Dispelling Liberal Myths

[TemplarKormac]

For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it! YOLO! So here I will present a sampling of liberal myths, and explain why they are, in fact, myths and not facts. Shall we begin?

1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.

It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor. The myth is, that we should (or could) do something to change the dynamics. We can't and shouldn't try. Rich people become richer because, generally speaking, rich people have better business sense, sharper intuition, more motivation, ambition, drive. It's kind of like saying, marathon runners win more races than couch potatoes, so we must do something to hinder the marathon runner.

Rich people mostly became rich because of their drive and ambition to do so, and poor people don't become rich, because they lack this same level of drive and ambition. Now, we can't ever "fix" this problem by making it MORE of a challenge to become rich. The best idea would be to try and foster a sense of ambition and drive in people who are poor. The easier it becomes to attain wealth, the more poor people will be inclined to achieve it.

No matter what happens, we will always live in a world where wealthy people gain wealth faster than poor people with nothing. Wealth disparity is a natural thing that happens, regardless of anything you can do. Liberals argue for wealth redistribution, but this won't work, because the drive and ambition element is unchanged. A noted economist once predicted, you could redistribute all the wealth in the world, equally distributing it to every person on the planet, and in 20 years, we'd be right back to where we started.

2. Republicans don't care about the poor, sick, or downtrodden.

This myth perpetuates itself because Liberals assume Republican objections to their ideas mean they have no compassion. Republicans, for the most part, simply have a different idea of how we "help" others. No one wants to see people suffer or die. However, in the mind of a Liberal, there is ONLY the Liberal idea, and if you are not on board with the Liberal Idea, you must hate people and want them to suffer. Fact of the matter is, we've been implementing liberal policies and programs for 60 years or more, and according to the studies, our poor and downtrodden aren't much better off. So, the liberal ideas aren't working, and intelligent rational people believe there might be a reason to try something different.

You have to almost wonder if it's not the Liberal who doesn't care about the poor, sick or downtrodden, they continue to want the same kind of policies and programs which have failed the past 60 years, and refuse to try something new. It's the same template over and over... We're going to have our liberal idea, if we have to crusade with our torches for 100 years, by god, we're going to have our liberal idea... then when the idea is implemented and doesn't work, it's because we haven't spent enough money on it. We have now spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 trillion, fighting the "war on poverty" and we have as many families at poverty level than any time in our history. We've committed to spend another $100 trillion, and any talk of reducing that amount is met with moaning and writhing in the streets by Liberals who cry that Republicans don't care.

3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

In 1987, I attended a gay wedding in Alabama! Two of my dear sweet gay friends, decided they wanted to commemorate their love for one another, with a wedding ceremony. We gathered on a hillside in the country, with a Rastafarian minister, and they got hitched! The wedding was complete with rice and photos, and the couple dashed off on their honeymoon to Hawaii.

Now.... How can this be? Gays can't legally do this, can they? Sure they can! There is no law which prohibits a gay couple from having a wedding ceremony. In fact, there is no law which prohibits gays from getting a marriage licence, it just has to be with the opposite sex, like everyone else. That's because this is how "marriage" is defined, and it's not restricted to only heterosexuals. Nothing is being denied that isn't being denied to everyone.

4. Military-style Assault Weapons are a problem and need to be banned.

There is no such thing as a military style assault weapon. It's true! There are weapons which are "military style" and this refers to various aspects of the functionality, but the rapid-fire 'automatic' element is missing, we don't allow those type weapons to be sold to the public, they are for military use only. In a weapon available to the public, the term "military style" has more to do with the grips, the stock, the removable clip, etc. It's a much more efficient and ergonomic design, and has nothing really to do with the military or the kind of weapon they would use.

It's illegal to "assault" using a weapon in the US, and a gun is completely unable to "assault" on it's own. Therefore, the term "assault weapon" is a misnomer, it can never be legally used for this purpose in the general public.

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

This is pure propaganda, perpetrated by pure Communist Socialists. The very nature of free market capitalism, all but destroys the element of greed. When capitalists are free to compete, the "greedy capitalist" is quickly put out of business by the "smart capitalist" and life goes on. Oh...this multinational or that is 'bilking' us... well, go out there and find some investment capital, and start a rival company! Nothing is stopping you! If you can do it cheaper or better, without a high-dollar CEO, or whatever... go do it! Give us consumers a deal that isn't 'bilking' us and I promise, we consumers will make you rich!

The real greed exists in a closed market system, like Russia or China. Where competition has been eliminated and the State controls all wealth and power. THAT is when you see greed rear it's ugly head, for REAL. You see, the sad truth is, the 1% will ALWAYS exist... nothing you can ever do about that. In a socialist system, the 1% is the Ruling Class, who now control not only all the wealth, but all the political power as well. Government figureheads and their cronies, soak up all the gains and spoils, and the general public is left with nothing. Not only are they left with nothing, they have also been stripped of opportunity to attain wealth at all.

I have several more myths to address, but I think 5 is plenty to start with.

First, I must start off by asking... Is that Kelsey Grammar in your avatar?

1. Wealth disparity is a myth. Everyone has the same freedom to attain the same wealth in this country as opposed to others. Those who fail to take opportunities or choose not to take chances are those who are whining about the evil "1%"

2.If I recall correctly, a Republican abolished slavery in 1865. The main opposition to abolition were from Democrats.

3. There is no law stopping them from marrying. I have tried many times to find it. The legal definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, but if a religion allows there to be same sex marriages, the government is required not to interfere. I however favor flat line benefits for gay couples, but not full benefits.

4. My father owns an assault weapon, an M16-A1 to be exact. I've actually tested it. But to say it needs to be banned means you are depriving him of his rights to own a firearm, which is by all rights and means a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

5. Yes, there are capitalists who take advantage of the system, but most of them don't. They are there because of their own hard work, given the power by a free market system. I'd love the liberals to live in system of their own making though, just to know how flawed their contentions are.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Typically, one can only debunk a myth by providing facts to the contrary.

That would appear to assume some interest in either alternative myths or real facts. The nutball mind barely exists; nutballs are creatures operating by feel, not by calculated rational decisions.

Look how easy it was for scum like Greenspan and Levitt to make the sale that markets are rational after 500 years of evidence to the contrary. A gaggle of corrupt Zionist scum used pencils and slide rules to declare a "new economy" directly opposed to hundreds of years of experience and nutballs ate it up like it was cinnamon and sugar coated manna from heaven.

Here is the bottom line: partisans on both sides of todays US political divide operate on feelings. In today's political hierarchy, partisans are the equivalent of amoebas in the zoological hierarchy. The primary difference in my observation and experience is fake-liberals tend to have demonstrated more of an ability to sit on their asses for mind-numbing periods of time and fill in little rings with number two pencils, while nutballs understand more about NASCAR.

Neither group understands a fucking thing about economics or how systems more complex than a refrigerator door operate.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Typically, one can only debunk a myth by providing facts to the contrary.

That happens every thread. And teh lib answer is always "But BUSH!"

Y'know, come to think of it Bush is a perfect example of how people get rich through "hard work" and "initiative" huh?

Cause he certainly didn't get rich off the taxpayers of Arlington

Yeah like the kennedys....except bush grew up and stopped partying

 

[Boss]

I'm still trying to figure out what charts on public debt have to do with free market capitalism? The soaring public debt is the result of 50 years of liberal policies and programs, they promised would bring people out of poverty. As soon as the programs and policies began to fail, they screamed, what? MORE FUNDING... MORE FUNDING... it only doesn't work because Republicans won't fund it! SO we jack it up some more, and it still doesn't work. We implement another program, to fix the disaster of the last one, and the cycle starts all over again. When someone suggests we try something different... they don't care about helping the needy, we need MORE FUNDING! Because these idiotic programs have caused our public debt to skyrocket, has absolutely NOTHING to do with free market capitalism.

Oh but look, it's an impressive chart or graph from some liberal blogger, it MUST make a valid piont!

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still trying to figure out what charts on public debt have to do with free market capitalism? The soaring public debt is the result of 50 years of liberal policies and programs, they promised would bring people out of poverty. As soon as the programs and policies began to fail, they screamed, what? MORE FUNDING... MORE FUNDING... it only doesn't work because Republicans won't fund it! SO we jack it up some more, and it still doesn't work. We implement another program, to fix the disaster of the last one, and the cycle starts all over again. When someone suggests we try something different... they don't care about helping the needy, we need MORE FUNDING! Because these idiotic programs have caused our public debt to skyrocket, has absolutely NOTHING to do with free market capitalism.

Oh but look, it's an impressive chart or graph from some liberal blogger, it MUST make a valid piont!

I think you've got the idea. Every time another liberal panacaea fails the reasoning is "we didnt do it enough." But there is no calculation as to exactly how much more was needed. It's open ended. Which is the point.

 

[Boss]

For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it! YOLO! So here I will present a sampling of liberal myths, and explain why they are, in fact, myths and not facts. Shall we begin?

1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.

It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor. The myth is, that we should (or could) do something to change the dynamics. We can't and shouldn't try. Rich people become richer because, generally speaking, rich people have better business sense, sharper intuition, more motivation, ambition, drive. It's kind of like saying, marathon runners win more races than couch potatoes, so we must do something to hinder the marathon runner.

Rich people mostly became rich because of their drive and ambition to do so, and poor people don't become rich, because they lack this same level of drive and ambition. Now, we can't ever "fix" this problem by making it MORE of a challenge to become rich. The best idea would be to try and foster a sense of ambition and drive in people who are poor. The easier it becomes to attain wealth, the more poor people will be inclined to achieve it.

No matter what happens, we will always live in a world where wealthy people gain wealth faster than poor people with nothing. Wealth disparity is a natural thing that happens, regardless of anything you can do. Liberals argue for wealth redistribution, but this won't work, because the drive and ambition element is unchanged. A noted economist once predicted, you could redistribute all the wealth in the world, equally distributing it to every person on the planet, and in 20 years, we'd be right back to where we started.

2. Republicans don't care about the poor, sick, or downtrodden.

This myth perpetuates itself because Liberals assume Republican objections to their ideas mean they have no compassion. Republicans, for the most part, simply have a different idea of how we "help" others. No one wants to see people suffer or die. However, in the mind of a Liberal, there is ONLY the Liberal idea, and if you are not on board with the Liberal Idea, you must hate people and want them to suffer. Fact of the matter is, we've been implementing liberal policies and programs for 60 years or more, and according to the studies, our poor and downtrodden aren't much better off. So, the liberal ideas aren't working, and intelligent rational people believe there might be a reason to try something different.

You have to almost wonder if it's not the Liberal who doesn't care about the poor, sick or downtrodden, they continue to want the same kind of policies and programs which have failed the past 60 years, and refuse to try something new. It's the same template over and over... We're going to have our liberal idea, if we have to crusade with our torches for 100 years, by god, we're going to have our liberal idea... then when the idea is implemented and doesn't work, it's because we haven't spent enough money on it. We have now spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 trillion, fighting the "war on poverty" and we have as many families at poverty level than any time in our history. We've committed to spend another $100 trillion, and any talk of reducing that amount is met with moaning and writhing in the streets by Liberals who cry that Republicans don't care.

3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

In 1987, I attended a gay wedding in Alabama! Two of my dear sweet gay friends, decided they wanted to commemorate their love for one another, with a wedding ceremony. We gathered on a hillside in the country, with a Rastafarian minister, and they got hitched! The wedding was complete with rice and photos, and the couple dashed off on their honeymoon to Hawaii.

Now.... How can this be? Gays can't legally do this, can they? Sure they can! There is no law which prohibits a gay couple from having a wedding ceremony. In fact, there is no law which prohibits gays from getting a marriage licence, it just has to be with the opposite sex, like everyone else. That's because this is how "marriage" is defined, and it's not restricted to only heterosexuals. Nothing is being denied that isn't being denied to everyone.

4. Military-style Assault Weapons are a problem and need to be banned.

There is no such thing as a military style assault weapon. It's true! There are weapons which are "military style" and this refers to various aspects of the functionality, but the rapid-fire 'automatic' element is missing, we don't allow those type weapons to be sold to the public, they are for military use only. In a weapon available to the public, the term "military style" has more to do with the grips, the stock, the removable clip, etc. It's a much more efficient and ergonomic design, and has nothing really to do with the military or the kind of weapon they would use.

It's illegal to "assault" using a weapon in the US, and a gun is completely unable to "assault" on it's own. Therefore, the term "assault weapon" is a misnomer, it can never be legally used for this purpose in the general public.

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

This is pure propaganda, perpetrated by pure Communist Socialists. The very nature of free market capitalism, all but destroys the element of greed. When capitalists are free to compete, the "greedy capitalist" is quickly put out of business by the "smart capitalist" and life goes on. Oh...this multinational or that is 'bilking' us... well, go out there and find some investment capital, and start a rival company! Nothing is stopping you! If you can do it cheaper or better, without a high-dollar CEO, or whatever... go do it! Give us consumers a deal that isn't 'bilking' us and I promise, we consumers will make you rich!

The real greed exists in a closed market system, like Russia or China. Where competition has been eliminated and the State controls all wealth and power. THAT is when you see greed rear it's ugly head, for REAL. You see, the sad truth is, the 1% will ALWAYS exist... nothing you can ever do about that. In a socialist system, the 1% is the Ruling Class, who now control not only all the wealth, but all the political power as well. Government figureheads and their cronies, soak up all the gains and spoils, and the general public is left with nothing. Not only are they left with nothing, they have also been stripped of opportunity to attain wealth at all.

I have several more myths to address, but I think 5 is plenty to start with.

First, I must start off by asking... Is that Kelsey Grammar in your avatar?

1. Wealth disparity is a myth. Everyone has the same freedom to attain the same wealth in this country as opposed to others. Those who fail to take opportunities or choose not to take chances are those who are whining about the evil "1%"

2.If I recall correctly, a Republican abolished slavery in 1865. The main opposition to abolition were from Democrats.

3. There is no law stopping them from marrying. I have tried many times to find it. The legal definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, but if a religion allows there to be same sex marriages, the government is required not to interfere. I however favor flat line benefits for gay couples, but not full benefits.

4. My father owns an assault weapon, an M16-A1 to be exact. I've actually tested it. But to say it needs to be banned means you are depriving him of his rights to own a firearm, which is by all rights and means a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

5. Yes, there are capitalists who take advantage of the system, but most of them don't. They are there because of their own hard work, given the power by a free market system. I'd love the liberals to live in system of their own making though, just to know how flawed their contentions are.

I believe that is Mr. Grammar in the avatar.

As for your post, I believe we are just about on the same page. I have to say, however, "wealth disparity" is not a myth, there is indeed a growing gap between the wealthy and the poor, but this is natural and normal because of the dynamics. You are right, everyone has the same opportunity for success, the 'disparity' is not caused by absence of opportunity. The way to help mitigate this 'disparity' problem, is to encourage and make easier, the opportunities to gain wealth... the diametric opposite of what liberals advocate.

Yes, Republicans ended slavery and were instrumental in passing Civil Rights, while Democrats stood in schoolhouse doors and presided over their klan chapters. But don't you know? Somewhere around 1968, some bizarre cosmic event (maybe a comet) caused the republicans and democrats to switch positions on everything, overnight! During this time, certain democrats who had been outspoken on segregation and whatnot, were blessed with redemption by 'recanting' ... a sacred thing that apparently only works for democrats. That's the story they spin, anyway.

I am conservative and I oppose "gay marriage" because I think it is an intentional attack on religious tradition, which is unconstitutional, in my opinion. It would also set a judicial standard of defining 'marriage' based on a sexual proclivity, and according to the 'equal protection' clause in the constitution, if we allow 'marriage' to be redefined this way, we must also allow any other sexual behavior to be legitimized through marriage. It is a can of worms we don't need to open to resolve the issue. I have been an advocate for Civil Unions legislation, which would remove government from recognizing "marriage" of any kind.

First off, I don't believe the FED has any reason to recognize any domestic arrangement, but if there needs to be an instrument for legal purposes, for insurance, beneficiaries, property, etc., a simple CU contract would suffice. This could also be used by other non-traditional arrangements which are entirely platonic, like an adult child caring for an aging parent... they could get a CU contract, if it was to their advantage. The CU idea gives every side what they claim to want, without destroying sanctity of marriage, or establishing laws based on sexual behavior.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it! YOLO! So here I will present a sampling of liberal myths, and explain why they are, in fact, myths and not facts. Shall we begin?

1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.

It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor. The myth is, that we should (or could) do something to change the dynamics. We can't and shouldn't try.

No one ever said we should.

The fact is that liberals advocate a pragmatic approach to education and training, ensure public schools are properly funded and staffed, and that public assistance programs make as a goal employment and self-sufficiency.

Citizens are free to avail themselves of these programs or not, but such programs should be maintained to assist those who wish to help themselves.

2. Republicans don't care about the poor, sick, or downtrodden.

Liberals believe no such thing.

They do know, however, that many policies advocated by conservatives can often have an inadvertent negative effect on the poor and disadvantaged. Conservatives might mean well, but since their policies are for the most part predicated on conservative dogma rather than established fact, many policies on the right fail accordingly.

Welfare reform is one such example. Conservatives elected to ‘reform’ welfare by taking a punitive approach rather than focusing first on education and training programs, leaving chronic public assistance recipients without the training needed to find good-paying jobs, and forcing them to cycle on and off of public assistance. If conservatives had only made education and training a priority, then more welfare recipients would have gotten off public assistance and stayed off.

3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

Actually they’re being denied their equal protection rights as well as the right to marry. See: Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) as to the right to marry.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all citizen access to a state’s laws, including marriage law. In order to deny citizens equal protection rights, the state must manifest a compelling reason, support that reason with documented evidence, and be free of animus toward the class of person so adversely effected.

Time and again those opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples failed to provide a compelling state interest or to document any ill effect as a consequence of same-sex couples marrying. See: Hollingsworth v. Perry.

To paraphrase Justice Kennedy in Romer with regard to Proposition 8:

We must conclude that [Proposition 8] classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [California] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.

4. Military-style Assault Weapons are a problem and need to be banned

Military-style assault weapons exist if the weapons in question are classified as such according to the law.

All jurisdictions are free to classify weapons however they see fit and regulate them accordingly. At issue is whether a class of weapons is deemed ‘in common use at the time’ or ‘dangerous and unusual.’ If the former they may not be subject to an outright ban; if the latter their restriction is appropriate. See: DC v. Heller (2008).

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

This is pure propaganda, perpetrated by pure Communist Socialists.

And here you’ve lost all credibility, as well as any argument you’re attempting to make.

Liberals understand and accept Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the so-called ‘liberty to contract’ is an anachronism. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the relationship between employee and employer is not an equal one, where wage and workplace regulation is both needed and appropriate. See: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).

Liberals understand and accept Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the ‘invisible hand’ of capitalism had grown weak and ineffective at the advent of the 20th Century, and regulation of goods and services is both warranted and prudent. See: US v. Darby (1941).

Liberals are advocates and practitioners of capitalism and free markets, where regulatory policy ensures a healthy and growing economy, provides for safe working conditions, safe goods and services, and fair wages and hiring policies.

I have several more myths to address, but I think 5 is plenty to start with.

You might want to reconsider, and quit while you’re behind.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Reading the OP was like reading Mitt Romney's economic plan for America. A lot of paragraphs and grand sounding words with absolutely nothing to back it up or a basis in reality. Yeah, that's great that's how you see the world. There are also people in this world that believe we all came here from other planets on space 707s. Who cares?

 

[Mr. H.]

Mitt Romney was better than the alternative. So was Cheney.

Obama is the succor of Brunswick stew.

Balls.

 

[Mr. H.]

In other words, Obama was never "right" for our nation.

Regardless of his opponents.

He was my state Senator. And ineffective at that.

He's a goddamn fluke. An anomaly. He was a has-been before he ever was been.

Oh and BTW his "been" is still under debate.

As is Benghazi, and Boston. And Fast and Furious.

My deepest regret for our Nation isn't the fact that Obama is President but the fact that that the (legitimately) voting public is so stick fucking stupid as to fall for this charlatan of a President.

Keep Calm
and
Fuck-off
On​

 

[BallsBrunswick]

In other words, Obama was never "right" for our nation.

That statement could be taken a lot of ways.

 

[Mr. H.]

I have been non rich so many times in my life, I care to forget.

Yeah, ruined. As in eat rice and beans and pasta 'till it's coming out my ass.

Yet, I have always been and shall always be a Republican.

As to the 1% crowd- more power to them.

As to you... fuck off, loser.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor.

ahoy Boss,

a mighty first salvo, matey.

i just thought i'd take a bite at the top 'o yer list - 'tis not a myth, thats reality. at least, thats what the statistical data seems to indicate.

The data show that when the population is divided in fifths, the middle three groups of the income distribution are fairly mobile. For this middle group, where one is born in the distribution does not determine where one will end up.

But for those born in the bottom or the top fifth, mobility is much more constricted, suggesting that birth circumstances play more of a role in lifetime outcomes.

Economist's View: U.S. Economic Mobility: The Dream and the Data

Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country. Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity.

It’s not that social mobility is impossible, but that the upwardly mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity. According to research from the Brookings Institution, only 58 percent of Americans born into the bottom fifth of income earners move out of that category, and just 6 percent born into the bottom fifth move into the top.

Economic mobility in the United States is lower than in most of Europe and lower than in all of Scandinavia.

Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth - NYTimes.com

in addition to all 'o that, the bulk 'o the gains made in our country, post recession, went to the tippy top 'o the earners, me friend...and amongst the rest 'o the nation?

well, they saw thar net worth keelhauled, since thar primary investment vehicle was thar homes.

so, i hafta say welcome to US Message Board me hearty, but i disagree with yer openin' premise.

- MeadHallPirate

 

[Mr. H.]

I've sold encyclopedias to backwoods Appalachia hill country whites.
They couldn't afford them, and they couldn't read.

But what struck me was their sense of family and self-pride.

And their sense of wealth. They were monetarily poor but familial rich.

And THIS is the polar opposite of our world today.

People today ore monetarily deficient, yes. But they are familial poor without sense of pride or self-worth.

And why should they be? Because Obama gives credit for nothing.

Do nothing with your lives and you will be rewarded.

Do something with your lives and you will be penalized.

Fuck, I repeat... Fuck Obama to the hell from which he came.

 

[Boss]

MeadHallPirate, thank you for your warm welcome, but you are telling me about something that I already understand exists. I started by saying, there is no myth... wealth disparity does exist. The question is, what should we, or could we do about that fact? Yes, those in the upper fifth and lower fifth are much more 'enabled/disabled' by their socioeconomic environment, but again... this is a fact of life. To think that we can somehow make this not be a fact of life, is Utopian.

Seems to me, making it marginally more difficult to reach that top fifth, is not in the best interest of the lower fifth. Making rich people poorer is not going to make poor people rich. We need to return to my marathon runner analogy to see how we solve this problem. Like wealth disparity, there is a performance disparity between a marathon runner and a couch potato. Now, what the anti-capitalist want to do, is hobble the marathon runner, so the couch potato has a fighting chance. But this will not work, because the couch potato's problem is not opportunity, it is motivation. Instead of hobbling the marathon runner, why not motivate the couch potato? Wouldn't that make much more sense?

Make it easier for the lower fifth to start a new business, teach them about financial responsibility and how to manage their money. Remove the obstacles to capitalist success and stop creating roadblocks. Leave it to the American spirit, and these people will respond in ways you can't even comprehend. But... we can't do this while you're foaming at the mouth to destroy free market capitalism.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

I've sold encyclopedias to backwoods Appalachia hill country whites.
They couldn't afford them, and they couldn't read.

But what struck me was their sense of family and self-pride.

And their sense of wealth. They were monetarily poor but familial rich.

And THIS is the polar opposite of our world today.

People today ore monetarily deficient, yes. But they are familial poor without sense of pride or self-worth.

And why should they be? Because Obama gives credit for nothing.

Do nothing with your lives and you will be rewarded.

Do something with your lives and you will be penalized.

Fuck, I repeat... Fuck Obama to the hell from which he came.

ahoy Mr. H.,

i don't think the POTUS be the reason that americans don't have the pride and sense 'o family that ye witnessed in Appalachia.

*ponders*

i don't really think the nation should aspire to be like Appalachia, me hearty.

they have far higher rates 'o crime and divorce than the national averages.

- MeadHallPirate

 

[MeadHallPirate]

ahoy Boss,

MeadHallPirate, thank you for your warm welcome, but you are telling me about something that I already understand exists. I started by saying, there is no myth... wealth disparity does exist. The question is, what should we, or could we do about that fact? Yes, those in the upper fifth and lower fifth are much more 'enabled/disabled' by their socioeconomic environment, but again... this is a fact of life. To think that we can somehow make this not be a fact of life, is Utopian.

i think i understand what yer sayin'...aye, in any culture that i've known of, wealth disparity exists. the folks on the bridge always live better than the folks in steerage.

i think what ought to matter be the degree to which we allow this chasm to grow, aye?

i mean, i don't want this nation to resemble India, with its tiny enclaves 'o pornographic wealth, surrounded by vast armadas 'o poverty, aye?

Seems to me, making it marginally more difficult to reach that top fifth, is not in the best interest of the lower fifth. Making rich people poorer is not going to make poor people rich. We need to return to my marathon runner analogy to see how we solve this problem. Like wealth disparity, there is a performance disparity between a marathon runner and a couch potato.

imma not sure i agree with that, matey. the top .1% doesn't run that much harder than someone workin' thar arse off at Walmart, do they? now, imma not sayin' that some minimum wage laddy who is swabbin' the decks is worth as much as the skipper - but the way the huge riches in this land be distributed seems kind 'o odd.

the dynamic that puts the wind in the sails 'o this nation be middle class spendin', aye? well, if all the riches go to the very top, then thats fine...but then we can't foam and froth at the mouth o'er our glacial recovery.

'tis one or the other.

Now, what the anti-capitalist want to do, is hobble the marathon runner, so the couch potato has a fighting chance. But this will not work, because the couch potato's problem is not opportunity, it is motivation. Instead of hobbling the marathon runner, why not motivate the couch potato? Wouldn't that make much more sense?

i be "anti-couch potato". earnin' power and net wealth, though, be stagnant (and has been fer quite a while now) fer folks who work, the non-couch potatoes. 'tis thar whar me concerns lie.

Make it easier for the lower fifth to start a new business, teach them about financial responsibility and how to manage their money. Remove the obstacles to capitalist success and stop creating roadblocks. Leave it to the American spirit, and these people will respond in ways you can't even comprehend. But... we can't do this while you're foaming at the mouth to destroy free market capitalism.

i think these be good ideas, matey. as someone who owns 2 businesses himself, i think it would be great to just let the American Spirit do its thing.

- MeadHallPirate

 

[Lakhota]

Well, Boss, you brought out the cream of the crop...of wingnuts. Congratulations. Your OP is too superficial and simplistic to bother responding to. If you believe what you said - good for you.

A good start would be prosecuting Wall Street criminals - the ones too big to fail.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well, Boss, you brought out the cream of the crop...of wingnuts. Congratulations. Your OP is too superficial and simplistic to bother responding to. If you believe what you said - good for you.

And Lakhota thinks that's an intellectual statement......Id rather see some rw in camo than a gay pride parade wannabe....Also, talk about superficial.......lakhota never puts anything in depth on here...he's close to starkey in that regard

 

[auditor0007]

1. Dugdale's point about Reagan's economic policies is correct. Nothing is "trickling down" to the poor. It is also a myth that our rich have become rich purely through ambition and hard work. While some have there is a certain segment of the 1% making money off already having money and connections earned generations before them. People like the Hiltons and Romneys come to mind. We also have big bankers who failed at their jobs, but the government considered them "too big to fail". They were bailed out by the taxpayers, and are still making millions in salaries. I could go on and on about the "hardworking" 1%.

.

Poor people are richer today than they were 30 years ago. So you're facts are incorrect.
Do you really think Paris Hilton does no work? Mitt Romney did not work? You have a lot to learn.

Until conservatives understand that there is a problem with the growing disparity in wealth, this country is going to continue heading down the wrong path. And this has absolutely nothing to do with redistributing wealth or creating a socialist state.

Trickle down does not and has not worked. Economies grow when the bottom has purchasing power. The bigger the bottom the more purchasing power needed to grow the economy. Rich people do provide the means for that growth, but without everyone else being able to purchase goods and services, the economy will not grow. The rich do not create wealth; the ones buying the goods and services do.

This is so very basic it is hard to believe so many people do not understand this.