Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
What Killed the Middle Class?
Stoic Joker:
I think the American people were primed -by dissatisfaction - for a grand social experiment back then...and the other options just really sucked.
-Stoic Joker (April 02, 2016, 08:07 AM)
--- End quote ---
Don't call a black president "a grand social experiment". You may be mistaken for a bigot. Or a racist. Or both.-eleman (April 02, 2016, 10:39 AM)
--- End quote ---
That's just hypersensitivity driven fear trying to quell honest and open dialog. Because the first time anyone does anything it is in part, or is completely - by its own nature - experimental. Due to the fact that nobody really knows how it is going to turn out. If the thing in question involves people, it becomes a social experiment ... And if the thing being tried by those people for the first time is a really bid deal, well... Ain't that grand.
It simply is what it is. and if one equivocates on admitting the risks involved in a venture...they are also subsequently eroding away at the level of success it can therefore claim to have attained ... And frankly, I think that's rather sad.
-Stoic Joker (April 02, 2016, 11:33 AM)
--- End quote ---
Venture? Electing someone with a different skin color is a venture? How is that even a variable involved in the analysis? How is that a new thing? BO is the 44th president of the US. Not the first one.-eleman (April 02, 2016, 11:44 AM)
--- End quote ---
Right, he's just the first black POTUS. And it's not like I did or am making a bid deal about it ... The 6 O'clock news did when he was elected. For months heralding the grand accomplishment that we as a society had achieved.
But you seem to feel that we should take that away from him...because it was really no big deal.
If Donald Trump gets elected, will he also be an experiment, on the grounds that he is the first one named "Donald"?-eleman (April 02, 2016, 11:44 AM)
--- End quote ---
No, it will be an experiment because he would be the first- non politician - political outsider to be elected in like forever.
How about Hillary? Will she be an experiment on the grounds that she will be the first one with ovaries?-eleman (April 02, 2016, 11:44 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, because anything that hasn't been tried...hasn't been proven. And anytime anyone is the first someone to do something...it tends to draw a lot of attention. It has nothing to do with good or bad, it's simply human nature.
Why is Christa McAuliffe a household name??? Can you name another person from that flight without using google first - I bet most people can't - Because...
-----------------------
Since this is going quite badly off topic, I'm going to bow out of the thread. Hopefully before it goes completely off the rails.
Bye!
rgdot:
Someone who openly mentions/mentioned 'socialism' winning the US presidency? Pigs will fly before that.
-rgdot (April 01, 2016, 07:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
I wonder how many pigs flew before someone black won US presidency? Or will fly before 2017 when someone without a penis will be elected if people don't get over their 'socialism' obsession? Times change.
-eleman (April 02, 2016, 12:15 AM)
--- End quote ---
Obama was/is a minority person, socialism is an idea.
Any way my point was a republican ad campaign portraying Sanders as one who will increase taxes (and for once they won't be outright lying) will work and you will be surprised how fast it works. If things like Kerry/swiftboat worked this will too, no matter the times. If anything it has an even better chance to work than years ago.
Shades:
[To the basement, here we go...]
If you want a government to attain (and maintain!) a standard of living for every citizen it serves...you'll need to get your head around the fact that constant taxing of all the population is necessary. And there are things that are better run by government than commercial market parties. Ideally, government should only have to check what it's citizens and companies/cooperations are doing day to day to keep the society it serves running as smoothly as it can for as long as it can.
In the real world however, commercial parties try to game the system set up by the government on a much grander scale than the citizens of that government deserve or bargained for. And on the other end corruption and plain stupidity is strife in government, upsetting citizens and companies/coorperations alike.
If you really want lower taxes, government should be lean. But government should also be able to get their allotted taxes without citizens and companies/cooperations "screwing the pooch". This is called a "live and let live" mentality.
From what I gather through news-outlets, US republicans (& companies/cooperations) only accept the lower taxes part, but for all intends and purposes this cuts the sustainability of the society short. US democrats lean too much on taxes for everything and the kitchen sink. Which also cuts the longevity of that society short.
As always, the way forward is through the middle: everybody (citizens/companies/cooperations) actually paying what one owns on taxes, will reduce government practically automatically. If that makes me a socialist in your eyes, so be it.
Now I grew up in a country with such a "live and let live"-mentality and government made sure that tax-revenue went to their intended destination. While no-one is/was really happy about paying taxes, in the end it was clear to anyone that the living standard from everyone (including the middle-class and the rich) went up.
Of course, I am aware that both societies with a cut-throat mentality and a live-and-let-live mentality have their positives and drawbacks, I just happen to think that the society with the live-and-let-live mentality is the most sustainable one over a longer period.
In the 2016 US election Clinton is not my favorite candidate, Sanders doesn't inspire me either. But compared against the republican candidates...either democratic candidate is a shining beacon of light and reason. And I truly believe that Donald Trump in office will bring the US to its knees economically. Just because his stances on any given subject bend and twist as a leaf of grass in the wind. Whatever you think of him, it is not a sign of vision or leadership...and it wont make America great again, no matter how much times Trump says this. Actually, the US was never as small/meager as Trump continuously states.
[/To the basement, here we go...]
rgdot:
Yes, basement :P
@Shades and everybody
The problem is not being pro government action or not. It's the atmosphere and there is no doubt in my mind that the right wing is more guilty in creating the toxic atmosphere.
I was just reading this for example, and had to double check to make sure it is not an April Fools thing:
Congressman Don Young (R-AK):
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will seek to have the government “control everything you do.”
Everything? Yes, everything. Young goes on to earnestly explain that Sanders or Clinton would mandate “when to get up, what to eat, what you are thinking, what school you are going to go to and what you are going to believe.”
--- End quote ---
Not only this guy exists but he is an elected official.
IainB:
Ah well, the OP was (I thought) an interesting perspective from economic history, and thus worthy of discussion (a good way to learn and develop one's thinking), but regrettably it seems to have so far ended up doing little more than stimulate a hailstorm of often off-topic and somewhat characteristically polarised US-political views and bias.
I had simply thought it was an interesting and complex puzzle.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version