http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...t/2793343/

The nanny state is doing great, what people don't realize is the "kids" are the 1%.

If you're interested in the actual papers instead of the very low level summary:

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~saez/

Is this money or pussy we're talking about?

That's hard to believe when back around the 1900s the government was borrowing money from people like Jp Morgan and other individuals. Shit, a handful of individuals had more power back then than the government. They had more pull in elections too. They would basically rally for one candidate and basically say, "if x president is elected, none of you will have jobs tomorrow."

The big reason I'm not a Republican nor a Libertarian is because the right wing politicians in America are not really interested in bringing us back to the "glory days" of the 1950s and 1960s. They claim that is what they want, but the post-Regan Republican party has been chiseling away at all of the depression-era laws passed that made the boom of the 1950s and 1960s possible.

The Libertarians are flat out wrong: Free markets without government regulation will not give us a golden age with a thriving middle class. Uncontrolled free markets will give us a very few rich people and a lot of very poor people -- just as how things were in the late 1800s.

There is a lot I despise about the left wing -- they harbor and support abominations like
Adria Richards -- but I agree that taxing the 1% more and handing out the money in a way so we can have a strong middle class again (just like what we had 50 years ago) is a good idea.

Here's a PDF: http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-USt...s-2012.pdf

Quote: (09-12-2013 08:16 PM)placer Wrote:  

The big reason I'm not a Republican nor a Libertarian is because the right wing politicians in America are not really interested in bringing us back to the "glory days" of the 1950s and 1960s. They claim that is what they want, but the post-Regan Republican party has been chiseling away at all of the depression-era laws passed that made the boom of the 1950s and 1960s possible.

The Libertarians are flat out wrong: Free markets without government regulation will not give us a golden age with a thriving middle class. Uncontrolled free markets will give us a very few rich people and a lot of very poor people -- just as how things were in the late 1800s.

There is a lot I despise about the left wing -- they harbor and support abominations like
Adria Richards -- but I agree that taxing the 1% more and handing out the money in a way so we can have a strong middle class again (just like what we had 50 years ago) is a good idea.

Here's a PDF: http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-USt...s-2012.pdf

The idea that leftists will make things better for us over free-markets is a fantasy that you should stop believing in. Taking money from rich corporations and giving it to an almighty government isn't going to solve shit. Plenty of powerful governments line the graveyards of history.

Let's be real: The only time in US history there was a large and powerful middle class was in the aftermath of WW2. We were the victors and we got all the spoils. Everyone bought from our industry and we made all the money.

That's the real story that no libertarian, democrat, or republican will talk about. Winning a war is the best way to prosperity.

Losing a war is the best way to prosperity, just look at Japan and Germany.

They were protected by the US, they had limited armed forces and thus had little to spend on military.

Those countries were down to rubble so they had to build everything again.

All that money that they saved from military spending went straight to investing. It's a shame we spend more on defense than education.

Quote: (09-12-2013 08:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Let's be real: The only time in US history there was a large and powerful middle class was in the aftermath of WW2. We were the victors and we got all the spoils. Everyone bought from our industry and we made all the money.

That's the real story that no libertarian, democrat, or republican will talk about. Winning a war is the best way to prosperity.

And that period is the basis for the "American Dream." Everything was stacked in America's favor: massive industrial capacity, undamaged infrastructure, plentiful resources, a huge military, and being the winning side in a world-spanning war.

Now the rest of the world has caught up, but the American Dream is such a powerful idea, that no one can possibly admit it is based on a historical artifact rather than the intrinsic nature of the country or its form of government.

I sometimes wonder whether the fact that donating money is considered a form of protected speech is a problem; if campaigns were all publicly funded, would we have as much regulatory capture and lobbying by special interests?

The corporations ARE the government. The lobbyists write the bills. The government is just a PR branch for the corporations.

The media too. The idea that college professors control the media is a little naive.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-c...ica-2012-6

Everybody haggles and points fingers except your owners. They sip champagne send kids to Harvard fuck unreal whores while the fools thinking in terms of "liberal conservative" red herrings keep each other occupied.

Divide and conquer, don't you get it?

The money quietly, consistently , over the decades flows up, up up. And stays there. And the shit rolls downhill.

The media is there to help your owners divide and conquer. Liberal vs. Conservative, ALL congressional Republicrats is voting for more NSA money to track your every eye blink. There's no difference, the presented conflct is there just to distract you.

Sure, we won World War II. We also had strong unions, a higher top tax rate for the very very rich (over 90%), and strong protections from out-of-control greed (such as the Glass-Steagall act) which are not in place today.

Here's a thought: We won the war in Iraq. Where's the prosperity from winning that war?

Here's another thought: France has a lot less income inequality than the US. I don't think that's because of the spoils of all those French military victories I keep hearing about. ;>

I'm probably a 1950s Republican (faith in God, supports strong unions, supports freedom, believes marriage is the core of a strong society, believes that government can make miracles like a man on the moon happen) with some, but not all, of the more modern tolerances (I support gay rights -- actually, I support all consensual sex between adults -- as well as racial equality). I just don't get why a lot of Republicans really think breaking up unions is going to bring us back to the prosperity we had in the 50s and 60s.

I t boils down to the basic existential nature of power. Power, of any kind, by its very nature tries to increase itself. This is an idea by Foucault and Nietzsche.

This is why the idea of a free market is unbelievably naive. If you're rich and own 8 of the 9 apartment buildings in town, the first thing you're going to do is buy the last one so you have total control of the market.

As power accumulates, it makes it easier and easier to get MORE power. Right when real estate prices started turning up, big companies here in Norcal started buying houses up by the HUNDREDS.

They're going to rent them out ( further moving money from working to owner class) then when things start to peak again they'll sell them and make a killing.

You working in the meantime? Too bad, sucker-- your money goes to them unless you live in your RV getting rousted by the cops. Oh, you HAVE TO pay them rent, legally. Free market, the idea is laughable. Just to exist and take a shit you have to pay the landowners of the world.

Quote: (09-13-2013 05:45 AM)placer Wrote:  

Sure, we won World War II. We also had strong unions, a higher top tax rate for the very very rich (over 90%), and strong protections from out-of-control greed (such as the Glass-Steagall act) which are not in place today.

Here's a thought: We won the war in Iraq. Where's the prosperity from winning that war?

Here's another thought: France has a lot less income inequality than the US. I don't think that's because of the spoils of all those French military victories I keep hearing about. ;>

I'm probably a 1950s Republican (faith in God, supports strong unions, supports freedom, believes marriage is the core of a strong society, believes that government can make miracles like a man on the moon happen) with some, but not all, of the more modern tolerances (I support gay rights -- actually, I support all consensual sex between adults -- as well as racial equality). I just don't get why a lot of Republicans really think breaking up unions is going to bring us back to the prosperity we had in the 50s and 60s.

Because Unions prevent competition, aka the open market, and end up either running businesses into the ground (so not only are the union employees hurt, but so are the non-union employees) or end up needing govt. money (aka YOUR money, MY money, OUR money) so they can get paid 150% more than they are worth on the open market.

It isn't sustainable in today's global economy. It isn't the 1950's anymore.

Quote: (09-13-2013 05:57 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

I t boils down to the basic existential nature of power. Power, of any kind, by its very nature tries to increase itself. This is an idea by Foucault and Nietzsche.

This is why the idea of a free market is unbelievably naive. If you're rich and own 8 of the 9 apartment buildings in town, the first thing you're going to do is buy the last one so you have total control of the market.

As power accumulates, it makes it easier and easier to get MORE power. Right when real estate prices started turning up, big companies here in Norcal started buying houses up by the HUNDREDS.

They're going to rent them out ( further moving money from working to owner class) then when things start to peak again they'll sell them and make a killing.

You working in the meantime? Too bad, sucker-- your money goes to them unless you live in your RV getting rousted by the cops. Oh, you HAVE TO pay them rent, legally. Free market, the idea is laughable. Just to exist and take a shit you have to pay the landowners of the world.

Move and start your own company then. Except with the burdensome federal govt. and their regulations it is nearly impossible to do today. Thanks Obamacare.

Quote: (09-13-2013 05:45 AM)placer Wrote:  

Sure, we won World War II. We also had strong unions, a higher top tax rate for the very very rich (over 90%), and strong protections from out-of-control greed (such as the Glass-Steagall act) which are not in place today.

How do you know these things weren't harmful, and yet America became rich in SPITE of these laws?

Quote:Quote:

Here's a thought: We won the war in Iraq. Where's the prosperity from winning that war?

Iraq was nothing compared to WW2. WW2 left America as the world's sole industrial superpower.

Quote:Quote:

Here's another thought: France has a lot less income inequality than the US. I don't think that's because of the spoils of all those French military victories I keep hearing about. ;>

France taxes the shit out of their rich so much, the rich just leave the country. That's why there's income equality - rich people don't stay thus keeping everyone poor as fuck.

Having been to France, I can't imagine anyone preferring France to America. France is fucked and it is obvious.

Quote:Quote:

I'm probably a 1950s Republican (faith in God, supports strong unions, supports freedom, believes marriage is the core of a strong society, believes that government can make miracles like a man on the moon happen) with some, but not all, of the more modern tolerances (I support gay rights -- actually, I support all consensual sex between adults -- as well as racial equality). I just don't get why a lot of Republicans really think breaking up unions is going to bring us back to the prosperity we had in the 50s and 60s.

Unions are not some kind of equivocal good that leads to prosperity. It keeps wages artificially high at the expense of the consumer. I do not think unions have ever helped anyone, even back in the days of rampant exploitation by families like the Rockefellers.

Almost always, there is some kind of massive abuse of the law that allows people to get super rich. But instead of fixing that law, people would rather make their own set of special laws so they can compete.

Quote: (09-13-2013 12:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Here's a thought: We won the war in Iraq. Where's the prosperity from winning that war?

Iraq was nothing compared to WW2. WW2 left America as the world's sole industrial superpower.

Right...The point being that it's not so much the act of "winning" the war as it was the fact that it left much of the competition (other industrialized nations) in ruins. I think this is straight out of one of Fareed Zakariah's books.

Quote: (09-13-2013 01:19 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Quote: (09-13-2013 12:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Here's a thought: We won the war in Iraq. Where's the prosperity from winning that war?

Iraq was nothing compared to WW2. WW2 left America as the world's sole industrial superpower.

Right...The point being that it's not so much the act of "winning" the war as it was the fact that it left much of the competition (other industrialized nations) in ruins. I think this is straight out of one of Fareed Zakariah's books.

Winning is pretty much saying that none major battles were fought on US soil. While Europe in comparison was ravaged. Much higher percentages of their population were wiped out. Comparing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to WWII means that you have no clue what you're talking about.

I never compared the two... so I guess you're talking about someone else.

I was simply agreeing with the proposition put forth that the aftermath of WWII produced some unique circumstances of benefit to the USA.

Quote: (09-13-2013 02:54 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

I never compared the two... so I guess you're talking about someone else.

I was simply agreeing with the proposition put forth that the aftermath of WWII produced some unique circumstances of benefit to the USA.

The only thing more amazing to me, than how much the USA prospered post WWII (25% of the world's economy and only 5% of the world's population, etc etc) is how quickly it was all destroyed by simply fighting gender roles and kicking dads out of families.

Quote: (09-13-2013 03:01 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Quote: (09-13-2013 02:54 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

I never compared the two... so I guess you're talking about someone else.

I was simply agreeing with the proposition put forth that the aftermath of WWII produced some unique circumstances of benefit to the USA.

The only thing more amazing to me, than how much the USA prospered post WWII (25% of the world's economy and only 5% of the world's population, etc etc) is how quickly it was all destroyed by simply fighting gender roles and kicking dads out of families.

And illegal immigration. That's a big one too. All of those new voters shifted the power to democrats that was irreversible.

America is the richest it's ever been.

What's changed is how wealth is being distributed. Look at how CEO pay has increased over time relative to employee wages.

The power elites have duped most of you into thinking that America is on the decline. America is great for the top 1%.

But you have been brainwashed to believe that speaking out against the 1% is class warfare.

Sheep.

Quote: (09-13-2013 03:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (09-13-2013 03:01 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Quote: (09-13-2013 02:54 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

I never compared the two... so I guess you're talking about someone else.

I was simply agreeing with the proposition put forth that the aftermath of WWII produced some unique circumstances of benefit to the USA.

The only thing more amazing to me, than how much the USA prospered post WWII (25% of the world's economy and only 5% of the world's population, etc etc) is how quickly it was all destroyed by simply fighting gender roles and kicking dads out of families.

And illegal immigration. That's a big one too. All of those new voters shifted the power to democrats that was irreversible.

True. I think it all goes back to women voting.

I believe it was Queen Victoria who had a quote about women voting that said "every liberal idea will soon become a law" and that is pretty much the outcome.

Women continue to vote for security and safety and to replace the need for men in their life. In doing so they are bankrupting the country, as such a large invasive govt. simply cannot be afforded for the long term.

Obama was a terrible president in his first 4 years. The men voted him out. Unfortunately the women made up 54% of the voters.

Quote: (09-13-2013 03:08 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

What's changed is how wealth is being distributed. Look at how CEO pay has increased over time relative to employee wages.

The power elites have duped most of you into thinking that America is on the decline. America is great for the top 1%.

Indeed. While Mother Jones makes me cringe when they have yet another article about that imaginary "rape culture" [1], they have some really great analysis about income inequality. For example, here are some useful charts: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...two-charts

[1] I really wish Liberals would figure out that the way you stop "rape culture" is by having a "marriage culture". Men react to women's sexual preferences, and in a culture without strong marriage, where women have sex with multiple alphas and don't give betas the time of day, men are going to do everything they can to become an alpha.

For a long time now, we've had a government of the super-rich that's existed to further their interests at the expense of the country's interests. To some extent it's always been that way, but over the past 30 years the gross inequalities in power and wealth have become so great that it's threatening the foundations of social justice and constitutional government.
It may already be too late.
One of the laws of history is that wealth and power tend, over time, to get concentrated in the hands of the few. Any government that cares about social justice and stability can't let the system become so unbalanced, or else real civil disorder will eventually happen. We're at that critical danger point now. People are getting crushed out there. There's a lot of increasing desperation and it's obvious that our "leaders" care only about lining their own pockets and protecting the interests of the rich and powerful.
It takes real political courage to stand up to the interests of wealth and power. It happens rarely in history.
In ancient Athens, Solon was able to restructure society in order to provide some relief to debtors, the underclass, and the poor. By so doing, he was able to avert a revolution and perhaps years of civil war. FDR did the same thing in the US during the Depression.
The brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus tried to institute reforms in Rome and had just the opposite result: the powerful resisted reform, and the result was years of chaos and war.
So, the choice is ours. Either the leadership is going to try to solve problems, or they will not. Any society that lacks at least some compassion for the unfortunate, the downtrodden, and the dispossessed is hardly worthy of the name.

Quote: (09-13-2013 03:23 PM)placer Wrote:  

Quote: (09-13-2013 03:08 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

What's changed is how wealth is being distributed. Look at how CEO pay has increased over time relative to employee wages.

The power elites have duped most of you into thinking that America is on the decline. America is great for the top 1%.

Indeed. While Mother Jones makes me cringe when they have yet another article about that imaginary "rape culture" [1], they have some really great analysis about income inequality. For example, here are some useful charts: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...two-charts

[1] I really wish Liberals would figure out that the way you stop "rape culture" is by having a "marriage culture". Men react to women's sexual preferences, and in a culture without strong marriage, where women have sex with multiple alphas and don't give betas the time of day, men are going to do everything they can to become an alpha.

We need a party that isn't identity politics and cultural marxism but at the same time addresses economic inequality matters. Unfortunately these liberals like to do shit like hand out driver's licenses to illegal aliens and promote the lie that women make less than men for the same work.

I can't stand with the right because their economics just fucking suck. They only care about the wealthy and preserving their wealth. They don't give a shit how many people are struggling. If everyone was making $7 an hour at Walmart that is perfectly fine by them.

I wish we had a party that was pro-male, not politically correct and put people above profits.

[quote='Samseau' pid='533513' dateline='1379102715'
And illegal immigration. That's a big one too. All of those new voters shifted the power to democrats that was irreversible.
[/quote]

Isn't it more accurate to say the power/money was shifted [even more] to the top 1% or 1/10 of 1%? Republicrats are ONE UNIT, united in keeping their kids in Harvard, you OUT of Harvard, and all wealth and power in their class.