Liberals need to change their language

[Sherry]

The economic boom of the 1980s was caused by massive deficit spending and investment in the military industrial industry. 'Trickle down' was a terrible failure. If Reagan hadn't increased taxes by closing loop holes, borrowed at unprecedented levels and spent it all on the military industry, we never would have come out of the 1983 recession.

Our present economic problems were caused by the Bush administration and the lack of regulation of the financial industry.

Under Obama, we may not have recovered as well as we had hoped, but we're in much better shape than where Bush left us.

Unless you're hanging out with 1%er's, most people I know say they're worse off than they were 6 years ago...whether they're out of work and can't find a job, increased prices for gas, food, and utilities, or are underwater on their mortgage and can't sell their house, it doesn't really matter who you try to point the blame at.

The economy as a whole is much stronger now than it was 6 years ago.

Though I wish that the Obama administration had taken a much more drastic action when the Dems held both houses.

It is VERY important to know who is responsible and what needs to be done in order to restore our economy.

The private sector has completely failed to help the economic recovery. They believe that they have no responsibility to the society by which they have flourished. Capitalism is failing.

If there is anybody that is trying to save capitalism, it's liberals like myself. We want moderate government action to help our economy so that capitalism can continue.

It's the conservatives, who refuse to acknowledge that there is any problem, much less take responsibility, who are letting capitalism go to hell.

I don't think the private sector has felt very embraced by this administration...it's been a consistent mantra of pitting people against each other by promoting class warfare, as you admit in your OP.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Median income per year has fallen by several thousands dollars during the Obama Administration.

This results in increasing inequality of income and it is entirely Obama's fault for making it so easy for people to sit on their ass and enjoy the Federal Plantation....and wait for Obama to tell them to go vote Democratic.

Its about a concept called Subsistence.

All species strive to subsist. Mankind has done it throughout our existence, and most people today seek mainly to subsist.

In America today...in this rich nation; built on Jeffersonian ideals, Christian morals, and the profit incentive into the greatest society ever to exist, Subsistence today means a roof over your head, enough to eat, clothes, a T. V., an old car at least, and enough leftover to buy beer and cigarettes....and if the Government will provide that....there are plenty of people genetically programed by their heritage to just SIT ON THE PORCH.....and do nothing but vote Democratic when called upon to do so.

That's Obama's legacy. In a quest for votes from those caught in Government dependency, he has created the conditions for income inequality to continue to increase.

Of course, Wall Street in the Heart of the Liberal World, is a cancer of Greed, and something could be done about it with the agreement of both Liberals and Conservatives.

Who is in charge of that?

Eric Holder and Barak Obama.

Will they do anything about the cancer in New York.

Hell no. Wall Street owns them both.

You Yankees need to clean up your own beck yard...Detroit and New York and Chicago...before you start dictating rules to the Heartland.

There may be a lot of folks down South that are happy to live just on government assistance, but up north they are few.

The fact is that while there is an abundance of money being held by the private sector and banks, they refuse to invest that money to create new jobs, increase wages and salaries, and stimulate economic growth.

Americans are historically the hardest working people in the world. Did some new 'lazy' disease suddenly infest America?

I agree, Wall St. and the financial sector are primarily to blame, however action by government to rectify would be unprecedented. At least Obama and the Dems are starting to talk about these economic issues. (Of course with the TPP agreement pending I'm starting to get skeptical.)

BTW - Why do you associate Wall St. and the financial sector with liberals? Wall street is as Republican as Republican gets. Sure they may hedge their bets by contributing to the Dems and they'll certainly use as mush money as it takes to control Washington, but believe me they are Republicans thru and thru.

I know, I grew up in Wall street's bedroom. (My home town has 7 railroad stations just so that those precious Wall St. and banking exec's never have to walk for more that 10 minutes to get to the train).

 

[Hum Dinger]

Unless you're hanging out with 1%er's, most people I know say they're worse off than they were 6 years ago...whether they're out of work and can't find a job, increased prices for gas, food, and utilities, or are underwater on their mortgage and can't sell their house, it doesn't really matter who you try to point the blame at.

The economy as a whole is much stronger now than it was 6 years ago.

Though I wish that the Obama administration had taken a much more drastic action when the Dems held both houses.

It is VERY important to know who is responsible and what needs to be done in order to restore our economy.

The private sector has completely failed to help the economic recovery. They believe that they have no responsibility to the society by which they have flourished. Capitalism is failing.

If there is anybody that is trying to save capitalism, it's liberals like myself. We want moderate government action to help our economy so that capitalism can continue.

It's the conservatives, who refuse to acknowledge that there is any problem, much less take responsibility, who are letting capitalism go to hell.

I don't think the private sector has felt very embraced by this administration...it's been a consistent mantra of pitting people against each other by promoting class warfare, as you admit in your OP.

The only class warfare so far has been the wealthy's war against the workers.

So what you saying is that is Obama gave them all a big hug, they'd start hiring again?

There have been no significant changes in law or policy that explain the inaction by the private sector. In terms of taxation and policy, they have it a lot better than almost any period in the last 60 years.

 

[Sherry]

The economy as a whole is much stronger now than it was 6 years ago.

Though I wish that the Obama administration had taken a much more drastic action when the Dems held both houses.

It is VERY important to know who is responsible and what needs to be done in order to restore our economy.

The private sector has completely failed to help the economic recovery. They believe that they have no responsibility to the society by which they have flourished. Capitalism is failing.

If there is anybody that is trying to save capitalism, it's liberals like myself. We want moderate government action to help our economy so that capitalism can continue.

It's the conservatives, who refuse to acknowledge that there is any problem, much less take responsibility, who are letting capitalism go to hell.

I don't think the private sector has felt very embraced by this administration...it's been a consistent mantra of pitting people against each other by promoting class warfare, as you admit in your OP.

The only class warfare so far has been the wealthy's war against the workers.

So what you saying is that is Obama gave them all a big hug, they'd start hiring again?

There have been no significant changes in law or policy that explain the inaction by the private sector. In terms of taxation and policy, they have it a lot better than almost any period in the last 60 years.

Oh, so now you're promoting class warfare language.

Obama has not tried to hide his contempt for business owners, who didn't even really build it...even if they did take the risks.

They should just give in to Obama and love it, look good little citizens.

 

[KGB]

I agree that 'income inequality' sounds terrible. Liberals don't believe that everyone should earn the same amount of money. That's absurd. But 'income inequality' makes it sound like we do. I'm not so sure adding 'excessive' to the phrase is the answer either. I don't really know how to phrase it. I would just like incomes to be more fairly distributed. This requires state action. Reliance on the free market leads to those with power hogging as much of the created wealth for themselves. Higher taxes for the overpaid, and higher minimum wages always work, and liberals should always insist on both going UP.

why should incomes be more fairly distributed? If a person goes to medical school or law school or better yet, is the best in the world at their job, they shouldn't be properly compensated? Even if that means they get top dollar? I just don't get this thinking that says incomes have to be artificially suppressed. It's called creating artificial ceilings which are illegal. Plus, & this is what liberals don't understand, businesses can potentially generate an unlimited amount of money if they are successful enough. There isn't a finite amount that states if person X earns this, it just means there is dollar amount Y for everyone else. We pay top talent top dollar to generate more money. That's capitalism 101. The rest just invites mediocrity.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I don't think the private sector has felt very embraced by this administration...it's been a consistent mantra of pitting people against each other by promoting class warfare, as you admit in your OP.

The only class warfare so far has been the wealthy's war against the workers.

So what you saying is that is Obama gave them all a big hug, they'd start hiring again?

There have been no significant changes in law or policy that explain the inaction by the private sector. In terms of taxation and policy, they have it a lot better than almost any period in the last 60 years.

Oh, so now you're promoting class warfare language.

Obama has not tried to hide his contempt for business owners, who didn't even really build it...even if they did take the risks.

They should just give in to Obama and love it, look good little citizens.

So you think that on a democratic capitalist society, the private sector should just shutdown every time a politician is elected that rubs them the wrong way.

"If ya'all don't elect who I like I'm gonna lay ya all off!"

Neither democracy or business can flourish in that sort of an environment.

But that seems to be EXACTLY what your saying and EXACTLY what's happening. Business doesn't like who the American people elected, so business is shutting down the economy.

The whole reason that business can afford to do this - in contradiction to good business practices - is that a small percentage of the people have become so wealthy that they can afford to not act in their own best business interests, but can afford to based their business decisions on their personal political feelings.

You've just justified exactly why government has a responsibility to take action - if business believes that they can control democracy by punishing the American people then they deserve for the government to slap then back into place.

 

[Sherry]

The only class warfare so far has been the wealthy's war against the workers.

So what you saying is that is Obama gave them all a big hug, they'd start hiring again?

There have been no significant changes in law or policy that explain the inaction by the private sector. In terms of taxation and policy, they have it a lot better than almost any period in the last 60 years.

Oh, so now you're promoting class warfare language.

Obama has not tried to hide his contempt for business owners, who didn't even really build it...even if they did take the risks.

They should just give in to Obama and love it, look good little citizens.

So you think that on a democratic capitalist society, the private sector should just shutdown every time a politician is elected that rubs them the wrong way.

"If ya'all don't elect who I like I'm gonna lay ya all off!"

Neither democracy or business can flourish in that sort of an environment.

But that seems to be EXACTLY what your saying and EXACTLY what's happening. Business doesn't like who the American people elected, so business is shutting down the economy.

The whole reason that business can afford to do this - in contradiction to good business practices - is that a small percentage of the people have become so wealthy that they can afford to not act in their own best business interests, but can afford to based their business decisions on their personal political feelings.

You've just justified exactly why government has a responsibility to take action - if business believes that they can control democracy by punishing the American people then they deserve for the government to slap then back into place.

You have a really warped belief that business is willing to cut off their nose to spite their face...typical elitist snob mentality.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I agree that 'income inequality' sounds terrible. Liberals don't believe that everyone should earn the same amount of money. That's absurd. But 'income inequality' makes it sound like we do. I'm not so sure adding 'excessive' to the phrase is the answer either. I don't really know how to phrase it. I would just like incomes to be more fairly distributed. This requires state action. Reliance on the free market leads to those with power hogging as much of the created wealth for themselves. Higher taxes for the overpaid, and higher minimum wages always work, and liberals should always insist on both going UP.

why should incomes be more fairly distributed? If a person goes to medical school or law school or better yet, is the best in the world at their job, they shouldn't be properly compensated? Even if that means they get top dollar? I just don't get this thinking that says incomes have to be artificially suppressed. It's called creating artificial ceilings which are illegal. Plus, & this is what liberals don't understand, businesses can potentially generate an unlimited amount of money if they are successful enough. There isn't a finite amount that states if person X earns this, it just means there is dollar amount Y for everyone else. We pay top talent top dollar to generate more money. That's capitalism 101. The rest just invites mediocrity.

First, you use the term 'fair' in your first statement. I used the term fair also. What do you have against fairness? fairness does not mean equal, it means fair.

Second, it is nonsense to say that there is a relationship between income and a persons productive value. Conservatives love to pretend that it's a perfect world where those who work that hardest make the most. THAT IS PURE HORSESHIT!

If that were true, doctors would make more money than anyone else. They have the greatest amount of education and provide the greatest service. Not to mention the years of internship and residency. So if income was based on hard work and merit, you'd have to agree that anyone who makes more than a doctor is a thief.

Third, it is blatantly false to say:

"businesses can potentially generate an unlimited amount of money if they are successful enough. There isn't a finite amount that states if person X earns this, it just means there is dollar amount Y for everyone else."

There is not an unlimited amount of money. Currency represents wealth. Wealth is created by productive labor i.e. the creation of physical items of value. Wealth is created by workers. It is finite.

finally, mediocre people do 99% of the productive work in this world. Those people you consider to be so gifted are usually only gifted at thievery.

 

[KNB]

Here is one example of how American workers are facing "income suppression":
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf

Artificially inflated medical bills based on an arbitrary "chargemaster" list. High medical bills are siphoning money out of the working class and hurting American families.
Health Care Collection Statistics - ACA International

Regardless of any notions of "infinite wealth", American families are paying more money for medical bills than they need to be paying, which increases the number of American families who require government assistance. This has nothing to do with the "free market".

 

[OKTexas]

However I think it's too late for subtle changes in language. People have to be made to understand (I've posted this before) that "wealth redistribution" has been going on forever. e.g. The Roman Empire was all about redistributing the wealth of the conquered back to Rome.

The concentration of wealth into the hands of the few is facilitated by the control of banking institutions and lobbying institutions etc. It's a self-perpetuating process.
All under the rallying cries of "free markets" and "the Gloriy of Capitalism".
It's time the 90% learned that they are not represented in this game. The same way colonials learned that they were disenfranchised.

Where is all the middle classe's missing wealth?

I wonder what it would look like if you were able to overlay the number of job killing regulations from the EPA and other agencies on that bottom graph. Ya think there might be correlation between the two? Thanks uncle sugar.

 

[Toro]

Personally, I don't think the ratio of CEO to worker income should exceed 10,000x.

 

[KNB]

What jobs have EPA regulations killed and how?

 

[Hum Dinger]

Oh, so now you're promoting class warfare language.

Obama has not tried to hide his contempt for business owners, who didn't even really build it...even if they did take the risks.

They should just give in to Obama and love it, look good little citizens.

So you think that on a democratic capitalist society, the private sector should just shutdown every time a politician is elected that rubs them the wrong way.

"If ya'all don't elect who I like I'm gonna lay ya all off!"

Neither democracy or business can flourish in that sort of an environment.

But that seems to be EXACTLY what your saying and EXACTLY what's happening. Business doesn't like who the American people elected, so business is shutting down the economy.

The whole reason that business can afford to do this - in contradiction to good business practices - is that a small percentage of the people have become so wealthy that they can afford to not act in their own best business interests, but can afford to based their business decisions on their personal political feelings.

You've just justified exactly why government has a responsibility to take action - if business believes that they can control democracy by punishing the American people then they deserve for the government to slap then back into place.

You have a really warped belief that business is willing to cut off their nose to spite their face...typical elitist snob mentality.

When people have enough wealth they can afford to act against their own immediate best economic interests. This is why we have philanthropists.

It's a typical conservative trait to believe that everyone acts in accordance with simple capitalist principals. The world is more complex. People are more complex.

Social engineering is one practice that the super wealthy engage in, often times against their own immediate best interests.

Political influence is another.

Once people reach a certain level of wealth they are more interested in power than wealth accumulation. They are emperors and will try to shape the world in the image of their choosing.

In many ways they do great things for society, but shutting down the American economy because they don't approve of the American peoples choice of President isn't one of them.

 

[Hum Dinger]

However I think it's too late for subtle changes in language. People have to be made to understand (I've posted this before) that "wealth redistribution" has been going on forever. e.g. The Roman Empire was all about redistributing the wealth of the conquered back to Rome.

The concentration of wealth into the hands of the few is facilitated by the control of banking institutions and lobbying institutions etc. It's a self-perpetuating process.
All under the rallying cries of "free markets" and "the Gloriy of Capitalism".
It's time the 90% learned that they are not represented in this game. The same way colonials learned that they were disenfranchised.

Where is all the middle classe's missing wealth?

I wonder what it would look like if you were able to overlay the number of job killing regulations from the EPA and other agencies on that bottom graph. Ya think there might be correlation between the two? Thanks uncle sugar.

The level of regulation today is no greater than it was from the 1970s - 1990s. What has changed is that deregulation has been stopped. This has pissed the wealthy people off, so they've shut down the American economy.

 

[velvtacheeze]

I agree that 'income inequality' sounds terrible. Liberals don't believe that everyone should earn the same amount of money. That's absurd. But 'income inequality' makes it sound like we do. I'm not so sure adding 'excessive' to the phrase is the answer either. I don't really know how to phrase it. I would just like incomes to be more fairly distributed. This requires state action. Reliance on the free market leads to those with power hogging as much of the created wealth for themselves. Higher taxes for the overpaid, and higher minimum wages always work, and liberals should always insist on both going UP.

why should incomes be more fairly distributed? If a person goes to medical school or law school or better yet, is the best in the world at their job, they shouldn't be properly compensated? Even if that means they get top dollar? I just don't get this thinking that says incomes have to be artificially suppressed. It's called creating artificial ceilings which are illegal. Plus, & this is what liberals don't understand, businesses can potentially generate an unlimited amount of money if they are successful enough. There isn't a finite amount that states if person X earns this, it just means there is dollar amount Y for everyone else. We pay top talent top dollar to generate more money. That's capitalism 101. The rest just invites mediocrity.

One of the most laughable conservative myths is that incomes are based on what an employee is worth or produces for the company. The wages and salaries are not based on that at all. It's much more arbitrary, and certainly not fair. And no max income should ever be set, but progressive tax rates are a must. As well as a minimum wage based that rises with inflation.

 

[OKTexas]

What jobs have EPA regulations killed and how?

Wait till you get to ninth grade, they will cover it in your civics class.

 

[occupied]

I agree that 'income inequality' sounds terrible. Liberals don't believe that everyone should earn the same amount of money. That's absurd. But 'income inequality' makes it sound like we do. I'm not so sure adding 'excessive' to the phrase is the answer either. I don't really know how to phrase it. I would just like incomes to be more fairly distributed. This requires state action. Reliance on the free market leads to those with power hogging as much of the created wealth for themselves. Higher taxes for the overpaid, and higher minimum wages always work, and liberals should always insist on both going UP.

why should incomes be more fairly distributed? If a person goes to medical school or law school or better yet, is the best in the world at their job, they shouldn't be properly compensated? Even if that means they get top dollar? I just don't get this thinking that says incomes have to be artificially suppressed. It's called creating artificial ceilings which are illegal. Plus, & this is what liberals don't understand, businesses can potentially generate an unlimited amount of money if they are successful enough. There isn't a finite amount that states if person X earns this, it just means there is dollar amount Y for everyone else. We pay top talent top dollar to generate more money. That's capitalism 101. The rest just invites mediocrity.

One of the most laughable conservative myths is that incomes are based on what an employee is worth or produces for the company. The wages and salaries are not based on that at all. It's much more arbitrary, and certainly not fair. And no max income should ever be set, but progressive tax rates are a must. As well as a minimum wage based that rises with inflation.

The meritocracy myth, Libertarians especially are fond of that one. When talking about minimum wage they are of the opinion that we need to become a meritocracy, When talking about CEO pay they think we already are.

 

[KNB]

What jobs have EPA regulations killed and how?

Wait till you get to ninth grade, they will cover it in your civics class.

No, really. What jobs have the EPA killed? Please explain this. We hear it all the time but no one has explained how the EPA keeps anyone from being hired.

 

[OKTexas]

However I think it's too late for subtle changes in language. People have to be made to understand (I've posted this before) that "wealth redistribution" has been going on forever. e.g. The Roman Empire was all about redistributing the wealth of the conquered back to Rome.

The concentration of wealth into the hands of the few is facilitated by the control of banking institutions and lobbying institutions etc. It's a self-perpetuating process.
All under the rallying cries of "free markets" and "the Gloriy of Capitalism".
It's time the 90% learned that they are not represented in this game. The same way colonials learned that they were disenfranchised.

Where is all the middle classe's missing wealth?

I wonder what it would look like if you were able to overlay the number of job killing regulations from the EPA and other agencies on that bottom graph. Ya think there might be correlation between the two? Thanks uncle sugar.

The level of regulation today is no greater than it was from the 1970s - 1990s. What has changed is that deregulation has been stopped. This has pissed the wealthy people off, so they've shut down the American economy.

Bullshit, if you want a strong middle class there is only one way to have it, bring manufacturing jobs back. Service job have never paid well and will never pay well, EPA started operations in 1970 and they along with OSHA, NLRB and others have driven manufacturing offshore. Have these agencies done some good, yep, but nothing the states couldn't have accomplished just as well with fewer job loses.

 

[OKTexas]

What jobs have EPA regulations killed and how?

Wait till you get to ninth grade, they will cover it in your civics class.

No, really. What jobs have the EPA killed? Please explain this. We hear it all the time but no one has explained how the EPA keeps anyone from being hired.

How about you take a trip down to PA or WV and ask a coal miner that question. You're a fucking fool and I got no time for fools.