School me on Hilary Clinton (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2015-08-18 11:05 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton And to add: When people are employed in jobs where there is job security and the potential for growth, when they feel able to provide for their families, and feel secure in their retirement, there is far less need for social programs. When people feel that they are stuck in an economy that only favors the very rich, and that their efforts only benefit the executives of their company, and that they could be downsized or outsourced at any moment, it's harder to convince people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and work harder. I saw a funny thing on Facebook the other day: "An employee is walking into his office from the parking lot when his CEO pulls in driving a spectacular Italian sportscar. 'Wow, Mr. Smith," says the employee, "that sure is a beautiful car!" "Thanks, Jimmy," says the CEO." And you know, if you work hard and pay your dues, and acheive all of your department's goals, I can get an even better one next year!" |
|
2015-08-18 12:43 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn "An employee is walking into his office from the parking lot when his CEO pulls in driving a spectacular Italian sportscar. 'Wow, Mr. Smith," says the employee, "that sure is a beautiful car!" "Thanks, Jimmy," says the CEO." And you know, if you work hard and pay your dues, and acheive all of your department's goals, I can get an even better one next year!" Yup, that sums it up perfectly. |
2015-08-18 8:16 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by mrbbrad Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by dmiller5 US senator. Secretary of state. just those things makes her more qualified that almost everyone else in the race. what do you want Plus, she once told the President of the United States to "get your arse back out there and tell the truth so I don't look like an idiot" when the POTUS lied about an affair with an intern. That's something too. She still looked like an idiot through all the IMO I'm with you on her.....I don't get it. That woman will lie about anything......she even LOOKS like she will lie about anything. Plus she has fat ankles, I just can't take any person with fat ankles seriously.
I think you are being kind of hard on her, from what I can tell she is completely honest, her family just defines words a lot differently than you or I do, or Webster for that matter.
|
2015-08-18 8:16 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by mrbbrad Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by dmiller5 US senator. Secretary of state. just those things makes her more qualified that almost everyone else in the race. what do you want Plus, she once told the President of the United States to "get your arse back out there and tell the truth so I don't look like an idiot" when the POTUS lied about an affair with an intern. That's something too. She still looked like an idiot through all the IMO I'm with you on her.....I don't get it. That woman will lie about anything......she even LOOKS like she will lie about anything. Plus she has fat ankles, I just can't take any person with fat ankles seriously.
I think you are being kind of hard on her, from what I can tell she is completely honest, her family just defines words a lot differently than you or I do, or Webster for that matter.
|
2015-08-18 8:20 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn And to add: When people are employed in jobs where there is job security and the potential for growth, when they feel able to provide for their families, and feel secure in their retirement, there is far less need for social programs. When people feel that they are stuck in an economy that only favors the very rich, and that their efforts only benefit the executives of their company, and that they could be downsized or outsourced at any moment, it's harder to convince people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and work harder. I saw a funny thing on Facebook the other day: "An employee is walking into his office from the parking lot when his CEO pulls in driving a spectacular Italian sportscar. 'Wow, Mr. Smith," says the employee, "that sure is a beautiful car!" "Thanks, Jimmy," says the CEO." And you know, if you work hard and pay your dues, and acheive all of your department's goals, I can get an even better one next year!"
And why is that, could it have anything to do with the difficulty to start a new company that can compete. Do government over regulation have anything to do with it. Big companies can absorb the high cost of litigation, regulation and small start ups which could bring competition to the market place don't have the same scale. |
2015-08-19 9:46 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn And to add: When people are employed in jobs where there is job security and the potential for growth, when they feel able to provide for their families, and feel secure in their retirement, there is far less need for social programs. When people feel that they are stuck in an economy that only favors the very rich, and that their efforts only benefit the executives of their company, and that they could be downsized or outsourced at any moment, it's harder to convince people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and work harder. I saw a funny thing on Facebook the other day: "An employee is walking into his office from the parking lot when his CEO pulls in driving a spectacular Italian sportscar. 'Wow, Mr. Smith," says the employee, "that sure is a beautiful car!" "Thanks, Jimmy," says the CEO." And you know, if you work hard and pay your dues, and acheive all of your department's goals, I can get an even better one next year!" I know we've had this discussion before, but to be blunt; If somebody has an attitude like this they will absolutely never be financially successful in life. I mean, why even try, right? The American dream is absolutely real for anyone who is willing to believe in it and put forth the effort. My wife and I just met a guy the other day who is a multi-millionaire who was a single proprietor who mowed lawns the last 30 years. He makes over $200k/year working by himself with zero employees mowing freaking lawns. The simple fact is, people don't try to be successful because the game is "rigged against them" and the wealthy are keeping them poor yada yada yada. The reason most people are poor is because they buy into the lie that everyone (including our government) spews down their throat. "You can't succeed". I've been working with a guy in church who is a black dude who grew up in a really tough neighborhood that worked his tail off to be successful. His un-dealt with past caught up to him and he ended up going to jail with a felony assault charge. Black (check), inner city (check), felony (check) absolutely no chance at success right. pff, whatever. He worked his butt off delivering sandwiches and working fast food jobs but continued to apply for 5-10 jobs per day for over 3 months and finally got a job with open ended commissions. His drive has brought him right back up to a strong six figure salary. He didn't buy the lie, he just went out and did it. The other huge problem is our culture is on the spending side of the equation. The "I deserve this now" attitude has resulted in the vast majority of people sending their entire paycheck to banks and credit cards. When everyone in America is so far in debt that they're paying 30% of their income to stupid tax (aka interest), car leases, you name it they will never get ahead no matter how much they make. So, even if "the man" doubles their salary they'll just go in debt twice as far and twice as fast. People like to blame "the man" or "the system" but it's so much more than that. The vast majority of the problem for anyone struggling financially is the guy/gal staring at them in the mirror. ok, i'll get off my soap box. |
|
2015-08-21 12:45 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn And to add: When people are employed in jobs where there is job security and the potential for growth, when they feel able to provide for their families, and feel secure in their retirement, there is far less need for social programs. When people feel that they are stuck in an economy that only favors the very rich, and that their efforts only benefit the executives of their company, and that they could be downsized or outsourced at any moment, it's harder to convince people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and work harder. I saw a funny thing on Facebook the other day: "An employee is walking into his office from the parking lot when his CEO pulls in driving a spectacular Italian sportscar. 'Wow, Mr. Smith," says the employee, "that sure is a beautiful car!" "Thanks, Jimmy," says the CEO." And you know, if you work hard and pay your dues, and acheive all of your department's goals, I can get an even better one next year!" I know we've had this discussion before, but to be blunt; If somebody has an attitude like this they will absolutely never be financially successful in life. I mean, why even try, right? The American dream is absolutely real for anyone who is willing to believe in it and put forth the effort. My wife and I just met a guy the other day who is a multi-millionaire who was a single proprietor who mowed lawns the last 30 years. He makes over $200k/year working by himself with zero employees mowing freaking lawns. The simple fact is, people don't try to be successful because the game is "rigged against them" and the wealthy are keeping them poor yada yada yada. The reason most people are poor is because they buy into the lie that everyone (including our government) spews down their throat. "You can't succeed". I've been working with a guy in church who is a black dude who grew up in a really tough neighborhood that worked his tail off to be successful. His un-dealt with past caught up to him and he ended up going to jail with a felony assault charge. Black (check), inner city (check), felony (check) absolutely no chance at success right. pff, whatever. He worked his butt off delivering sandwiches and working fast food jobs but continued to apply for 5-10 jobs per day for over 3 months and finally got a job with open ended commissions. His drive has brought him right back up to a strong six figure salary. He didn't buy the lie, he just went out and did it. The other huge problem is our culture is on the spending side of the equation. The "I deserve this now" attitude has resulted in the vast majority of people sending their entire paycheck to banks and credit cards. When everyone in America is so far in debt that they're paying 30% of their income to stupid tax (aka interest), car leases, you name it they will never get ahead no matter how much they make. So, even if "the man" doubles their salary they'll just go in debt twice as far and twice as fast. People like to blame "the man" or "the system" but it's so much more than that. The vast majority of the problem for anyone struggling financially is the guy/gal staring at them in the mirror. ok, i'll get off my soap box. Personal financial responsibility? It's a huge problem in our country. People don't have a clue where to start or how to do it. We are made to believe that we need that new car. If we can't afford the danged thing no problem, lease it! The finance guy at the dealership will be glad to let you know that can "afford" more car with a lease anyway! Credit card? Shop around and get a card at 14% and you'll save XX dollars a year with a 10K balance over a card at an18% interest rate. Don't let those credit card companies take advantage of you now. Get a thirty year mortgage with variable rates or balloon payments to "afford" that bigger house. A co-worker asked me the other day how I managed to do the things and live like I do on the same salary ( he actually makes about 18-20K more by working all the overtime he can get). I initially wanted to tell him that my wife and I made some sound investments when we got married. But the bigger picture IMO was the difference in the make-up of our monthly expenditures. I asked him how much he paid in interest each month on all his cars, cards and other toys. He couldn't tell me because it never occurred to him to find out. He just sees the monthly payment, not the make-up of that payment ( that's a BIG deal BTW and a critical problem with the US today). So he shoots back and asks me the same question. Zero was my answer. He immediately got all flustered and called BS on my statement. We use one credit card and pay it off every month. I got an Edge 1000 for free this year thanks to those reward points they give me even if I don't pay them any interest! But you have a nice car he points out. I pointed out the fact that I drove the previous car for 10 years, during which time frame he probably bought and traded in at least 12-14 vehicles. I told him to do the math on how much more he was spending for full coverage insurance while I am paying for just liability, theft and UM. He then got pizzed and didn't want to talk to me any further. It probably would have killed him had I told him my house was paid for thanks to a 15 yr. fixed. So I know you can still make it in the country and that the system isn't rigged. But there is a lot of truth in the joke that JMK posted. I work in the airline industry. I'm hourly and just fine with the position I hold and the wage I earn. Unfortunately the airline industry was the model for the "layoff/job cut" business plan I mentioned in my previous post. Rather than fix the underlying problems with the business model, when an airline gets in trouble they ask for concessions, have lay offs and then the replace the CEO. Usually the CEO is replaced with a CEO from another airline that sacked him when they got in trouble. I jokingly call it the "inbreeding management" business model. The airline will immediately recover and HUGE bonuses are paid to the board and management people that are VP level and above. The cycle repeats itself and the underlying problem never gets fixed. Same goes for most large businesses today, except they also have the option to outsource or send piecework overseas. Getting rid of your American workforce and sending it overseas is killing this country. Quality and service suffers as a result. Ever try to get a billing issue corrected with an overseas call center? Language is a barrier to say the least. To sum things up, I do believe you can make it in this country today. You will have to work hard, watch your finances, invest until it hurts and not buy every new "shiny" that hits the market. But the way upper level management and board guys are rewarded for NOT fixing the real problem needs to be reigned in. I did say reined in and not stopped because I believe that these people are exceptional and do deserve to be compensated well. The average CEO or top tier management person probably works 70plus hours a week. They went to college and business school which is a lot of time and money invested. These guys are incredibly smart and put in a crapton of hours on the job. So pay them huge bonuses when they hit their numbers with the business model they put in place. When the business makes money on their plan, with the employees they hired and at the wages they agreed to pay, it's bonus time. If they have to lay off people every six months to make the earnings per share work, I don't think they need a bonus. ETA - Oddly enough, the fiscal conservative side of me doesn't believe it is the govts job to step in and regulate these guys! Not sure how to fix it as they certainly show no signs of regulating themselves. Edited by mdg2003 2015-08-21 12:54 PM |
2015-08-21 1:15 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by tuwood Personal financial responsibility? It's a huge problem in our country. People don't have a clue where to start or how to do it. We are made to believe that we need that new car. If we can't afford the danged thing no problem, lease it! The finance guy at the dealership will be glad to let you know that can "afford" more car with a lease anyway! Credit card? Shop around and get a card at 14% and you'll save XX dollars a year with a 10K balance over a card at an18% interest rate. Don't let those credit card companies take advantage of you now. Get a thirty year mortgage with variable rates or balloon payments to "afford" that bigger house. A co-worker asked me the other day how I managed to do the things and live like I do on the same salary ( he actually makes about 18-20K more by working all the overtime he can get). I initially wanted to tell him that my wife and I made some sound investments when we got married. But the bigger picture IMO was the difference in the make-up of our monthly expenditures. I asked him how much he paid in interest each month on all his cars, cards and other toys. He couldn't tell me because it never occurred to him to find out. He just sees the monthly payment, not the make-up of that payment ( that's a BIG deal BTW and a critical problem with the US today). So he shoots back and asks me the same question. Zero was my answer. He immediately got all flustered and called BS on my statement. We use one credit card and pay it off every month. I got an Edge 1000 for free this year thanks to those reward points they give me even if I don't pay them any interest! But you have a nice car he points out. I pointed out the fact that I drove the previous car for 10 years, during which time frame he probably bought and traded in at least 12-14 vehicles. I told him to do the math on how much more he was spending for full coverage insurance while I am paying for just liability, theft and UM. He then got pizzed and didn't want to talk to me any further. It probably would have killed him had I told him my house was paid for thanks to a 15 yr. fixed. So I know you can still make it in the country and that the system isn't rigged. But there is a lot of truth in the joke that JMK posted. I work in the airline industry. I'm hourly and just fine with the position I hold and the wage I earn. Unfortunately the airline industry was the model for the "layoff/job cut" business plan I mentioned in my previous post. Rather than fix the underlying problems with the business model, when an airline gets in trouble they ask for concessions, have lay offs and then the replace the CEO. Usually the CEO is replaced with a CEO from another airline that sacked him when they got in trouble. I jokingly call it the "inbreeding management" business model. The airline will immediately recover and HUGE bonuses are paid to the board and management people that are VP level and above. The cycle repeats itself and the underlying problem never gets fixed. Same goes for most large businesses today, except they also have the option to outsource or send piecework overseas. Getting rid of your American workforce and sending it overseas is killing this country. Quality and service suffers as a result. Ever try to get a billing issue corrected with an overseas call center? Language is a barrier to say the least. To sum things up, I do believe you can make it in this country today. You will have to work hard, watch your finances, invest until it hurts and not buy every new "shiny" that hits the market. But the way upper level management and board guys are rewarded for NOT fixing the real problem needs to be reigned in. I did say reined in and not stopped because I believe that these people are exceptional and do deserve to be compensated well. The average CEO or top tier management person probably works 70plus hours a week. They went to college and business school which is a lot of time and money invested. These guys are incredibly smart and put in a crapton of hours on the job. So pay them huge bonuses when they hit their numbers with the business model they put in place. When the business makes money on their plan, with the employees they hired and at the wages they agreed to pay, it's bonus time. If they have to lay off people every six months to make the earnings per share work, I don't think they need a bonus. ETA - Oddly enough, the fiscal conservative side of me doesn't believe it is the govts job to step in and regulate these guys! Not sure how to fix it as they certainly show no signs of regulating themselves. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn And to add: When people are employed in jobs where there is job security and the potential for growth, when they feel able to provide for their families, and feel secure in their retirement, there is far less need for social programs. When people feel that they are stuck in an economy that only favors the very rich, and that their efforts only benefit the executives of their company, and that they could be downsized or outsourced at any moment, it's harder to convince people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and work harder. I saw a funny thing on Facebook the other day: "An employee is walking into his office from the parking lot when his CEO pulls in driving a spectacular Italian sportscar. 'Wow, Mr. Smith," says the employee, "that sure is a beautiful car!" "Thanks, Jimmy," says the CEO." And you know, if you work hard and pay your dues, and acheive all of your department's goals, I can get an even better one next year!" I know we've had this discussion before, but to be blunt; If somebody has an attitude like this they will absolutely never be financially successful in life. I mean, why even try, right? The American dream is absolutely real for anyone who is willing to believe in it and put forth the effort. My wife and I just met a guy the other day who is a multi-millionaire who was a single proprietor who mowed lawns the last 30 years. He makes over $200k/year working by himself with zero employees mowing freaking lawns. The simple fact is, people don't try to be successful because the game is "rigged against them" and the wealthy are keeping them poor yada yada yada. The reason most people are poor is because they buy into the lie that everyone (including our government) spews down their throat. "You can't succeed". I've been working with a guy in church who is a black dude who grew up in a really tough neighborhood that worked his tail off to be successful. His un-dealt with past caught up to him and he ended up going to jail with a felony assault charge. Black (check), inner city (check), felony (check) absolutely no chance at success right. pff, whatever. He worked his butt off delivering sandwiches and working fast food jobs but continued to apply for 5-10 jobs per day for over 3 months and finally got a job with open ended commissions. His drive has brought him right back up to a strong six figure salary. He didn't buy the lie, he just went out and did it. The other huge problem is our culture is on the spending side of the equation. The "I deserve this now" attitude has resulted in the vast majority of people sending their entire paycheck to banks and credit cards. When everyone in America is so far in debt that they're paying 30% of their income to stupid tax (aka interest), car leases, you name it they will never get ahead no matter how much they make. So, even if "the man" doubles their salary they'll just go in debt twice as far and twice as fast. People like to blame "the man" or "the system" but it's so much more than that. The vast majority of the problem for anyone struggling financially is the guy/gal staring at them in the mirror. ok, i'll get off my soap box. Awesome post and congratulations on being debt free. My wife and I are working very hard to get there, but we still have a couple years left. My come to Jesus moment was when our son asked us a couple years ago about how much our house payment was. I told him and he did the math in his head and said that it was awesome that our house is almost paid for because we've lived there for almost 13 years. I then ran the numbers and realized that after 13 years and over $250k in payments we have paid off a grand total of $20k on our $350k house. We still owed $330k after paying almost a quarter of a million dollars in payments. OMFG!!! We refinanced our house twice and "pulled money out" to pay off credit cards and cars because that was the "smart thing to do"... We were so stupid. |
2015-08-24 11:13 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton I saw an article about Sanders over the weekend, and he was asked for an elevator pitch regarding socialism and his answer was: "My elevator pitch is that the United States has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where almost 20 percent of our children are living in poverty, 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty. We are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of families control not only the economy but our political system as well. It is imperative that we develop a strong political movement that says to the billionaire class they cannot have it all." So, the thing is, whenever I've brought up this question of income/wealth inequality, the reaction seems to be pretty dismissive, and we get the "everyone has an opportunity to make it in this country" position, and the idea that any kind of redistribution of wealth is inherently a terrible idea, and so on. So my question is, assuming his figures are accurate, and, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are correct or close to it, is this ok with everyone? Should I assume from the strong objections that people raise to the idea of any kind of redistribution of wealth or other attempt to address wealth inequality, that everyone's fine with the system as is? Forget the "what do we do about it?" piece for the moment. I'm not suggesting that I have any answers, or that I've heard any answers from anyone else that I like. I'm just asking the question of whether the current distribution of wealth that exists in this country gives anyone cause for concern. |
2015-08-24 1:25 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Just a quick observation on the Sanders quote. It concerns me that he is being vague. We've listened to the "re-distribution of wealth and the we need to make the rich pay their fair share" rhetoric for many years now. So far, nobody has delivered on that promise. I just see him manipulating the poor in order to get their support with promises of free stuff. In order for him to actually accomplish this, there will need to be a violent revolution and a complete social/economic upheaval. He can want and promise to take the money, but the truth is that he won't get money from those billionaires. The thing about the current distribution of wealth that cause me concern is the disappearance of the middle class. Again, I can attribute this to jobs and manufacturing leaving this country. There is always going to be an elite or super wealthy class and there will always be a poor class. What makes our system work is the guys in the middle making 60-110K a year. As they go away, the ranks of the poor increase. So, yeah, I suppose that lost middle class capital winds up in the upper class group. I think to bring that middle class group back will require some government intervention to discourage sending our jobs overseas. Make it cost more to do business in other countries? They will probably just pass the extra cost to the US consumer. I don't think just taking the $$ from the wealthy and passing it around fixes a thing. Sure, the poor have some flash and all will be happy for a little while. But Id guess that 85% would be broke after a few months, having spent their dollars making the rich guys more money. The wealthy will learn to hide their wealth even more than ever and when the dust settles, won't we still have the same problem to deal with? That being how to get everyone working and making a living wage again? Get everyone working again and I feel the wealth would re-distribute itself. |
2015-08-24 1:32 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I saw an article about Sanders over the weekend, and he was asked for an elevator pitch regarding socialism and his answer was: "My elevator pitch is that the United States has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where almost 20 percent of our children are living in poverty, 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty. We are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of families control not only the economy but our political system as well. It is imperative that we develop a strong political movement that says to the billionaire class they cannot have it all." So, the thing is, whenever I've brought up this question of income/wealth inequality, the reaction seems to be pretty dismissive, and we get the "everyone has an opportunity to make it in this country" position, and the idea that any kind of redistribution of wealth is inherently a terrible idea, and so on. So my question is, assuming his figures are accurate, and, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are correct or close to it, is this ok with everyone? Should I assume from the strong objections that people raise to the idea of any kind of redistribution of wealth or other attempt to address wealth inequality, that everyone's fine with the system as is? Forget the "what do we do about it?" piece for the moment. I'm not suggesting that I have any answers, or that I've heard any answers from anyone else that I like. I'm just asking the question of whether the current distribution of wealth that exists in this country gives anyone cause for concern. We still have a system where the economic pie is not finite. In our system, I can still move up the economic ladder without inversely taking someone else down. My value to society is still determined by the market place and not arbitrarily by bureaucrats. And that is the magic of private capitalism. Wealth is created through value and not by redistribution. I am, however, concerned with the slow creep of corporate fascism in our country and the symbiotic relationship between big government politician and big business. Trump is right to point it out even though he created wealth by gaming that relationship. Government justifies this relationship by saying business is too big to fail. I bet you Tesla doesn't think that GM was too big to fail. In Sanders world the economic pie is finite. Someone can only get wealthier by someone getting less wealthy..I am going to send everyone to college for free, he says. And I am going to pay for it with everyone else's retirement saving! Sure, everyone is equal, but everyone is equally miserable. Sanders wants the private rich replaced by the political elite class. Pick your poison, Zuckerberg or Putin, Gates or Hugo Chavez? I much rather take the capitalists. |
|
2015-08-24 2:55 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by mdg2003 Just a quick observation on the Sanders quote. It concerns me that he is being vague. I'll give a longer response later when I'm not on my phone, but felt the need to point out that Sanders' quote was specifically referred to as an "elevator pitch" (the reporter specific asked him to give an elevator pitch, which is what he did.) An elevator pitch is, by definition, a short, broad, high-level overview that isn't intended to be specific. I'm sure if you looked, you could find longer quotes or excerpts from speeches where he was more specific. |
2015-08-24 4:24 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Master 2946 Centennial, CO | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I saw an article about Sanders over the weekend, and he was asked for an elevator pitch regarding socialism and his answer was: "My elevator pitch is that the United States has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where almost 20 percent of our children are living in poverty, 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty. We are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of families control not only the economy but our political system as well. It is imperative that we develop a strong political movement that says to the billionaire class they cannot have it all." So, the thing is, whenever I've brought up this question of income/wealth inequality, the reaction seems to be pretty dismissive, and we get the "everyone has an opportunity to make it in this country" position, and the idea that any kind of redistribution of wealth is inherently a terrible idea, and so on. So my question is, assuming his figures are accurate, and, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are correct or close to it, is this ok with everyone? Should I assume from the strong objections that people raise to the idea of any kind of redistribution of wealth or other attempt to address wealth inequality, that everyone's fine with the system as is? Forget the "what do we do about it?" piece for the moment. I'm not suggesting that I have any answers, or that I've heard any answers from anyone else that I like. I'm just asking the question of whether the current distribution of wealth that exists in this country gives anyone cause for concern. No it doesn't give me cause for concern. it does make me jealous. But that is on me to change (make more money). I see 3 types of wealth. 1. Those who earned it: Good for them. They deserve everything the make. 2. Those who inherit it: Good for them. Lucky they may be, but their ancestors earned it and wanted it to go to them. 3. Those who stole it from others: They should have it taken from them and returned to the rightful owner. Pretty simple. If you earn it you get it. If someone gives it to you, it's yours. If you steal it, you pay the price. |
2015-08-24 8:44 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by mdg2003 Just a quick observation on the Sanders quote. It concerns me that he is being vague. I'll give a longer response later when I'm not on my phone, but felt the need to point out that Sanders' quote was specifically referred to as an "elevator pitch" (the reporter specific asked him to give an elevator pitch, which is what he did.) An elevator pitch is, by definition, a short, broad, high-level overview that isn't intended to be specific. I'm sure if you looked, you could find longer quotes or excerpts from speeches where he was more specific. I looked on his website and was surprised to see that he has plans to pretty much declare war on everyone! Good for him and I hope he hires good security since has declared intent to break up JPM and BAC. He gets specific on his plan to raise estate tax and create a billionaire tax. Neither of which would pay for a fraction of the programs he wishes to implement. I see plans to spend much more money than he plans to "create" by increasing taxes on the uberriche. I don't see re-distribution as much as I see increased borrowing and money printing. Other than that I don't see much detail straight from the source. I do like a lot of his ideas and think they would help the country. I also see him beating some dead horses that won't fix problems we face in this country today. But then again, they all love to "beat on some dead horse!" |
2015-08-25 8:21 AM in reply to: velocomp |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by velocomp Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I saw an article about Sanders over the weekend, and he was asked for an elevator pitch regarding socialism and his answer was: "My elevator pitch is that the United States has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where almost 20 percent of our children are living in poverty, 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty. We are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of families control not only the economy but our political system as well. It is imperative that we develop a strong political movement that says to the billionaire class they cannot have it all." So, the thing is, whenever I've brought up this question of income/wealth inequality, the reaction seems to be pretty dismissive, and we get the "everyone has an opportunity to make it in this country" position, and the idea that any kind of redistribution of wealth is inherently a terrible idea, and so on. So my question is, assuming his figures are accurate, and, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are correct or close to it, is this ok with everyone? Should I assume from the strong objections that people raise to the idea of any kind of redistribution of wealth or other attempt to address wealth inequality, that everyone's fine with the system as is? Forget the "what do we do about it?" piece for the moment. I'm not suggesting that I have any answers, or that I've heard any answers from anyone else that I like. I'm just asking the question of whether the current distribution of wealth that exists in this country gives anyone cause for concern. No it doesn't give me cause for concern. it does make me jealous. But that is on me to change (make more money). I see 3 types of wealth. 1. Those who earned it: Good for them. They deserve everything the make. 2. Those who inherit it: Good for them. Lucky they may be, but their ancestors earned it and wanted it to go to them. 3. Those who stole it from others: They should have it taken from them and returned to the rightful owner. Pretty simple. If you earn it you get it. If someone gives it to you, it's yours. If you steal it, you pay the price. I always get a kick out of people who think it's wrong to take somebodies money from them with a gun, but it's totally right to take it with a government. Um, you're taking their money from them against their will in both situations. |
2015-08-26 8:11 AM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I saw an article about Sanders over the weekend, and he was asked for an elevator pitch regarding socialism and his answer was: "My elevator pitch is that the United States has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where almost 20 percent of our children are living in poverty, 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty. We are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of families control not only the economy but our political system as well. It is imperative that we develop a strong political movement that says to the billionaire class they cannot have it all." So, the thing is, whenever I've brought up this question of income/wealth inequality, the reaction seems to be pretty dismissive, and we get the "everyone has an opportunity to make it in this country" position, and the idea that any kind of redistribution of wealth is inherently a terrible idea, and so on. my question is, assuming his figures are accurate, and, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are correct or close to it, is this ok with everyone? Should I assume from the strong objections that people raise to the idea of any kind of redistribution of wealth or other attempt to address wealth inequality, that everyone's fine with the system as is? Forget the "what do we do about it?" piece for the moment. I'm not suggesting that I have any answers, or that I've heard any answers from anyone else that I like. I'm just asking the question of whether the current distribution of wealth that exists in this country gives anyone cause for concern. We still have a system where the economic pie is not finite. In our system, I can still move up the economic ladder without inversely taking someone else down. My value to society is still determined by the market place and not arbitrarily by bureaucrats. And that is the magic of private capitalism. Wealth is created through value and not by redistribution. I am, however, concerned with the slow creep of corporate fascism in our country and the symbiotic relationship between big government politician and big business. Trump is right to point it out even though he created wealth by gaming that relationship. Government justifies this relationship by saying business is too big to fail. I bet you Tesla doesn't think that GM was too big to fail. I think that's the part that concerns me. In every country, throughout history, there have always been people who had more--a lot more than others. This county has always had the DuPonts and the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. What troubles me is that it seems that there is an increasing degree to which those wealthy individuals and companies are able to influence politics and stack the deck increasingly towards their own interests. I think the solution probably has less to do with redistribution of existing wealth and more about limiting the influence that wealthy donors and lobbyists can exert on the political process. It's one thing for an entrepreneur who's born into a wealthy family to drum up millions of dollars in seed money by working his family's business contacts, it's another thing when a corporation can spend millions to convince state and federal politicians to pass legislation that squashes competition and takes protections away from their labor force. |
|
2015-08-26 9:29 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I saw an article about Sanders over the weekend, and he was asked for an elevator pitch regarding socialism and his answer was: "My elevator pitch is that the United States has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where almost 20 percent of our children are living in poverty, 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty. We are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of families control not only the economy but our political system as well. It is imperative that we develop a strong political movement that says to the billionaire class they cannot have it all." So, the thing is, whenever I've brought up this question of income/wealth inequality, the reaction seems to be pretty dismissive, and we get the "everyone has an opportunity to make it in this country" position, and the idea that any kind of redistribution of wealth is inherently a terrible idea, and so on. my question is, assuming his figures are accurate, and, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are correct or close to it, is this ok with everyone? Should I assume from the strong objections that people raise to the idea of any kind of redistribution of wealth or other attempt to address wealth inequality, that everyone's fine with the system as is? Forget the "what do we do about it?" piece for the moment. I'm not suggesting that I have any answers, or that I've heard any answers from anyone else that I like. I'm just asking the question of whether the current distribution of wealth that exists in this country gives anyone cause for concern. We still have a system where the economic pie is not finite. In our system, I can still move up the economic ladder without inversely taking someone else down. My value to society is still determined by the market place and not arbitrarily by bureaucrats. And that is the magic of private capitalism. Wealth is created through value and not by redistribution. I am, however, concerned with the slow creep of corporate fascism in our country and the symbiotic relationship between big government politician and big business. Trump is right to point it out even though he created wealth by gaming that relationship. Government justifies this relationship by saying business is too big to fail. I bet you Tesla doesn't think that GM was too big to fail. I think that's the part that concerns me. In every country, throughout history, there have always been people who had more--a lot more than others. This county has always had the DuPonts and the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. What troubles me is that it seems that there is an increasing degree to which those wealthy individuals and companies are able to influence politics and stack the deck increasingly towards their own interests. I think the solution probably has less to do with redistribution of existing wealth and more about limiting the influence that wealthy donors and lobbyists can exert on the political process. It's one thing for an entrepreneur who's born into a wealthy family to drum up millions of dollars in seed money by working his family's business contacts, it's another thing when a corporation can spend millions to convince state and federal politicians to pass legislation that squashes competition and takes protections away from their labor force. I would put out there that the rise of social media and technology has actually lessened the influence of big money and wealthy individuals in politics. Social media has put more light on backroom politics and the more light , the faster the cockroaches scatter. It has also allowed grassroots movements to mobilize with very little money. I think everyone would agree that we as a country spend way too much resources on political campaigns and petitioning our government. It is a huge waste of money that can be better spent in our own communities, However, I also believe that if your support the idea of the first amendment and the complete acceptance of the everyone's right of the first amendment you also have to support that the first amendment apply whether you are exercising it individually or as part of a group regardless if the mission of the group is to make a profit, advocate for a social cause, or whatever. I don't have to like all speech, I just have to like free speech. |
2015-08-26 11:20 AM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton I think reversing citizens united, and limiting our campaign season to 2 months, like England, would go a long way to helping our current political circus. |
2015-08-26 1:15 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I saw an article about Sanders over the weekend, and he was asked for an elevator pitch regarding socialism and his answer was: "My elevator pitch is that the United States has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where almost 20 percent of our children are living in poverty, 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty. We are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of families control not only the economy but our political system as well. It is imperative that we develop a strong political movement that says to the billionaire class they cannot have it all." So, the thing is, whenever I've brought up this question of income/wealth inequality, the reaction seems to be pretty dismissive, and we get the "everyone has an opportunity to make it in this country" position, and the idea that any kind of redistribution of wealth is inherently a terrible idea, and so on. my question is, assuming his figures are accurate, and, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are correct or close to it, is this ok with everyone? Should I assume from the strong objections that people raise to the idea of any kind of redistribution of wealth or other attempt to address wealth inequality, that everyone's fine with the system as is? Forget the "what do we do about it?" piece for the moment. I'm not suggesting that I have any answers, or that I've heard any answers from anyone else that I like. I'm just asking the question of whether the current distribution of wealth that exists in this country gives anyone cause for concern. We still have a system where the economic pie is not finite. In our system, I can still move up the economic ladder without inversely taking someone else down. My value to society is still determined by the market place and not arbitrarily by bureaucrats. And that is the magic of private capitalism. Wealth is created through value and not by redistribution. I am, however, concerned with the slow creep of corporate fascism in our country and the symbiotic relationship between big government politician and big business. Trump is right to point it out even though he created wealth by gaming that relationship. Government justifies this relationship by saying business is too big to fail. I bet you Tesla doesn't think that GM was too big to fail. I think that's the part that concerns me. In every country, throughout history, there have always been people who had more--a lot more than others. This county has always had the DuPonts and the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. What troubles me is that it seems that there is an increasing degree to which those wealthy individuals and companies are able to influence politics and stack the deck increasingly towards their own interests. I think the solution probably has less to do with redistribution of existing wealth and more about limiting the influence that wealthy donors and lobbyists can exert on the political process. It's one thing for an entrepreneur who's born into a wealthy family to drum up millions of dollars in seed money by working his family's business contacts, it's another thing when a corporation can spend millions to convince state and federal politicians to pass legislation that squashes competition and takes protections away from their labor force. I would put out there that the rise of social media and technology has actually lessened the influence of big money and wealthy individuals in politics. Social media has put more light on backroom politics and the more light , the faster the cockroaches scatter. It has also allowed grassroots movements to mobilize with very little money. I think everyone would agree that we as a country spend way too much resources on political campaigns and petitioning our government. It is a huge waste of money that can be better spent in our own communities, However, I also believe that if your support the idea of the first amendment and the complete acceptance of the everyone's right of the first amendment you also have to support that the first amendment apply whether you are exercising it individually or as part of a group regardless if the mission of the group is to make a profit, advocate for a social cause, or whatever. I don't have to like all speech, I just have to like free speech. How do you figure that social media has lessened the influence of big money politics? As Mike (mdg2003) correctly pointed out in an earlier post, the gulf betweeen rich and poor in the US has widened over the last 6-7 years, which pretty closely corresponds to the rise in the use of social media. The fact that there is more light being shed on it, which is true, doesn't seem to have had much effect on the political landscape. Yes, we probably have more congressional scandals and more corrupt politicians getting caught as a result of social media, but I don't see much of a decline in the influence of big money on politics in that period. Are there specific things that you can point to? Personally, I don't know if I see it as a free speech issue. I don't have a problem with the CEO of Company X going on TV and saying "We should do XYZ" or even with the CEO personally contacting their local congressman to try to convince them to make a policy change that will benefit their business. That's different, I think, than lobbyists and companies spending millions to get politicians into their pockets by making huge donations or making use of unlimited financial resources to skew policy to their benefit. |
2015-08-26 3:11 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I saw an article about Sanders over the weekend, and he was asked for an elevator pitch regarding socialism and his answer was: "My elevator pitch is that the United States has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where almost 20 percent of our children are living in poverty, 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty. We are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of families control not only the economy but our political system as well. It is imperative that we develop a strong political movement that says to the billionaire class they cannot have it all." So, the thing is, whenever I've brought up this question of income/wealth inequality, the reaction seems to be pretty dismissive, and we get the "everyone has an opportunity to make it in this country" position, and the idea that any kind of redistribution of wealth is inherently a terrible idea, and so on. my question is, assuming his figures are accurate, and, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are correct or close to it, is this ok with everyone? Should I assume from the strong objections that people raise to the idea of any kind of redistribution of wealth or other attempt to address wealth inequality, that everyone's fine with the system as is? Forget the "what do we do about it?" piece for the moment. I'm not suggesting that I have any answers, or that I've heard any answers from anyone else that I like. I'm just asking the question of whether the current distribution of wealth that exists in this country gives anyone cause for concern. We still have a system where the economic pie is not finite. In our system, I can still move up the economic ladder without inversely taking someone else down. My value to society is still determined by the market place and not arbitrarily by bureaucrats. And that is the magic of private capitalism. Wealth is created through value and not by redistribution. I am, however, concerned with the slow creep of corporate fascism in our country and the symbiotic relationship between big government politician and big business. Trump is right to point it out even though he created wealth by gaming that relationship. Government justifies this relationship by saying business is too big to fail. I bet you Tesla doesn't think that GM was too big to fail. I think that's the part that concerns me. In every country, throughout history, there have always been people who had more--a lot more than others. This county has always had the DuPonts and the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. What troubles me is that it seems that there is an increasing degree to which those wealthy individuals and companies are able to influence politics and stack the deck increasingly towards their own interests. I think the solution probably has less to do with redistribution of existing wealth and more about limiting the influence that wealthy donors and lobbyists can exert on the political process. It's one thing for an entrepreneur who's born into a wealthy family to drum up millions of dollars in seed money by working his family's business contacts, it's another thing when a corporation can spend millions to convince state and federal politicians to pass legislation that squashes competition and takes protections away from their labor force. I would put out there that the rise of social media and technology has actually lessened the influence of big money and wealthy individuals in politics. Social media has put more light on backroom politics and the more light , the faster the cockroaches scatter. It has also allowed grassroots movements to mobilize with very little money. I think everyone would agree that we as a country spend way too much resources on political campaigns and petitioning our government. It is a huge waste of money that can be better spent in our own communities, However, I also believe that if your support the idea of the first amendment and the complete acceptance of the everyone's right of the first amendment you also have to support that the first amendment apply whether you are exercising it individually or as part of a group regardless if the mission of the group is to make a profit, advocate for a social cause, or whatever. I don't have to like all speech, I just have to like free speech. How do you figure that social media has lessened the influence of big money politics? As Mike (mdg2003) correctly pointed out in an earlier post, the gulf betweeen rich and poor in the US has widened over the last 6-7 years, which pretty closely corresponds to the rise in the use of social media. The fact that there is more light being shed on it, which is true, doesn't seem to have had much effect on the political landscape. Yes, we probably have more congressional scandals and more corrupt politicians getting caught as a result of social media, but I don't see much of a decline in the influence of big money on politics in that period. Are there specific things that you can point to? Personally, I don't know if I see it as a free speech issue. I don't have a problem with the CEO of Company X going on TV and saying "We should do XYZ" or even with the CEO personally contacting their local congressman to try to convince them to make a policy change that will benefit their business. That's different, I think, than lobbyists and companies spending millions to get politicians into their pockets by making huge donations or making use of unlimited financial resources to skew policy to their benefit. The recent rise of Bernie Sanders and the rise of Barack Obama against the Wall Street Democrat darling Hillary Clinton, Arab Spring, #Blacklivesmater, South Carolina confederate flags, The rise of the Tea Party, recent pressure to federally defund Planned Parenthood, But again, restricting someone or a group of someones from using their resources to petition the government or push a political agenda that benefits them is restricting free speech. Free speech is an all or nothing thing. You can't pick and choose who has it. I alluded to is in my last post. There is too much money in politics because there is too much government in our lives. Reduce the influence of government in our daily lives and the money goes away. Move the powers or government from Feds to local and all of a sudden it becomes less expense to lobby your representatives. I just don't get big government liberal types who want government to play a greater role in our lives and then complain about the consequences. |
2015-08-26 8:43 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I saw an article about Sanders over the weekend, and he was asked for an elevator pitch regarding socialism and his answer was: "My elevator pitch is that the United States has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where almost 20 percent of our children are living in poverty, 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty. We are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of families control not only the economy but our political system as well. It is imperative that we develop a strong political movement that says to the billionaire class they cannot have it all." So, the thing is, whenever I've brought up this question of income/wealth inequality, the reaction seems to be pretty dismissive, and we get the "everyone has an opportunity to make it in this country" position, and the idea that any kind of redistribution of wealth is inherently a terrible idea, and so on. my question is, assuming his figures are accurate, and, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are correct or close to it, is this ok with everyone? Should I assume from the strong objections that people raise to the idea of any kind of redistribution of wealth or other attempt to address wealth inequality, that everyone's fine with the system as is? Forget the "what do we do about it?" piece for the moment. I'm not suggesting that I have any answers, or that I've heard any answers from anyone else that I like. I'm just asking the question of whether the current distribution of wealth that exists in this country gives anyone cause for concern. We still have a system where the economic pie is not finite. In our system, I can still move up the economic ladder without inversely taking someone else down. My value to society is still determined by the market place and not arbitrarily by bureaucrats. And that is the magic of private capitalism. Wealth is created through value and not by redistribution. I am, however, concerned with the slow creep of corporate fascism in our country and the symbiotic relationship between big government politician and big business. Trump is right to point it out even though he created wealth by gaming that relationship. Government justifies this relationship by saying business is too big to fail. I bet you Tesla doesn't think that GM was too big to fail. I think that's the part that concerns me. In every country, throughout history, there have always been people who had more--a lot more than others. This county has always had the DuPonts and the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. What troubles me is that it seems that there is an increasing degree to which those wealthy individuals and companies are able to influence politics and stack the deck increasingly towards their own interests. I think the solution probably has less to do with redistribution of existing wealth and more about limiting the influence that wealthy donors and lobbyists can exert on the political process. It's one thing for an entrepreneur who's born into a wealthy family to drum up millions of dollars in seed money by working his family's business contacts, it's another thing when a corporation can spend millions to convince state and federal politicians to pass legislation that squashes competition and takes protections away from their labor force. I would put out there that the rise of social media and technology has actually lessened the influence of big money and wealthy individuals in politics. Social media has put more light on backroom politics and the more light , the faster the cockroaches scatter. It has also allowed grassroots movements to mobilize with very little money. I think everyone would agree that we as a country spend way too much resources on political campaigns and petitioning our government. It is a huge waste of money that can be better spent in our own communities, However, I also believe that if your support the idea of the first amendment and the complete acceptance of the everyone's right of the first amendment you also have to support that the first amendment apply whether you are exercising it individually or as part of a group regardless if the mission of the group is to make a profit, advocate for a social cause, or whatever. I don't have to like all speech, I just have to like free speech. How do you figure that social media has lessened the influence of big money politics? As Mike (mdg2003) correctly pointed out in an earlier post, the gulf betweeen rich and poor in the US has widened over the last 6-7 years, which pretty closely corresponds to the rise in the use of social media. The fact that there is more light being shed on it, which is true, doesn't seem to have had much effect on the political landscape. Yes, we probably have more congressional scandals and more corrupt politicians getting caught as a result of social media, but I don't see much of a decline in the influence of big money on politics in that period. Are there specific things that you can point to? Personally, I don't know if I see it as a free speech issue. I don't have a problem with the CEO of Company X going on TV and saying "We should do XYZ" or even with the CEO personally contacting their local congressman to try to convince them to make a policy change that will benefit their business. That's different, I think, than lobbyists and companies spending millions to get politicians into their pockets by making huge donations or making use of unlimited financial resources to skew policy to their benefit. The recent rise of Bernie Sanders and the rise of Barack Obama against the Wall Street Democrat darling Hillary Clinton, Arab Spring, #Blacklivesmater, South Carolina confederate flags, The rise of the Tea Party, recent pressure to federally defund Planned Parenthood, But again, restricting someone or a group of someones from using their resources to petition the government or push a political agenda that benefits them is restricting free speech. Free speech is an all or nothing thing. You can't pick and choose who has it. I alluded to is in my last post. There is too much money in politics because there is too much government in our lives. Reduce the influence of government in our daily lives and the money goes away. Move the powers or government from Feds to local and all of a sudden it becomes less expense to lobby your representatives. I just don't get big government liberal types who want government to play a greater role in our lives and then complain about the consequences. Sorry, but other than being a laundry list of recent major news stories, I don't see how any of the things you listed demonstrate that Social Media is lessening the reach of big money in politics. Social media exists, obviously, and it's changing the way people view the news and communicate with each other, but I don't see how it's limited the ability of guys like Soros and the Koch brothers and other big donors from hijackiing the political process. The sad thing is, social media probably has made people more aware of how much money runs politics, but it just serves to illustrate how powerless the average person is to do anything about it. If anything, your example of the Tea Party is representative of the opposite. Here you had a grass-roots political movement that was dedicated to smaller government and fiscal conservatism above all else-- something that lots of people on both sides of the aisle could identify with, including even, famously, the de facto leaders of an Occupy Wall Street group. Unfortunatley, it wasn't long befor the right-wing conservative establishment overrran the party with their hard-line social conservative platform, with well-funded crackpots like Michelle Bachmann becoming the face of the party . If there's a separation between the TP and the GOP as a whole anymore, it's invisible to most people. Back to the free speech thing-- I guess it comes down to the question of, is a corporation or a lobbyiing firm entitled to the same freedom of speech as an individual? Philosophically, I would say no. Sadly, the ship has finally sailed, I think, on the "corporations are not people" argument, but I don't think that the Founding Fathers would say that protecting the right of a billion-dollar multinational company to skew the political process in its own favor is what they had in mind when they made freedom of speech a cornerstone of our democracy. |
|
2015-08-26 8:58 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton jmk-brooklyn said, "If anything, your example of the Tea Party is representative of the opposite. Here you had a grass-roots political movement that was dedicated to smaller government and fiscal conservatism above all else-- something that lots of people on both sides of the aisle could identify with, including even, famously, the de facto leaders of an Occupy Wall Street group. Unfortunatley, it wasn't long befor the right-wing conservative establishment overrran the party with their hard-line social conservative platform, with well-funded crackpots like Michelle Bachmann becoming the face of the party . If there's a separation between the TP and the GOP as a whole anymore, it's invisible to most people." I didn't want to continue the quote thing, but this is right on the money. The problem with almost everything today, from the Tea Party to #BlackLivesMatter, is that the only people being heard are those on both ends of the extreme. They don't speak for 80% of us, but I'll be damned if that 10% on either extreme aren't running the narrative. We will all lose if that's all we get. Just give me somebody running down the middle, and I'm good. I'm pretty sick of hearing the nuts on both ends just because it plays well on the 24 hour news.
Edited by Left Brain 2015-08-26 8:59 PM |
2015-08-27 2:01 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton The problem with a candidate running down the middle is that one foot lands left of the line; one foot falls right of the line and the 10%ers on each side are counting steps. Soon as said candidate takes one extra left tap, someone will be yelling to check the papers of the "communist." An extra right step draws howls of outrage over the candidate who plans to overthrow Roe v. Wade and install crosses on all the schools. |
2015-08-27 7:02 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by mdg2003 The problem with a candidate running down the middle is that one foot lands left of the line; one foot falls right of the line and the 10%ers on each side are counting steps. Soon as said candidate takes one extra left tap, someone will be yelling to check the papers of the "communist." An extra right step draws howls of outrage over the candidate who plans to overthrow Roe v. Wade and install crosses on all the schools. True, but LB's point is that we have to stop letting the 10% at each extreme control the discussion. If candidates knew that the sensible 80% in the middle were tuning out those morons, they could run a more inclusive and balanced campaign. But, with each side beholden to the extremists on both ends, we get divisiveness and inflammatory rhetoric that just increases the separation between parties that mostly want the same things. |
2015-08-27 8:55 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 I think that's the part that concerns me. In every country, throughout history, there have always been people who had more--a lot more than others. This county has always had the DuPonts and the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. What troubles me is that it seems that there is an increasing degree to which those wealthy individuals and companies are able to influence politics and stack the deck increasingly towards their own interests. I think the solution probably has less to do with redistribution of existing wealth and more about limiting the influence that wealthy donors and lobbyists can exert on the political process. It's one thing for an entrepreneur who's born into a wealthy family to drum up millions of dollars in seed money by working his family's business contacts, it's another thing when a corporation can spend millions to convince state and federal politicians to pass legislation that squashes competition and takes protections away from their labor force. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I saw an article about Sanders over the weekend, and he was asked for an elevator pitch regarding socialism and his answer was: "My elevator pitch is that the United States has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where almost 20 percent of our children are living in poverty, 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty. We are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of families control not only the economy but our political system as well. It is imperative that we develop a strong political movement that says to the billionaire class they cannot have it all." So, the thing is, whenever I've brought up this question of income/wealth inequality, the reaction seems to be pretty dismissive, and we get the "everyone has an opportunity to make it in this country" position, and the idea that any kind of redistribution of wealth is inherently a terrible idea, and so on. my question is, assuming his figures are accurate, and, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are correct or close to it, is this ok with everyone? Should I assume from the strong objections that people raise to the idea of any kind of redistribution of wealth or other attempt to address wealth inequality, that everyone's fine with the system as is? Forget the "what do we do about it?" piece for the moment. I'm not suggesting that I have any answers, or that I've heard any answers from anyone else that I like. I'm just asking the question of whether the current distribution of wealth that exists in this country gives anyone cause for concern. We still have a system where the economic pie is not finite. In our system, I can still move up the economic ladder without inversely taking someone else down. My value to society is still determined by the market place and not arbitrarily by bureaucrats. And that is the magic of private capitalism. Wealth is created through value and not by redistribution. I am, however, concerned with the slow creep of corporate fascism in our country and the symbiotic relationship between big government politician and big business. Trump is right to point it out even though he created wealth by gaming that relationship. Government justifies this relationship by saying business is too big to fail. I bet you Tesla doesn't think that GM was too big to fail. I completely agree with you jmk (wait, did I just type that) |
|
Religion in schools again Pages: 1 2 | |||
Prayer in School Pages: 1 2 | |||
|