World's 85 richest have same wealth as 3.5 BILLION poorest

[achilles28]

Pretty much. You can look through every presidential term each party served and find policies that led to the mess that we are in today.

Ya. The mainstream are the problem. And the extremist left.

Nobody understands the link between the Constitution, small Government, low taxes, and wealth creation. It's all about the Constitution and radically cutting the size and scope of Government.

 

[Scataphagos]

Ya. The mainstream are the problem. And the extremist left.

Nobody understands the link between the Constitution, small Government, low taxes, and wealth creation. It's all about the Constitution and radically cutting the size and scope of Government.

Power over the people is never relinquished. It's only taken back by armed revolution.

The Founders, of course, knew all of this... and tried to make America the one place in the world where Big Federal Government would never run roughshod over the citizenry.

Worked only for a while.

 

[piezoe]

Power over the people is never relinquished. It's only taken back by armed revolution.

The Founders, of course, knew all of this... and tried to make America the one place in the world where Big Federal Government would never run roughshod over the citizenry.

Worked only for a while.

Actually Scat, a straight forward reading of American History should convince you that what the Founders were most interested in was property rights and preserving the hegemony of the wealthy, including their own! Naturally, that required holding the slaves, indentured servants and labor, as well as the Federal Government, in check. America's foundation rests on cheap labor and security of property rights. The constitution stands as a bulwark against erosion of that foundation. Except for a hiatus extending approximately from the Great Depression through the 1960s, the Court, in its decisions, has, with rare exception, read the Constitution in the same light as the Founding Fathers intended.

 

[Humpy]

The democracies are largely controlled by the media until recently.The internet has shifted some power back to the masses who mill about like headless chickens.
The 85 control most of the media.
Only a matter of time before they control the internet too.
People's alegiances are bought and sold. Once on their blacklist and you can kiss your career goodbye. Snowden would have been gagged one way or the other if he hadn't fled to other parts.

We all gotta play the game. Their game bud not yours - you tiny insignificant specimen of crap.

 

[jem]

actually a straight forward reading of american history would convince non lefties that the founding Americans were most interested in not being taxed or controlled by a powerful central govt or a monarch.

The obvious proof is the articles of confederation were tried first.

With respect to the court... from 1960 to now the court has swung back and forth between right and left but unfortunately they have not been all that faithful to the text of the Constitution.
If they were... we would not have obamacare and this dangerous beast of a central govt and these too powerful agencies.

Actually Scat, a straight forward reading of American History should convince you that what the Founders were most interested in was property rights and preserving the hegemony of the wealthy, including their own! Naturally, that required holding the slaves, indentured servants and labor, as well as the Federal Government, in check. America's foundation rests on cheap labor and security of property rights. The constitution stands as a bulwark against erosion of that foundation. Except for a hiatus extending approximately from the Great Depression through the 1960s, the Court, in its decisions, has, with rare exception, read the Constitution in the same light as the Founding Fathers intended.

 

[jem]

I just told you that after the bush tax cuts revenues went up and the 1 percent made more in taxes...

you do not understand economics if you do not understand how lower taxes could lead to more revenue.

No, you simpleton. When taxes are cut, government debt increases at a more rapid pace. Take away income tax and you're back to the levels of inequality of the early 1900s.

 

[Humpy]

Thanks to democracy governments have been populated by fools and charlatans. Obviously " The People " can't be trusted to elect people who have the right characteristics of honesty and competence.

A better run state is Singapore. They have really made a lot out of a tiny island. Mostly thanks to Lee Kwan Yew and his forward looking policies. Nearly everyone in the US is fooled by the glitz and glamour of the Conventions plus of course the " bribes " and financial handouts. The party with the biggest slush fund usually wins, ! Now why would that be ?

 

[piezoe]

Quote by Jem in response to Badnewsbear:

I just told you that after the bush tax cuts revenues went up and the 1 percent made more in taxes...

you do not understand economics if you do not understand how lower taxes could lead to more revenue.

Jem, Post Hoc, ergo prompter hoc. If you don't know what it means look it up.

Your reasoning is a nice example of what is known as the "Post Hoc" fallacy.

 

[piezoe]

Off-shoring, MFN status for China, crippling regulation, bureaucracy and massive taxation here at home, chased out and destroyed the once legion and affluent Western middle class. And reduced us to the ultra-rich and struggling poor.

The baby boomers, of which this site is filled with, will go down in history as one of the most idiotic, greediest and foolhardy generations the world has ever known. They essentially gave away the richest country in the world to Asia, because they believed the fairy tales of con-men, who, with great zeal and enthusiasm, no less!, they voted into office. Again, and Again, and AGAIN. Really a pathetic, gullible bunch. I'll preface that to say: there's always exceptions to every rule, and there are many Boomers who were (and are) great patriots and fought deindustrialization since the beginning. However, those are few and far between, sadly. Now the chickens have come home to roost and we get to sit around, critiquing our own obituary.

I posted here alot during the 2007 bubble, arguing the dangers of offshoring. You wouldn't believe how many old timers on this site lauded globalization and defended it ad nauseum, as the next huge wealth creator - legitimatizing their market bias, no doubt. Idiots.

I find much to disagree with here. In my opinion, you're putting far to simplistic a populist slant on what are quite complex issues.

"Globalization" is not synonymous with "off-shoring", and neither is the primary reason for decline of the middle class in America and the decrease in class mobility.

Globalization is one of the wonderful benefits growing out of the technological advances of the late 20th century, including satellite communication networks and the internet. Globalization is a permanent fixture of the 21st Century. The U.S. will never return to the insular nation of the late nineteenth and early 20th Centuries.

 

[Humpy]

. Except for a hiatus extending approximately from the Great Depression through the 1960s, the Court, in its decisions, has, with rare exception, read the Constitution in the same light as the Founding Fathers intended.

It is a pity that the writers of books like the Bible, the Koran and of course The Constitution didn't allow for change and evolution. Their philosophies are written in stone and are holding back their supporters who are destined to harp back all the time, while things have obviously progressed.