM

That method is unquestionably rigged against any system with very high-income individuals.  Let’s ignore things like availability of technologies, living space, transportation, etc.

What’s a “system”?  Do you mean a country?  All countries have high-income individuals.
Why would you want to ignore things like “living space, technology and transportation”? Is it because these items are seriously lacking in the US for poor people?

To cherry pick a handful of countries where the poor live better than the poor in the U.S. is not a serious way to address the argument.  And (again) I think you know it.

Right lets compare the US poor to the poor in places like Jamaica, Somalia, or Brazil.  That puts things in a good light right Bryan?
Let’s stop comparing altogether! Let’s get back to the issue of fairness and injustice.

So let’s not compare the conditions of the US poor to any other Industrialized Modern Nation.
Some of which don’t even have poor people!!  Does Scandinavia even have poor people?
Do they have giant ghettos in every city and millions of rural people scraping by in the depths of poverty?

How is it fair that 1% of the population controls 35% of the wealth in the US?
That 10% of the population controls over 80% of the financial wealth in the US?

This is why many people in the US and all of the poor have a lower standard of living than all other Western Industrialized nations on Earth.
It’s not correct to compare what a standard of living is to another entity.
It is correct to realize what the potential standard of living could be for millions of Americans if it were not being stymied by the wealthy’s systematic
control of government through monetary influence.

[ Edited: 11 October 2013 11:34 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2013 02:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14

Why is wikipedia being quoted so much?

Wikipedia itself says:

Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 12:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 11 October 2013 02:31 PM

Why is wikipedia being quoted so much?

Wikipedia itself says:

Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples

That’s talking about using Wikipedia as a citation for scholarly work, Abdul, and it’s primarily because the material may be edited at any time potentially by non-professionals.  There’s nothing at all wrong with using Wikipedia and other similar sources to help explain the meanings of technical terms and the like in layman’s language.  The proper use is to cite Wikipedia to support conversational arguments where you know the material and the Wikipedia description is accurate.

In other words, Wikipedia is well-used to facilitate an argument but not to settle one.  And don’t expect a passing grade for a paper that uses Wikipedia as a citation.

Hope that helps.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 03:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6042
Joined  2009-02-26

This may shed some clarity,

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

and of course,

How the Deficit Got This Big

By TERESA TRITCH
Published: July 23, 2011
 
With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1&

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 06:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

An important factor in modern political economics in the United States, conveniently overlooked by Reagan’s apologists, is the vast amount of power in the hands of the super-rich, and the effects of that power on virtually everyone going forward.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 06:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6042
Joined  2009-02-26

Oh, this is a must see

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/10/do-you-know-the-difference-between-obamacare-and-the-aca.html

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 08:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1292
Joined  2009-10-21
VYAZMA - 11 October 2013 11:31 AM

So let’s not compare the conditions of the US poor to any other Industrialized Modern Nation.
Some of which don’t even have poor people!!  Does Scandinavia even have poor people?
Do they have giant ghettos in every city and millions of rural people scraping by in the depths of poverty?

How is it fair that 1% of the population controls 35% of the wealth in the US?
That 10% of the population controls over 80% of the financial wealth in the US?

Those are the right questions VYAZMA. I think what those who made their riches from the country most fear, is that they have created a large enough middle class that remembers and still feels what is was like to be poor, but has the time to reflect and educate themselves. This has already resulted in a much larger population in history that has the political will and power to do the things that Kings and capitalists always said they would do, like actually make a better planet, but rarely actually do. The 2000’s decade saw the erosion of a lot of that power.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 08:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1292
Joined  2009-10-21
Write4U - 12 October 2013 06:26 AM

Oh, this is a must see

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/10/do-you-know-the-difference-between-obamacare-and-the-aca.html

This is a PBS link, but if you clicked it, you’ll see it is from the Jimmy Kimmel show. Not necessarily the most high-brow show around. That someone can take this somewhat difficult issue and just poke fun it at gives me some hope that the general population understands it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 12 October 2013 03:58 AM

This may shed some clarity,

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

and of course,

How the Deficit Got This Big

By TERESA TRITCH
Published: July 23, 2011
 
With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1&

At first blush, it sheds clarity by focusing entirely on the deficit instead of on the debt.

And of course it’s amazing that the Clinton administration accomplished all of that while working with a Republican Congress (following the 1994 elections).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

The Conservatives love talking about the deficit.  And the debt.
They get all kinds of people worked up about it.
Talk about leaving grandchildren in debt and all of that nonsense.

What deficit are we talking about?  The trade deficit?  The budget deficit?
Who knows? Who cares?

Never in my life have I ever, EVER experienced any negative consequences of the US Debt or the Deficit.
I never met anyone who ever did either. Ever.

In otherwords, I never once said to myself, “Oh man I am going to be hurting this month, the deficit is really bad.”
I never heard anyone say, ” I can’t go shopping the Debt is too high!”
Never heard anyone say, “I can’t get a bank loan, the Govt Deficit is out of control.”

The only thing we do know for sure is that talking about deficits and debt is one sure fire way to roust up support to not
raise taxes.  That’s all we know for sure. 
Because when the Politicians talk about Debts and Deficits they talk about cutting spending. 
And lowering taxes to stimulate the economy.

Convincing common people that raising taxes is bad is the biggest racket the Conservatives have.  And one way they convince these
uninformed voters is by raising the specter of the Deficit or the Debt!
Cutting spending helps, but so does raising taxes.
A good size tax increase would not be that noticeable to an average person..$25,000-60,000 a year salary. 
And it certainly wouldn’t be any sizable dent in the wealthy’s pocketbooks either.

Why have I lived my whole life with morons holding the debt or the deficit over my head?
Never, ever have I felt any of the consequences of the debt or the deficit.  When it was up or down, in the red or the black!
What difference did it ever make?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6042
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 12 October 2013 11:31 AM
Write4U - 12 October 2013 03:58 AM

This may shed some clarity,

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

and of course,

How the Deficit Got This Big

By TERESA TRITCH
Published: July 23, 2011
 
With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1&

At first blush, it sheds clarity by focusing entirely on the deficit instead of on the debt.

And of course it’s amazing that the Clinton administration accomplished all of that while working with a Republican Congress (following the 1994 elections).

Lest we forget about the tax increase on those who could most afford it, which is not even on the table, let alone mentioned today.

Those very people who don’t know ACA from Obamacare are the “well informed citizenry”? They hate Obamacare, but do like the “Affordable Care Act” which is so much more affordable. and does not “force” people to sign up.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6042
Joined  2009-02-26
Lausten - 12 October 2013 08:26 AM
Write4U - 12 October 2013 06:26 AM

Oh, this is a must see

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/10/do-you-know-the-difference-between-obamacare-and-the-aca.html

This is a PBS link, but if you clicked it, you’ll see it is from the Jimmy Kimmel show. Not necessarily the most high-brow show around. That someone can take this somewhat difficult issue and just poke fun it at gives me some hope that the general population understands it.

I mentioned Bill Maher earlier and Bryan chided me for that. But it is not the Host but the guests who are the focus.

On the Maher show, there were 5 informed guests who clarified a few unaccountable inconsistencies in the current stalemate, while the “street” sampling of the most fundamental differences between Obamacare and ACA, revealed the people are not very well informed or clearly misled by the politics of “destroy Obama”. Period.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 12 October 2013 02:02 PM

Lest we forget about the tax increase on those who could most afford it, which is not even on the table, let alone mentioned today.

Not sure what you mean.  There was a small tax increase early in Clinton’s presidency, then a cut in the capital gains tax around 1996, IIRC.  The tax increase produced prosperity while the tax cut held back the economy, right?  wink

Those very people who don’t know ACA from Obamacare are the “well informed citizenry”? They hate Obamacare, but do like the “Affordable Care Act” which is so much more affordable. and does not “force” people to sign up.

Doesn’t Kimmel do that interview thing in NYC?  Buckle of the Bible belt, no doubt.

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 11
8
 
‹‹ Service Equity      Atheists In Congress ››