NY, the Democrat stronghold, shows the future.

[hogjack]

Elite = Caroline Kennedy

Elitism is all the rage.

Jeb Bush in 2012.

 

[Sharon_]

AMEN and pass the plate Sistah Sharon_...






I want to make CHANGE.

It boggle my mind, it truly does. It isn't /just/ the having to borrow money to give to them, it isn't /just/ the loss in tax revenue *my* state will incur with this unfair competition. The main principle is they want the Kentucky Toyota workers to /borrow/ money to give to their competitor so their competitor can pay /their/ workers double what these guys make.

I'm pretty sure we fought and lost a war over this issue once already.
[slap in advance to anyone who wants to insist the war was fought over slavery when it clearly was not]

Oh...and the bank bailout? Trump is fuming because he and Murdoch can't get loans....we borrowed money from China to give to the bank who then took 6 billion of it and........<drumroll>........BOUGHT A BANK IN CHINA.

It would not surprise me to learn the bank they bought is the one we borrowed the money from to give them to begin with.

 

[The_Trouvere]

The 'general welfare' article of the constitution has been so stretched, and mangled, as to be virtually unrecognizable today. The clause has been perverted to justify the impoverishment of some to the benefit of others less industrious.

Ishmael

You assume that the rich are more industrious than the poor. That is true of some of the rich, and some of the poor. It is also true that many of the rich are inheritors and live in leisured luxury, and that many of the poor work two or more jobs and well over 40 hours a week, and remain poor.

In the United States there is little relationship between industriousness and wealth. Why do you think the terms "leisure class" and "working class" were coined?

Reactionaries often claim that the U.S. Constitution mandates laissez faire capitalism. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that would stand in the way of democratic socialism if that is what most of the voters come to want.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Some of the rich, yes, indeed, do inheret and "some" of these fortunes are simply squandered, so you point is not as well-developed as your intellect demands.




The main point about what was for our past generations, was economic mobility, the perceived ability for all to have a crack at the top through industry; now with that paradigm on the cusp of changing, we even witness a reverse migration of Mexicans. Hell, who knows, if the Irish kick the EU to the curb again, maybe even the Kennedys...

Obama has already said he's not going to follow the Constitution so getting into the whole debate for the umpteenth time is tantamount to pissing up ropes.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Paulson admits; the market was too free, so they used it for something else, we need more Central Planning for stability.





Stability = stagnation = Obamanation = Hoover/FDR

 

[KingOrfeo]

The main point about what was for our past generations, was economic mobility, the perceived ability for all to have a crack at the top through industry . . .

It was always a false perception, you know, and remains so today.

 

[tmleadr03]

It was always a false perception, you know, and remains so today.

You are absolutely correct, because this never happens ever.

Chris Gardner
Went from living on the street to multi-millionare.

Glenn Beck
Went from an alcoholic who couldn't afford his rent to being one of the biggest talk radio personalities and having his own TV shows and being able to just write a check for his daughters to go to collage.


Yup, I am sure I could find more but off the top of my head that is what came to mind.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Obama has already said he's not going to follow the Constitution so getting into the whole debate for the umpteenth time is tantamount to pissing up ropes.

When, and how did Barack Obama say he would not follow the Constitution?

 

[The_Trouvere]

You are absolutely correct, because this never happens ever.

Chris Gardner
Went from living on the street to multi-millionare.

Glenn Beck
Went from an alcoholic who couldn't afford his rent to being one of the biggest talk radio personalities and having his own TV shows and being able to just write a check for his daughters to go to collage.


Yup, I am sure I could find more but off the top of my head that is what came to mind.

Big deal. People win the lottery too.

The illusion of upward social mobility is what keeps fools like Joe the Plumber voting Republican. The vast majority of Americans will never become rich no matter how long and hard they work.

 

[off2bed]

Big deal. People win the lottery too.

The illusion of upward social mobility is what keeps fools like Joe the Plumber voting Republican. The vast majority of Americans will never become rich no matter how long and hard they work.

They'll never have a threesome either. Doesn't mean they can't try.

 

[Borscht]

Politically correct taxation. This is just the start.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081217/ap_on_re_us/new_york_taxes

Look on the bright side. These are regressive taxes which will hit poor people the hardest.

As poor people are the ones who voted for the Democrats in the first place, you could argue that there's a certain justice to it all.

 

[The_Trouvere]

They'll never have a threesome either. Doesn't mean they can't try.

I do not see anything wrong with trying to become rich, as long as one tries through legal means. Unfortunately, many white people in the United States assume that they will become rich, so they vote Republican.

I would love to be a rich Democrat with a home in Georgetown, but I would still vote Democrat.

 

[off2bed]

Unfortunately, many white people in the United States assume that they will become rich, so they vote Republican.

I would love to be a rich Democrat with a home in Georgetown, but I would still vote Democrat.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You are absolutely correct, because this never happens ever.

Oh, of course it does. But the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." The "economic mobility, the perceived ability for all to have a crack at the top through industry" was always an illusion. There is something to it, but nothing like the mythology would suggest.

There are two main types of mobility, absolute and relative[1]. Absolute upward mobility involves widespread economic growth which benefits everyone[1]. Relative mobility is specific to individuals and occurs without relation to the economy as a whole[1]. Both absolute and relative income mobility has been large and upward in the past ten years for those starting with below-average incomes; 80 percent of taxpayers had incomes in quintiles as high or higher in 2005 than they did in 1996, and 45 percent of taxpayers not in the highest income quintile moved up at least one quintile[2].

There has been a great disparity of income growth between 1979 and 2004 in the United States. The real, after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent during that time, compared to a 69% rise for the top 20%, and an increase of 9% for the lowest 20%[1]. Increasing income inequality, however, does not necessarily imply decreasing mobility. Median family income has risen 29% and mean family income has risen 43%, compared to the income of the previous generation for people that were children in 1968[3]. Most of this growth in total family income can be attributed to the increasing number of women who work since male earnings have stayed relatively stable throughout this time[3]. Two thirds of those who were children in 1968 reported more income than their parents, but only half of them exceeded their parents economic standing by moving up one or more quintiles[3]. Although one third of the nation is moving up quintiles, another third is downwardly mobile — experiencing a decrease in income and economic standing compared to their parents[3].

While there is some economic mobility between generations in the United States, it is still difficult to move up one or more quintiles in regard to one’s income[3]. 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile[3]. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile[3]. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%[4].

 

[unregistered]

 

[The_Trouvere]

That's some loony racism you have there. I suppose you feel that many black people assume they'll be poor so they vote Democrat.

Most low income blacks have the good sense to vote Democrat. Most low income whites do not.

On two important issues, the Republican Party pursues policies that harm low income people. The first is taxes. Republicans would like to replace the graduated income tax with either a flat tax, or a national sales tax. Both would raise taxes on those in the bottom half of the income distribution.

The second is health care. Most low paying jobs do not provide health benefits. Low income Americans would benefit from a system of socialized medicine modeled after those that exist in Canada and Western Europe.

 

[Hooper_X]

Most low income blacks have the good sense to vote Democrat. Most low income whites do not.

I've often wondered about that. Back in the 80's a shit-load of, mostly white, well paid union factory workers in my home town voted en masse (and against their economic interest) for Reagan. I've never been able to fathom what they could have been thinking... but I bet their retirement isn't what they imagined that it would be during those 30 hellish years on the production line.

 

[The_Trouvere]

I've often wondered about that. Back in the 80's a shit-load of, mostly white, well paid union factory workers in my home town voted en masse (and against their economic interest) for Reagan. I've never been able to fathom what they could have been thinking... but I bet their retirement isn't what they imagined that it would be during those 30 hellish years on the production line.

During the 1960's and 1970's working class whites had legitimate concerns about black crime, and issues like busing and affirmative action. For the most part, the Democrat Party has addressed those concerns by accepting a more punitive criminal justice system, and by backing away from busing and affirmative action.

Nevertheless, most working class whites - and particularly working class white men - still vote Republican. I can think of three reasons for this. First, many think they will get rich before they die. (The truth, of course, is that for the vast majority, as they get older, their paychecks will buy less; this has been happening since the recession of 1974.) Second, the GOP exploits their fear of those Others lurking in the dark. Third, many working class whites resent those who are more intelligent than they are, and do not try to hide it. This is what all that nonsense about "cultural elitism" is all about.

With most working class whites the politics of personal identity resonates more than economic self interest. They would rather vote for a anti-union, flat taxing Republican, if he shows up at their neighborhood bar, buys everyone drinks and talks about the fortunes of local sports teams, than someone who would rather attend a symphony concert than a ball game - although he advances their economic interests.

 

[Hooper_X]

During the 1960's and 1970's working class whites had legitimate concerns about black crime, and issues like busing and affirmative action.

More correctly, they had illegitimate concerns about the demise of America as a rigidly stratified apartheid state.

First, many think they will get rich before they die... With most working class whites the politics of personal identity resonates more than economic self interest.

I was beginning to think that I was the only person who noticed that. I'm reminded of that dynamic every time I drive a laughably modest walled neighborhood with a grandiose name.

Of course, that doesn't make it any less insane. I can't imagine subjecting myself to financial ruin (not to mention Dickensian labor conditions) in the here and now on the exceedingly slim hope that I'm going to one day be in my boss's boss's boss's economic stratum.

 

[Ishmael]

Most low income blacks have the good sense to vote Democrat. Most low income whites do not.

On two important issues, the Republican Party pursues policies that harm low income people. The first is taxes. Republicans would like to replace the graduated income tax with either a flat tax, or a national sales tax. Both would raise taxes on those in the bottom half of the income distribution.

The second is health care. Most low paying jobs do not provide health benefits. Low income Americans would benefit from a system of socialized medicine modeled after those that exist in Canada and Western Europe.

Blacks voting predominately for one part or the other is STUPID. It is a waste of political power.

Prior to 1964 the blacks of the US voted 90% Republican. Then Goldwater voted against the Equal Rights bill and ran for president. The black community has been voting 90% Democrat ever since. The democrats have done about as much for the black community as the republicans did before them. Which is to say, not much at all.

What the democrats did do though was to set up black wards and appoint blacks to meaningless positions with lofty titles. And those blacks motivated other blacks to stick with the democrat program inorder to preserve their own positions.

There is no longer anyone with any sense that will make the argument that welfare was a benefit to the black community. It devastated the community

As far as socialized medicine is concerned, all of the systems you are holding up as models are falling flat on their ass now. They don't work because they are built on the same premise as Social Security. Just another Ponzi scheme.

Ishmael

 

[Sharon_]

Most low income blacks have the good sense to vote Democrat. Most low income whites do not.

If you start out with a faulty premise the rest you base it on is likely also wrong.

Most low income blacks do not vote.

Neither do most low income whites.

 

[incubus666]

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare [emphasis mine] of the United States."

Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution of the United States


That clearly reads like an authorization of the welfare state. All taxation takes from some to give to others. It does so forcibly. A government cannot operate on voluntary contributions.

I just did a google search and found U.S. charitable contributions in 2006 equaled $295 billion. 83% came from individuals, not from corporations or institutions.

 

[Sharon_]

Nevertheless, most working class whites - and particularly working class white men - still vote Republican.

....and, again: most working class whites do not vote.

 

[incubus666]

You assume that the rich are more industrious than the poor. That is true of some of the rich, and some of the poor. It is also true that many of the rich are inheritors and live in leisured luxury, and that many of the poor work two or more jobs and well over 40 hours a week, and remain poor.
.

Both of those statements are untrue. The vast majority of millionaires in the U.S. are self made. The number of self made millionaires is a little in dispute but, is about 80-90% Read the Millionaire Next Door.

In a study of U.S. poor I believe it is called Undrestanding Poverty in America, using census data they determined the average poor family had only one person working and that person worked less then 20 hours a week.
Many of these families were single parent households. They also determined were there 2 working parents each working 20 hrs/week the majority of there families would no longer be in poverty.

Here is a link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

 

[Ishmael]

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare [emphasis mine] of the United States."





Both of those statements are untrue. The vast majority of millionaires in the U.S. are self made. The number of self made millionaires is a little in dispute but, is about 80-90% Read the Millionaire Next Door.

In a study of U.S. poor I believe it is called Undrestanding in America, using census data they determined the average poor family had only one person working and that person worked less then 20 hours a week.
Many of these families were single parent households. They also determined were there 2 working parents each working 20 hrs/week the majority of there families would no longer be in poverty.

Here is a link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

The facts have all been posted before. Even the stats on charitable giving in the country. Even how the US stacks up against the rest of the world when it comes to charity. All to no avail. Idiots, like the one you're posting to, are driven by 'feelings' and 'beliefs', fuck the facts.

Ishmael