Is Growing Inequality Caused By Liberal Public Policies?

[Redfish]

All of those things were in place before Obama took office. Yet inequality is worse, not better, since he took over. How do you explain that>?

Let's see...

All those things were in place before Obama took office
Obama has been blocked from changing things
Inequality has gotten worse

Thanks Rabbi, guess you are right

Obama and The Democrats had everything in their favor from 2007-2015.....especially from 2009-2011 when they had the White House, Senate, and The House. Plus, Obama as used excessively the Executive Orders. He has not been blocked.

Did The Democrats Ever Really Have 60 Votes In The Senate And For How Long

This is what smart people do. If they make a statement, they back it up with facts. Stupid people simply make a statement backed by nothing. Sure am glad I'm smart.

If you people cannot win with control of the White House, The Senate, The House, and The Media, how much more power do you need, smart guy?

It isn't like you republicans have any plan besides cut, slash and burn and granting the rich more tax breaks! Weird how things didn't start sliding down hill until Nixion opened trade with China and Reagan sweet tax breaks. After those breaks the global corporations want crazy, but the little guy was completely fucked. Both of these events caused the inequality!

are you 12 years old? no adult could be as naive as you appear to be.

 

[Redfish]

Never any blame for the people who have all the economic power in this country? Wake up to the fact that we live in a plutocracy and the government does the bidding of the wealthy and connected. Opportunity is dead, economic mobility is dead, the American dream itself is dead and the billionaires and Wall Street killed it.

bullshit. Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Beyonce, A Rod, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Katie Couric, George Soros, the Koch brothers, Imelt, Trump.

anyone willing to work can make it in the USA, you losers and leeeches make me sick.

Have you ever heard of a concept that compares exceptions to rules? If all it takes is hard work, there are millions of fa,ilies working their collective asses off. What you cite are the exceptions, those blessed with great talents.

The notion that Liberalism created inequality is bunk. And the statement that
Liberalism has failed each time it's been tried is bunk on steroids.

This whole proposition screams 'blame the victims!

We became the most powerful country on earth because we invested in infrastructure, science, r&d and education throughout the first 70 years of the 20th century. Reagan came around in told us..."Well, we can't invest in shit"! Blame thousands of years of growing the economy of great nations based on investment into your own country.

poor matt, he doesn't understand that "investment" means government spending, and government spending requires taxation increases.

Do you pay taxes Matt? would you like to pay twice as much?

Would you eliminate government spending on infrastructure? Roads, airports, sewer and water systems just aren't that important to you? What about the space program? Did it benefit our economy, or was it tax payer money wasted?

of course not. I never said or implied any such thing. My issue is government waste, not legitimate infrastructure and science programs.

Remember most infrastructure is state and local, not federal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

bullshit. Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Beyonce, A Rod, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Katie Couric, George Soros, the Koch brothers, Imelt, Trump.

anyone willing to work can make it in the USA, you losers and leeeches make me sick.

Have you ever heard of a concept that compares exceptions to rules? If all it takes is hard work, there are millions of fa,ilies working their collective asses off. What you cite are the exceptions, those blessed with great talents.

The notion that Liberalism created inequality is bunk. And the statement that
Liberalism has failed each time it's been tried is bunk on steroids.

This whole proposition screams 'blame the victims!

We became the most powerful country on earth because we invested in infrastructure, science, r&d and education throughout the first 70 years of the 20th century. Reagan came around in told us..."Well, we can't invest in shit"! Blame thousands of years of growing the economy of great nations based on investment into your own country.

poor matt, he doesn't understand that "investment" means government spending, and government spending requires taxation increases.

Do you pay taxes Matt? would you like to pay twice as much?

Would you eliminate government spending on infrastructure? Roads, airports, sewer and water systems just aren't that important to you? What about the space program? Did it benefit our economy, or was it tax payer money wasted?

of course not. I never said or implied any such thing. My issue is government waste, not legitimate infrastructure and science programs.

Remember most infrastructure is state and local, not federal.

Your waste is millions when dealing in trillions, hence the problem.

 

[danielpalos]

A thought provoking story. The following sentence gets to the crux of the problem;


In order to do well in the world, young children—no matter how bright, no matter how capable—must learn essential skills. There are three places to learn them: at home, in school and on the job


A lot of youths are no longer able to get summer jobs where they learn needed skills. Schools fail to prepare students for the real world. And, single parent homes leave children with lack of guidance urging them to improve their lives.


But we hear the mantra of Economic Equality and demands to “do something about it.” So, just what are we expected to do? Continue the very policies that got us to this point?


Read the piece @ Is Growing Inequality Caused By Liberal Public Policies - Forbes

This is what liberal professors are teaching: University of California visual arts class requires students to be naked for final exam News.com.au

"A UNIVERSITY professor is requiring his students to be naked as part of their final exam for an advanced visual arts class — or fail."

What a creepy pervert this guy is, wow.

You don't appreciate Art?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, so what? They used what they inherited to start businesses, create jobs, pay taxes---------how awful.

Success is much easier when you start on the finish line.

Carson grew up in abject poverty with no father. Cain made it on his own, Gates invented something that the entire world wanted, so did Jobs, the entertainers and athletes did it by skill, talent, and hard work.

The ones who inherited wealth, increased their wealth by working. They created jobs and tax paying american workers.

The point is that american remains the best place to come from nothing and become something.

Not anymore. Student loan debt is the biggest obstacle at this moment to moving into the middle class. Only liberals want to fix that but the bankers and their republican partners have no interest.

Really? There's a movement on the left to curtail administrators in higher ed?

Where Universities Can Be Cut InsideHigherEd

More on what the 'real' factors on on the costs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/o...ION&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=WCARETARG&_r=2

...

Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.

The rapid increase in college enrollment can be defended by intellectually respectable arguments. Even the explosion in administrative personnel is, at least in theory, defensible. On the other hand, there are no valid arguments to support the recent trend toward seven-figure salaries for high-ranking university administrators, unless one considers evidence-free assertions about “the market” to be intellectually rigorous.

What cannot be defended, however, is the claim that tuition has risen because public funding for higher education has been cut. Despite its ubiquity, this claim flies directly in the face of the facts.

This is where Schools of Business should pick up some slack on a not-for-profit basis.

 

[Redfish]

Success is much easier when you start on the finish line.

Carson grew up in abject poverty with no father. Cain made it on his own, Gates invented something that the entire world wanted, so did Jobs, the entertainers and athletes did it by skill, talent, and hard work.

The ones who inherited wealth, increased their wealth by working. They created jobs and tax paying american workers.

The point is that american remains the best place to come from nothing and become something.

Not anymore. Student loan debt is the biggest obstacle at this moment to moving into the middle class. Only liberals want to fix that but the bankers and their republican partners have no interest.

Really? There's a movement on the left to curtail administrators in higher ed?

Where Universities Can Be Cut InsideHigherEd

More on what the 'real' factors on on the costs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/o...ION&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=WCARETARG&_r=2

...

Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.

The rapid increase in college enrollment can be defended by intellectually respectable arguments. Even the explosion in administrative personnel is, at least in theory, defensible. On the other hand, there are no valid arguments to support the recent trend toward seven-figure salaries for high-ranking university administrators, unless one considers evidence-free assertions about “the market” to be intellectually rigorous.

What cannot be defended, however, is the claim that tuition has risen because public funding for higher education has been cut. Despite its ubiquity, this claim flies directly in the face of the facts.

This is where Schools of Business should pick up some slack on a not-for-profit basis.

so colleges should just operate on a break even basis? is that what you think?

 

[Clementine]

Never any blame for the people who have all the economic power in this country? Wake up to the fact that we live in a plutocracy and the government does the bidding of the wealthy and connected. Opportunity is dead, economic mobility is dead, the American dream itself is dead and the billionaires and Wall Street killed it.

bullshit. Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Beyonce, A Rod, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Katie Couric, George Soros, the Koch brothers, Imelt, Trump.

anyone willing to work can make it in the USA, you losers and leeeches make me sick.

Actually, Katie Couric succeeded because she was willing to carry water for the Dems. Soros made his money by hurting millions of people. The Koch brothers have supported both Dems and Repubs and are only picked on because they support the right more than the left and they are wealthy.

Otherwise, it's a good point. I know many who are doing well. Most of my friends aren't wealthy, but they've held decent jobs and live in nice homes and have retirement accounts. They are lower middle class, but we all know it's middle class that has the burden placed on them to fund the big ideas that come from liberals. The left is just as invested in the wealthy as anyone and will not go after their cronies.

 

[danielpalos]

Carson grew up in abject poverty with no father. Cain made it on his own, Gates invented something that the entire world wanted, so did Jobs, the entertainers and athletes did it by skill, talent, and hard work.

The ones who inherited wealth, increased their wealth by working. They created jobs and tax paying american workers.

The point is that american remains the best place to come from nothing and become something.

Not anymore. Student loan debt is the biggest obstacle at this moment to moving into the middle class. Only liberals want to fix that but the bankers and their republican partners have no interest.

Really? There's a movement on the left to curtail administrators in higher ed?

Where Universities Can Be Cut InsideHigherEd

More on what the 'real' factors on on the costs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/o...ION&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=WCARETARG&_r=2

...

Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.

The rapid increase in college enrollment can be defended by intellectually respectable arguments. Even the explosion in administrative personnel is, at least in theory, defensible. On the other hand, there are no valid arguments to support the recent trend toward seven-figure salaries for high-ranking university administrators, unless one considers evidence-free assertions about “the market” to be intellectually rigorous.

What cannot be defended, however, is the claim that tuition has risen because public funding for higher education has been cut. Despite its ubiquity, this claim flies directly in the face of the facts.

This is where Schools of Business should pick up some slack on a not-for-profit basis.

so colleges should just operate on a break even basis? is that what you think?

no; just not-for-profit. they could help lower tuition costs.