Originally posted by KazetNagorrayou bring up an era in which the average American lived in dire poverty - if not slavery.
Perhaps I will not, but surely in that case you can still explain your position, no? It's not obvious to me what was so great about the "old" America especially when you bring up an era in which the average American lived in dire poverty - if not slavery.
Actually, most of the world at that time lived in poverty. What has diminished poverty since then is capitalism, and the division of labor, and to some extent democratic inputs into government.
Your idea of a perfect world is to take the abundance produced by free enterprise and put autocratic rulers in charge of it. Return to the "good old days" when superior people, Kings and Emperors, told commoners how much of their own production they could keep and enjoy.
The abundance of the 21st century would have made any era look good, but it can be squandered away by going back to old ways of governing.
Originally posted by normbenign...and always remember Norm. The Fortune 500 gets 2/3's of the welfare pie, the other 1/3 goes to the real poor. That's how "capitalism" is done in America! 😀
[b]you bring up an era in which the average American lived in dire poverty - if not slavery.
Actually, most of the world at that time lived in poverty. What has diminished poverty since then is capitalism, and the division of labor, and to some extent democratic inputs into government.
Your idea of a perfect world is to take the abundance produ ...[text shortened]... ve made any era look good, but it can be squandered away by going back to old ways of governing.[/b]
Originally posted by bill718What can you expect? Both Democrats and Republicans are bought and paid for by Big Business.
...and always remember Norm. The Fortune 500 gets 2/3's of the welfare pie, the other 1/3 goes to the real poor. That's how "capitalism" is done in America! 😀
Get rid of spending on all welfare and we'd take a huge step in getting rid of government corruption.
Originally posted by whodeyI actually think what you meant to write was: when will you conservatives wake up and realize you don't have a right to call yourselves human.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e1muz8BhuQ
When will conservatives wake up to the fact that they have no place in the federal government?
Only radical left winged loons like Bernie Sanders or narcissistic Progressive populists belong there. That's because the federal government is now an out of control centralized beast.
Let's face some facts cons ...[text shortened]... ll only wax worse and worse. There is no reform at the federal level. It's time to face reality.
Bunch of whining failed abortions, the lotta ya!
Originally posted by normbenignWrong!
[b]you bring up an era in which the average American lived in dire poverty - if not slavery.
Actually, most of the world at that time lived in poverty. What has diminished poverty since then is capitalism, and the division of labor, and to some extent democratic inputs into government.
Your idea of a perfect world is to take the abundance produ ...[text shortened]... ve made any era look good, but it can be squandered away by going back to old ways of governing.[/b]
The Constitution brings poverty, that's why Progs have a printing press in the basement of the Fed.
Originally posted by shavixmirActually, when the doctor sent that probe in to suck out my brains I simply grabbed a hold of it and shoved it back into his crotch to suck out his manhood.
I actually think what you meant to write was: when will you conservatives wake up and realize you don't have a right to call yourselves human.
Bunch of whining failed abortions, the lotta ya!
I will have to admit that at least he looks half way decent wearing dress. I suspect he was more female than male before the incident.
Originally posted by whodeyOnce again, nobody has the foggiest notion of what you're jabbering on about.
Actually, when the doctor sent that probe in to suck out my brains I simply grabbed a hold of it and shoved it back into his crotch to suck out his manhood.
I will have to admit that at least he looks half way decent wearing dress. I suspect he was more female than male before the incident.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDo you really believe, and also try to propagate the lie that elected officials have our best interests at heart? Please save it for someone silly enough to swallow anything.
An inept and clumsy straw man, even by your standards. A multi-party democracy is not "autocratic" by any reasonable standard.
Originally posted by normbenignAn elected official has their own interests at heart and the key to finding an efficient way of organizing a government is to make sure that those interest align as closely as possible to those of the general populace. This is why democracy works so much better than other forms of governance, as a politician's popularity with the general populace (which, as is to be hoped, is not too far from the populace's actual interests) is directly related to the politician's own interest in getting elected.
Do you really believe, and also try to propagate the lie that elected officials have our best interests at heart? Please save it for someone silly enough to swallow anything.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraActually, the colonies in 1776 had relatively few people living in "dire poverty" (disregarding slavery). In fact at its inception, the US was probably the most egalitarian country on the planet with far less inequality than exists today.
Perhaps I will not, but surely in that case you can still explain your position, no? It's not obvious to me what was so great about the "old" America especially when you bring up an era in which the average American lived in dire poverty - if not slavery.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/us-income-inequality-its-worse-today-than-it-was-in-1774/262537/
We have no paupers,” Thomas Jefferson would write. “The great mass of our population is of laborers; our rich, who can live without labor, either manual or professional, being few, and of moderate wealth.”
Added Jefferson: “Can any condition of society be more desirable than this?”
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32012/1776-america-no-super-rich-no-super-poor/
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3213
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat sounds good rhetorically, but in reality, I'm not so sure.
An elected official has their own interests at heart and the key to finding an efficient way of organizing a government is to make sure that those interest align as closely as possible to those of the general populace. This is why democracy works so much better than other forms of governance, as a politician's popularity with the general populace (which ...[text shortened]... ace's actual interests) is directly related to the politician's own interest in getting elected.
What I observe, in the US, and elsewhere, is a growing reliance on government for support, and a growing disparity between haves, who rely on government subsidies, and have nots who rely on direct payments of cash from government. The government ends up being a conduit for transferring wealth from earners to consumers, allowing more consumers to simply stop trying to earn, and to just consume.
Democracy is all about voting majorities, and there will always be more poor, and lower middle class than rich. I'm not so certain democracy does work.