DescentBB

No surprise there. I've seen the slow march towards income inequality and income aggregation since Reagan put in his policies.

yup, although I am not of the camp that holds Reagan responsible, the timeframe is about right.

tunnelcat wrote:No surprise there. I've seen the slow march towards income inequality and income aggregation since Reagan put in his policies.

So Reagan, who's Party never had full control of House and Senate to pass his agenda, still managed to put policy in place that created the wealth divide.

And Obama, who's Party did have both the House and Senate in control failed to put in policy that would correct the aweful unfair Reagan policy.

Why? Is Obama really that bad?

Well, let me elaborate on Reagan, Will and Slick. He's not the only guilty party here, I'll agree. The Dems are guilty as well.

"Technically", notwithstanding the changing of estate tax law that tends to aggregate money into family wealth and mostly benefits the few in the U.S., I think company pension history and the IRA are important in the whole scheme of things. The downhill slide for company pensions began in 1974 with the unassuming passage of ERISA, originally a worker protection law put forth by a Democrat and signed into law by a Republican President, Ford, which directly gave birth what's known as the IRA. Then Reagan gave us ERTA in 1986, continuing the trend away from company pensions in favor of the Stock Market and the IRA. And I blame Clinton too because he signed SBJPA in 1996, which greatly expanded IRA's, essentially putting the death watch on company pensions. In 1997, the TRA, sponsored by a Democratic Senator, William Roth, gave us the Roth IRA. IRA's continued to expand under Bush in 2001 with the passage of the EGTRRA, the company pension death knell. You don't see very many company sponsored and matched pensions now do you? The last bastions of pensions are in the government. Now most retirees are now beholden to the Stock Market and it's inherent instabilities just to keep their nest-eggs stored somewhere other than under the mattress. What I'm getting to is that Ford, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush are the most responsible for putting more of our hard earned money into the hands of the few in Wall Street.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphilli ... deduction/

I'd go to an even simpler explanation. Ongoing since the days of the Reagan presidency, the US economy(partly aided by legislative action from both major parties) has pushed the primacy of investment income over labor income(wages). And, here we are, today.......and, as I have suggested repeatedly on these pages, the trajectory suggests that the disparity will get far, far uglier over the next few decades. The political part of the equation that forever boggles my mind is that a good sized chunk of the people who stand to get steamrolled by this trend willingly go along with it, because they've been sold a bill of goods under the title of 'Small government, less regulation and capitalism first'.

callmeslick wrote:?...
The political part of the equation that forever boggles my mind is that a good sized chunk of the people who stand to get steamrolled by this trend willingly go along with it, because they've been sold a bill of goods under the title of 'Small government, less regulation and capitalism first'.

But then finally, like a perfect storm, the other side of that political spectrum managed to gain control of the Whitehouse, the Senate and the House of Representatives! So of course, being much smarter they quickly passed legislation that corrects the trend because obviously only the dummies on the right are voting to get themselves steamrolled right?

Oh....no? Really?!? Is here another bill of goods you aren't telling us about? One that the other side was sold?

Will Robinson wrote:
But then finally, like a perfect storm, the other side of that political spectrum managed to gain control of the Whitehouse, the Senate and the House of Representatives! So of course, being much smarter they quickly passed legislation that corrects the trend because obviously only the dummies on the right are voting to get themselves steamrolled right?

lord knows they tried, although clearly the focus was trying to keep the economic ship from sinking altogether. However, as I'm sure you are aware, without a super-majority in the Senate, an obstructionist party can prevent any real progress from being made.....

Oh....no? Really?!? Is here another bill of goods you aren't telling us about? One that the other side was sold?

nope, not at all. See above.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
But then finally, like a perfect storm, the other side of that political spectrum managed to gain control of the Whitehouse, the Senate and the House of Representatives! So of course, being much smarter they quickly passed legislation that corrects the trend because obviously only the dummies on the right are voting to get themselves steamrolled right?

lord knows they tried, although clearly the focus was trying to keep the economic ship from sinking altogether. However, as I'm sure you are aware, without a super-majority in the Senate, an obstructionist party can prevent any real progress from being made.....

Oh....no? Really?!? Is here another bill of goods you aren't telling us about? One that the other side was sold?

nope, not at all. See above.

Then how did Reagan cause all that horribly bad legislation when he had, not just some alleged obstructionist minority against him, but in fact had BOTH houses clearly in the control of the supposed smarter half of that political spectrum!?! All those brilliant lefty's couldn't match the power of a rag tag tea party minority group of Representatives?!?

/me thinks you are accustomed to bending the truth to fit your party's template for revising history

It is one party disguised as two and as long as you believe you must pick from one of the 'two' you wont be looking for and empowering an alternative.

callmeslick wrote:I'd go to an even simpler explanation. Ongoing since the days of the Reagan presidency, the US economy(partly aided by legislative action from both major parties) has pushed the primacy of investment income over labor income(wages). And, here we are, today.......and, as I have suggested repeatedly on these pages, the trajectory suggests that the disparity will get far, far uglier over the next few decades. The political part of the equation that forever boggles my mind is that a good sized chunk of the people who stand to get steamrolled by this trend willingly go along with it, because they've been sold a bill of goods under the title of 'Small government, less regulation and capitalism first'.

All things cycle, even economies and unfortunately for most people, because they never like to do things in moderation, it's very painful. People like to hoard, both money and power. It's an evolutionary trait. Nature abhors stability, so all things tend to fail and go through a reset when they go too far. The last economic reset was the Great Depression. It will probably end up happening again. That's the only way wealth aggregation gets broken up. It topples under it's own weight because it can't be sustained.

Will Robinson wrote:It is one party disguised as two and as long as you believe you must pick from one of the 'two' you wont be looking for and empowering an alternative.

Money and power corrupts, no matter what new party is created or which old one is in power. A third party would not be exempt from that same temptation. It would be corrupted just as miserably as those before it. I've seen a few elected tea partiers fall victim to the same temptations of Washington. Case in point, ex-Senator Scott Brown.

The 'two' parties are corrupt so we shouldn't try to kick them out and replace them because the replacements could end up corrupt?

Really? That's all you've got?!?

No. I'll bide my time. One can do that when one get's old. Things will self implode eventually because the status quo sucks right now and it's going to tick off most people once it gets bad enough to affect a whole lot of them. If someone comes along, who's not as dumb as a rock or crazy as a mad hatter, doesn't have a corporate agenda or backer, and who looks like they've got the cajones to kick some ass and change things, I'd vote for them. I'm not locked into one party or another.

tunnelcat wrote:No. I'll bide my time. One can do that when one get's old. Things will self implode eventually because the status quo sucks right now and it's going to tick off most people once it gets bad enough to affect a whole lot of them. If someone comes along, who's not as dumb as a rock or crazy as a mad hatter, doesn't have a corporate agenda or backer, and who looks like they've got the cajones to kick some ass and change things, I'd vote for them. I'm not locked into one party or another.

Things are imploding but when powerful governments implode they drag the citizens into the black hole with them. You want the system that perpetuates corporate agenda to burp out an accidentally pure alternative! It won't happen!

Start voting he bastards out regardless of how perfect the replacements aren't! And keep voting that way and you will alter their behavior! The subsequent replacements will soon learn to pee on the newspaper instead of on the carpet!

It isn't rocket surgery! It is simple but it requires a concerted effort on the part of the trainer to get the dogs to behave! You don't wait for a ★■◆● to squeeze out a litter of pre trained pups. You train the ones you get!

Will Robinson wrote: Then how did Reagan cause all that horribly bad legislation when he had, not just some alleged obstructionist minority against him, but in fact had BOTH houses clearly in the control of the supposed smarter half of that political spectrum!?! All those brilliant lefty's couldn't match the power of a rag tag tea party minority group of Representatives?!?

/me thinks you are accustomed to bending the truth to fit your party's template for revising history

It is one party disguised as two and as long as you believe you must pick from one of the 'two' you wont be looking for and empowering an alternative.

if you had bothered to read what I wrote, above, in response to another post, you would note that I don't hold Reagan responsible. Once again, you let presuppositions and political/ideological blinders prevent you from reading and comprehending simply written English sentences.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Then how did Reagan cause all that horribly bad legislation when he had, not just some alleged obstructionist minority against him, but in fact had BOTH houses clearly in the control of the supposed smarter half of that political spectrum!?! All those brilliant lefty's couldn't match the power of a rag tag tea party minority group of Representatives?!?

/me thinks you are accustomed to bending the truth to fit your party's template for revising history

It is one party disguised as two and as long as you believe you must pick from one of the 'two' you wont be looking for and empowering an alternative.

if you had bothered to read what I wrote, above, in response to another post, you would note that I don't hold Reagan responsible. Once again, you let presuppositions and political/ideological blinders prevent you from reading and comprehending simply written English sentences.

No slick, my last question to you was primarily to serve as in an illustration to TC who wants to blame Reagan.
Your claims that your Dems failed because of their lack of a super majority is very weak however in light of Reagan's success without even a simple majority EVER during his two full terms.
Obama had his party with a majority in both houses and has created nothing to address the problems TC blames Reagan for and that which you blame the rightwinger of the political spectrum for....

Thus my assertion that perhaps you are not properly identifying the real reasons for the problems you try to assign along party line!

Will Robinson wrote: Your claims that your Dems failed because of their lack of a super majority is very weak however in light of Reagan's success without even a simple majority EVER during his two full terms.

first, in the light of history, Reagan had few real domestic successes, and second, the opposition(Tip O'Neil etc) were cooperative on things, and not sworn to stop every single Presidential initiative. Note, also, should you care to look into it, how the Democratic led Senate approved virtually all of Reagan's executive appointments, rather than leaving him scrambling with a half-staffed administration.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Your claims that your Dems failed because of their lack of a super majority is very weak however in light of Reagan's success without even a simple majority EVER during his two full terms.

first, in the light of history, Reagan had few real domestic successes, and second, the opposition(Tip O'Neil etc) were cooperative on things, and not sworn to stop every single Presidential initiative. Note, also, should you care to look into it, how the Democratic led Senate approved virtually all of Reagan's executive appointments, rather than leaving him scrambling with a half-staffed administration.

It's called leadership and knowing how to work with people. The latest fiasco for the president is his yes there is a red line, no I never said there was a red line. How his constant inability to provide a direction for the economy leads to companies not wanting to invest in expansion. How a health care program is driving employers to make employees part timers to keep from paying insurance fee's. And you wonder why pensions are being reduced. Reagan knew how to work with the Dems power brokers and got things done. Obama on the other hand.........

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Your claims that your Dems failed because of their lack of a super majority is very weak however in light of Reagan's success without even a simple majority EVER during his two full terms.

first, in the light of history, Reagan had few real domestic successes, and second, the opposition(Tip O'Neil etc) were cooperative on things, and not sworn to stop every single Presidential initiative. Note, also, should you care to look into it, how the Democratic led Senate approved virtually all of Reagan's executive appointments, rather than leaving him scrambling with a half-staffed administration.

So maybe Reagan wasn't nearly the source of evil as TC, and those who think like she does, like to claim.

And obviously if Reagan had the approval or cooperation of the Dem controlled Congress the way you say then they own a large share of the blame for what ever ills came from Reagans term!
After all, according to you, only a small minority of obstructionists can stop a whole party of smart Dems and Obama from fixing problems. So certainly, during Reagan's term, the Dems, having complete control of creating and deciding which legislation is brought to vote, could have surpassed the level of pesky Tea Party obstruction if they wanted to and stopped Reagan the way you say Obama has been stopped!

Did they fail to do so because Reagans mojo was too strong for them? Or were they that lame? Or is the Tea Party so much better than the Dems of old?
Or, maybe, just maybe, the Dems of today, and Obama, are not anything close to being the antithesis to the Repubs as you like to think/claim!

I'm going with the latter....one party disguised as two.

none of your 'answers' are correct. They were the way they were because that is how our government used to work, and how it was designed to work:
cooperatively, constructively and civilly. The Tea Party is not only 'not better' in their limited position, they are antithetical to our system of government, and essentially obstructionist for the sake of disruption. As such, they do no one any favors,and folks have wised up to that. Hence, they have essentially, and likely permanently, destroyed the GOP in the northeast, and working down the Mid-Atlantic to the point where you truly WILL end up with one-party governance for generation. Heaven help us all, that is not a good thing.

callmeslick wrote:none of your 'answers' are correct. They were the way they were because that is how our government used to work, and how it was designed to work:
cooperatively, constructively and civilly. The Tea Party is not only 'not better' in their limited position, they are antithetical to our system of government, and essentially obstructionist for the sake of disruption. As such, they do no one any favors,and folks have wised up to that. Hence, they have essentially, and likely permanently, destroyed the GOP in the northeast, and working down the Mid-Atlantic to the point where you truly WILL end up with one-party governance for generation. Heaven help us all, that is not a good thing.

Wait a minute!
Aren't you the guy that likes to point out how politics used to be even MORE cutthroat than it is now?
Yes, you are.

So stop your spinning and smoke blowing puhleeeaaasse!
Cold hard truth is you are trying to defend partisan rhetoric as if it is an accurate historical representation of the facts. You do it to keep voters on your Party's plantation.

Cmon Will Slick isnt partisan!!!!!! by his own words he's a centrist

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:none of your 'answers' are correct. They were the way they were because that is how our government used to work, and how it was designed to work:
cooperatively, constructively and civilly. The Tea Party is not only 'not better' in their limited position, they are antithetical to our system of government, and essentially obstructionist for the sake of disruption. As such, they do no one any favors,and folks have wised up to that. Hence, they have essentially, and likely permanently, destroyed the GOP in the northeast, and working down the Mid-Atlantic to the point where you truly WILL end up with one-party governance for generation. Heaven help us all, that is not a good thing.

Wait a minute!
Aren't you the guy that likes to point out how politics used to be even MORE cutthroat than it is now?

political CAMPAIGNS, if you recall, were what I was discussing. Actually Congress has been far more civil throughout our history. Sure, there were a few fistfights, but the commonality of purpose, willingness to break bread with the opposition and honest debate and respect for one another were at a much higher level a generation ago. Your willingness, almost eagerness, for 'gotcha' moments betrays your weak arguments.

CUDA wrote:Cmon Will Slick isnt partisan!!!!!! by his own words he's a centrist

by my stated politcal positions, I am OBVIOUSLY a Centrist.

Will Robinson wrote:Things are imploding but when powerful governments implode they drag the citizens into the black hole with them. You want the system that perpetuates corporate agenda to burp out an accidentally pure alternative! It won't happen!

Start voting he bastards out regardless of how perfect the replacements aren't! And keep voting that way and you will alter their behavior! The subsequent replacements will soon learn to pee on the newspaper instead of on the carpet!

It isn't rocket surgery! It is simple but it requires a concerted effort on the part of the trainer to get the dogs to behave! You don't wait for a ★■◆● to squeeze out a litter of pre trained pups. You train the ones you get!

You don't get it Will. It's not just the government, it's about all of society and what it accepts as normal behavior from it's leaders of government AND captains of industry. It's too late to stop, the pendulum has swung too far in the favor of the Plutocrats, just like what happened before the Great Depression. The drugs of greed and power hold sway and attempts at changing the government will be futile or ineffective. They're too entrenched to even try to pry out of our fully corrupted system. We will have to either have a major revolution, or wait until they fall under their own bloated weight and bring the system down, and that will only happen when the middle class becomes mostly the lower class and they finally see that they've been screwed.

Oh, I'll keep voting for those who I think can change the status quo, or at least throw a monkey wrench into it, but I'm not holding my breath.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Cmon Will Slick isnt partisan!!!!!! by his own words he's a centrist

by my stated politcal positions, I am OBVIOUSLY a Centrist.

OBVIOUSLY

He absolutely is...the general attitude around here is just so slanted to one wingnut side that none of you realize that.

Top Gun wrote:He absolutely is...the general attitude around here is just so slanted to one wingnut side that none of you realize that.

Totally agree. Even though I never voted for Obama, am a registered republican, voted for Bush in 2000 and campaigned for Ron Paul I've been called a leftie how many times now? Ridiculous.

amazing that some folks don't see how far right of the average US citizen they stand. Even more astounding is that the average US citizen is much more conservative than the citizenry of most Western Euro nations, Australia, New Zealand or Canada, to which sphere of social norms we fit in. Thus, the people calling Vision or his peers 'leftie' are, in fact, conservative extremists......and, as in any extremism, they are the bane of a functional society, since they resist compromise and reason.

I like how the political scale here in America is always compared to a very select few other countries.

I consider this INVALID.

Americas political scale is relative only to America…period. If you want to compare America to the entire world…we would probably be at the top of the liberal list with all of the others mentioned. (not at the very top, but who would want to be)

Spidey wrote:I like how the political scale here in America is always compared to a very select few other countries.

The select few are the countries we share cultural kinship with, as slick pointed out. They are our first world, industrialized peers -- you know, the countries that are modern enough to not cut off the genitals of all their baby girls. You might look at some nations and think "oh wow, crazy despot ruled theocracies" but that is kind of how we look to the other leading free nations. It's important to have perspective about yourself and not live in a bubble.

Honestly, the best thing I ever did for my perspectives on politics and the world as a whole was to get involved in an online community with a bunch of active Canadian, European, and Australian members. It gave me a broader understanding of where my views fit into a global context, let me see where I was misguided, and strengthened the beliefs I held that I felt were worth keeping. This folder has turned into such an American circle-jerk over the years that there's not much of anything left to learn from here.

You also have to consider how much the scale is askew in relation to the US, take Australia for example…just look at the platform the “liberal” party was running on in this last Prime Minister election.

If that guy is a “liberal” then so am I.

And if this country is a little more conservative than others….what does it really matter.

it doesn't make a huge difference either way, Spidey, but Vision pointed out where it is relevant.

Top Gun wrote:Honestly, the best thing I ever did for my perspectives on politics and the world as a whole was to get involved in an online community with a bunch of active Canadian, European, and Australian members. It gave me a broader understanding of where my views fit into a global context, let me see where I was misguided, and strengthened the beliefs I held that I felt were worth keeping. This folder has turned into such an American circle-jerk over the years that there's not much of anything left to learn from here.

So that's the "world as a whole" huh....some perspective.

not a perfect solution, perhaps, Spidey, but TG is FAR more openminded than most self-described 'conservatives' I encounter, who refuse to even read 'liberal' media reports from the US, let alone exchange thoughts with large numbers of citizens from other nations. Heck, most 'conservatives'(and I use the quotes because most are a complete bastardization of the principles of conservatism in politics) don't wish to hear from folks in other regions of the US, half the time!

You know vision, there should be a “Godwin’s” law in regards to using an extreme example to make a point.

................

Me thinks your definition of “open-minded” means someone who agrees with you.

Spidey wrote:You also have to consider how much the scale is askew in relation to the US, take Australia for example…just look at the platform the “liberal” party was running on in this last Prime Minister election.

If that guy is a “liberal” then so am I.

Political parties with the names "Liberal" or "Liberal Democratic" are frequently associated with very right-wing ideologies; the Japanese version is just one example. As slick has mentioned before, the current American definition of the term "liberal" doesn't really mesh at all with its historical meaning.

Spidey wrote:So that's the "world as a whole" huh....some perspective.

Considering those are pretty much all the parts of the world where English is widely spoken, it's about the best I can do for now. (Even so, individuals from South America and Southeast Asia do occasionally participate in discussions there.) I'll call you when I learn Mandarin and Hindi.

What I also find INVALID is treating “Europe” as some kind of monolith.

I also don’t see many people addressing the dichotomy of the type of liberalism present in many European countries….

Such as the where you might be able to bath nude on some beaches and gays can get married…but if you want to paint your house or drive a certain type of car…you need permission from the government in triplicate.

So what I’m saying, in many ways you might find a country to be liberal, I might find to be very oppressive.

So you equate treating consenting adults equally with painting your house? HMAs can make all types of rules in this country as well, not even close to being considered government oppression.

No I’m not equating any such thing, and yes in America there are many places where the local codes do very much the same thing, but you can choose to live elsewhere.

I understand someone like yourself will always deliberately miss my points, so this next statement is for anyone else but you.

My point is that a country can have very liberal social norms, but at the same time have very stifling government controls over just about every aspect of ones life.

Personally for me, I dread the idea of ever having to live in Europe. Which is my second point…one man’s paradise is another man’s hell. A point that people who believe their ideas should be held by everyone, just can’t grasp.