Shh...don't spoil Freddy's day.
America Was Founded On Conservative Principles... and operated that way for about 125 years
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
Shh...don't spoil Freddy's day.
There is always returning to what was before, depending on the political landscape. Gee, pick the most regressive examples to illustrate your point, right? Who said women or minorities shouldn't vote?
How about going back to true freedom of religion? How about going back to the rule of law? To a time where if you committed a crime, you went to jail regardless of how much money you made, and the media did it's job and held politicians in check? How about the time where you had to work - you wanted to work for a living instead of being given a check to sit on the couch? Where food stamps were something you wanted to get off of as quickly as possible. Where you weren't entitled. Etc...
Scat is not saying slavery should be re-established, etc. As for history favoring some at the expense of others, have you driven around your "progress" lately? Wealth disparity is at the greatest ever. All with the first black liberal President. How's that for progress? You guys think you're driving off into the sunset of utopia, only to find out you're on the wrong road.
You're not moving "forward" at all, despite the campaign posters. What was the last major improvement liberalism pushed for and changed? And don't even try saying Obamacare. That complete and total disaster is a laughing stock.
If you seek to principally place the blame for that on the left, then let's not waste each other's time. The proposed policies of the political right would only exacerbate the existing imbalance. And no, I have no interest in "debating" arithmetic.
Of course not, because math is your enemy.
But no, I don't lay that at the feet of only the left. But it is liberal fiscal and monetary policy that has exacerbated it - not conservative.
And when State's Rights were paramount (as described in the Constitution). Today, and as in all other Liberal, Leftist countries, the Federal government has its head so far up everybody's butt we can taste the Brylcreem! (And much of what they do is bad news for the citizenry.)
When I was a kid, being "on food stamps" and/or "unemployment" were like a stain on your character. You're right... people didn't want others to know and wanted off of them ASAP. Now, the parasite class sees government handouts as a way of life.... and it doesn't even bother them.
That's another good one - State's Rights.
Truly, you are the "jem" of economics. (As is jem, himself.)Of course not, because math is your enemy.
But no, I don't lay that at the feet of only the left. But it is liberal fiscal and monetary policy that has exacerbated it - not conservative.
"Republicans are suddenly talking about income inequality."
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-are-suddenly-talking-about-income-inequality-2015-2
Key word: suddenly. How novel.
Political parties and presidents[edit]
Liberal political scientist Larry Bartels has found a strong correlation between the party of the president and income inequality in America since 1948. (see below)[132][133] Examining average annual pre-tax income growth from 1948 to 2005 (which encompassed most of the egalitarian Great Compression and the entire inegalitarian Great Divergence)[134] Bartels shows that under Democratic presidents (from Harry Truman forward), the greatest income gains have been at the bottom of the income scale and tapered off as income rose. Under Republican presidents, in contrast, gains were much less but what growth there was concentrated towards the top, tapering off as you went down the income scale.[135][136]
Summarizing Bartels's findings, journalist Timothy Noah referred to the administrations of Democratic presidents as "Democrat-world", and GOP administrations as "Republican-world":
In Democrat-world, pre-tax income increased 2.64% annually for the poor and lower-middle-class and 2.12% annually for the upper-middle-class and rich. There was no Great Divergence. Instead, the Great Compression – the egalitarian income trend that prevailed through the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s – continued to the present, albeit with incomes converging less rapidly than before. In Republican-world, meanwhile, pre-tax income increased 0.43 percent annually for the poor and lower-middle-class and 1.90 percent for the upper-middle-class and rich. Not only did the Great Divergence occur; it was more greatly divergent. Also of note: In Democrat-world pre-tax income increased faster than in the real world not just for the 20th percentile but also for the 40th, 60th, and 80th. We were all richer and more equal! But in Republican-world, pre-tax income increased slower than in the real world not just for the 20th percentile but also for the 40th, 60th, and 80th. We were all poorer and less equal! Democrats also produced marginally faster income growth than Republicans at the 95th percentile, but the difference wasn't statistically significant.[95]
The pattern of distribution of growth appears to be the result of a whole host of policies,
including not only the distribution of taxes and benefits but also the government's stance toward unions, whether the minimum wage rises, the extent to which the government frets about inflation versus too-high interest rates, etc., etc.[135]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_income_inequality_in_the_United_States
First, I'm not republican. Second, I've talked about income inequality (particularly how it relates to the Federal Reserve's monetary policy) and policy's effect on main street and the common man for a long, long time now. Lastly, if I am the "Jem" of economics, you're the Futurecurrents of it, because you neither address what I'm talking about or answer difficult questions posed to you, but instead post a random study that either widens or narrows the date range to fit the narrative (but will then equally reverse that date range when the narrative has to change).
Your first link, an editorial by a liberal ex-blogger, was an interesting read, but didn't really provide anything other than usual snark.
Your second one was a quote from the liberal political scientist Larry Bartels. I can show you an equal amount of folks on the right who would argue otherwise. Is it your point to combat article for article, link for link?
When I mentioned inequality, I did so with the context that we have the first liberal, black President and in the 6 years the guy has had, wealth inequality has gotten far worse. Is that a Republican's fault, too?
Last edited:
No, it wasn't the Republicans' fault because the moment they stepped out of office, their slate was wiped clean. It was all daisies and rainbows. The near economic collapse unlike anything seen in generations immediately disappeared with absolutely no overhang, and they did their very best to help Obama be as effective as possible for the betterment of their country, McConnell's statement about doing anything and everything to thwart the president notwithstanding.
Out of curiosity, what was your reason for injecting the president's skin color into this particular exchange about economics? What possible bearing does it have here? You may wish to give that some thought. I wonder what Freud would say.
Last edited: