Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[danielpalos]

Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare, is the right wing way.

In the meantime China is passing us by as the next superpower if we don't start WW3 first. (trilobites will go back to #1 if that happens)
View attachment 246013

We have a general welfare clause and a Commerce Clause; why are wasting time=money on trade wars when we could be upgrading infrastructure to lower costs to the private sector.

 

[the other mike]

Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare, is the right wing way.

In the meantime China is passing us by as the next superpower if we don't start WW3 first. (trilobites will go back to #1 if that happens)
View attachment 246013

We have a general welfare clause and a Commerce Clause; why are wasting time=money on trade wars when we could be upgrading infrastructure to lower costs to the private sector.

First we need to hurry and vote the maniacs out of office, then we can do some real damage control before they repeat any more
mistakes...like starting another war in Venezuela or Iran.

 

[the other mike]

From the op...
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided.

 

[Dekster]

Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare, is the right wing way.

In the meantime China is passing us by as the next superpower if we don't start WW3 first. (trilobites will go back to #1 if that happens)
View attachment 246013

what does it matter? They have 4 times as many people. It is inevitable that their economy be larger than ours. Just as it is inevitable that China's economy will be second to India's as India surpasses them in population

 

[the other mike]

what does it matter? They have 4 times as many people. It is inevitable that their economy be larger than ours. Just as it is inevitable that China's economy will be second to India's as India surpasses them in population

It matters in the fact that we allowed it to happen. We should have continued as the #1 exporter of almost everything that we were in the 60's and 70's. Solar panels at Home fucking Depot are made in China---that's my point.

 

[danielpalos]

Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare, is the right wing way.

In the meantime China is passing us by as the next superpower if we don't start WW3 first. (trilobites will go back to #1 if that happens)
View attachment 246013

what does it matter? They have 4 times as many people. It is inevitable that their economy be larger than ours. Just as it is inevitable that China's economy will be second to India's as India surpasses them in population

we still have a first world economy to maintain. higher paid labor can better afford to pay for those public goods and public services.

 

[Dekster]

what does it matter? They have 4 times as many people. It is inevitable that their economy be larger than ours. Just as it is inevitable that China's economy will be second to India's as India surpasses them in population

It matters in the fact that we allowed it to happen. We should have continued as the #1 exporter of almost everything that we were in the 60's and 70's. Solar panels at Home fucking Depot are made in China---that's my point.

I thought you might have an economic argument. My apologies for interrupting your waxing for the good old days.

 

[the other mike]

I thought you might have an economic argument. My apologies for interrupting your waxing for the good old days.

The focus more on learning from past mistakes argument.
We never seem to in anything. (Americans)

 

[Markle]

From the op...
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided.

FDR was a poor economic president and a good war president. His sorry economic policies extended the Great Depression by at least 7 years.

From that bastion of Conservatism, UCLA

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

Pay particular attention to that last line, written FIFTEEN YEARS AGO!

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

 

[Dekster]

I thought you might have an economic argument. My apologies for interrupting your waxing for the good old days.

The focus more on learning from past mistakes argument.
We never seem to in anything. (Americans)

Well let me put it a different way. The (mostly republican) obsession with being #1 globally strikes me as the same sort of emotionally driven nebular trap as the obsession (mostly democratic) with income inequality. America is falling behind sounds to me the same as the working class is falling behind. It doesn't seem to be inherently problematic unless we have something more tangible and practical to work toward. I make what I make regardless of what Bill Gates makes or somebody in China is making. I do not see our quality of living worse off as a whole than it was a generation ago. Arguably it is better. Chasing data point seems superfluous to me.

 

[danielpalos]

From the op...
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided.

FDR was a poor economic president and a good war president. His sorry economic policies extended the Great Depression by at least 7 years.

From that bastion of Conservatism, UCLA

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

Pay particular attention to that last line, written FIFTEEN YEARS AGO!

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

we have a better understanding of economics now; along with quantum theory.

 

[Blues Man]

From the op...
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided.

It's better that the government not distribute wealth at all.

 

[danielpalos]

From the op...
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided.

It's better that the government not distribute wealth at all.

why do you say that?

 

[Markle]

Well let me put it a different way. The (mostly republican) obsession with being #1 globally strikes me as the same sort of emotionally driven nebular trap as the obsession (mostly democratic) with income inequality. America is falling behind sounds to me the same as the working class is falling behind. It doesn't seem to be inherently problematic unless we have something more tangible and practical to work toward. I make what I make regardless of what Bill Gates makes or somebody in China is making. I do not see our quality of living worse off as a whole than it was a generation ago. Arguably it is better. Chasing data point seems superfluous to me.

Good to see a brave Progressive coming out and saying "WE DON'T WANT TO BE THE BEST". Way to go Dekster! Very impressive!

If you watched the FACTS, instead of your beloved far left sources, you'd know that the low and middle-income folks wages are increasing at a good rate.

 

[Blues Man]

From the op...
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided.

It's better that the government not distribute wealth at all.

why do you say that?

See, there is such a thing as a stupid question.

The government has no authority to tell anyone how much they can have

 

[danielpalos]

From the op...
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided.

It's better that the government not distribute wealth at all.

why do you say that?

See, there is such a thing as a stupid question.

The government has no authority to tell anyone how much they can have

why do you say that?

 

[Blues Man]

From the op...
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided.

It's better that the government not distribute wealth at all.

why do you say that?

See, there is such a thing as a stupid question.

The government has no authority to tell anyone how much they can have

why do you say that?

Where does the constitution grant that power to the government?

 

[Blues Man]

Tenth Amendment Network

Despite the passage and implementation of numerous programs, just some of which include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, certain welfare programs, and subsidized student loans, the federal government does NOT have redistributive power.

 

[Markle]

why do you say that?

You're trolling.

Why not find something beneficial to yourself rather than wasting time here?

 

[danielpalos]

From the op...
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided.

It's better that the government not distribute wealth at all.

why do you say that?

See, there is such a thing as a stupid question.

The government has no authority to tell anyone how much they can have

why do you say that?

Where does the constitution grant that power to the government?

Article the First, Section the Eighth.