Wealth inequality in the USA.

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:51 pm

assateague wrote:I'm being serious.

C'mon AT............a beehive doesn't have any federal regulations either and they're wicked productive. Our society at large could never live like them and I don't think you'd want them to
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am


Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:59 pm

Are we talking about productivity now, or are we talking about government regulations? Seriously- I thought you were implying that government imposes some special restrictions on them, when, in fact, the total opposite is true.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:05 pm

assateague wrote:Are we talking about productivity now, or are we talking about government regulations? Seriously- I thought you were implying that government imposes some special restrictions on them, when, in fact, the total opposite is true.

They are intensely self-regulated in ways that the VAST majority of Americans would never be able to live with. My point was that this pretty much invalidates the comparison, like the beehive comp. Hey, I grew up with communal Mormons and knew lots of Mennonites and Hutterites. What works in tiny, totally homogeneous, non-diverse communities just isn't that instructive to our nation as a whole
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:10 pm

assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:You should go read Atlas Shrugged.

I have, several times, AT. I find it sophomoric and appalling in the concepts it promotes.




Specifically which concepts do you find sophomoric and appalling? This should be enlightening.

Rand is the laziest novelist I have ever read, and the depths of her demagoguery know no bounds. AS is supposed to be set here, but she engineers the landscape in such a way (all in order to support her premises) that it really is nothing like any USA that ever existed (thank God) I'd have respected it more (and that would not be much) if she'd just admitted the novel was set in a fantasy society of her own creation. It's the ultimate straw man. I guess I can give her credit for that

So there, AT! :lol3: Someone with a more subtle grasp of written communication than I answered for me! It's good to have "Mad Dog" on your side when you are more of the nipping pekinese type! :lol3:
However, should you wish to hear my less literate condemnation of Atlas Shrugged, just let me know. Raw criticism of someone's mentor can be fun in the right situation! At least when it is promulgated by one with no animosity towards the other, which would be the case.:thumbsup:


:lol3: Nice try!

Neither one of you spoke to the "concepts it promotes" which you find appalling. If we were talking about writing style, or setting and plot, sure. But you weren't. You were speaking to the concepts it promoted.

So, again, which concepts that the novel promoted to you find appalling?

In its most basic form, the concept that ANY form of control over business or its most "successful" participants be eliminated, leaving those for whom a good hand has been, in most cases, rather arbitrarily dealt to live in splendor, and those less fortunate, for a myriad of reasons, be left in squalor. The rationale for this is that the "best" will ultimately provide for the most benefit to the society, while the "least" are not worth consideration. Which proposes essentially that the value of a man resides in his/her personal accumulation of whatever is considered in the society as symbolic of "value". This is with complete indifference in most cases to the method of accumulation, such as say the Kennedy family. While Rand tries to shroud this in terms of the benefits being rightully accorded to the most productive and beneficial to society at large, the fact is that often times those in possession of the most wealth and power are the same ones that are responsible in many ways for the decline of a society. From a group of individuals attempting to improve the lot of the masses and raise the concept and perception of "civilization", it devolves into a miniscule proportion of the society working to obtain more power and wealth, ie control, at the obvious and inhumane expense of the vast majority.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:58 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:In its most basic form, the concept that ANY form of control over business or its most "successful" participants be eliminated, leaving those for whom a good hand has been, in most cases, rather arbitrarily dealt to live in splendor, and those less fortunate, for a myriad of reasons, be left in squalor. The rationale for this is that the "best" will ultimately provide for the most benefit to the society, while the "least" are not worth consideration. Which proposes essentially that the value of a man resides in his/her personal accumulation of whatever is considered in the society as symbolic of "value". This is with complete indifference in most cases to the method of accumulation, such as say the Kennedy family. While Rand tries to shroud this in terms of the benefits being rightully accorded to the most productive and beneficial to society at large, the fact is that often times those in possession of the most wealth and power are the same ones that are responsible in many ways for the decline of a society. From a group of individuals attempting to improve the lot of the masses and raise the concept and perception of "civilization", it devolves into a miniscule proportion of the society working to obtain more power and wealth, ie control, at the obvious and inhumane expense of the vast majority.

Well said, Jim.......and I just have to add that even if you absent the effects of inherited wealth, we have a system that rewards participants not for building and contributing to a better society, in terms of infrastructure and culture, but for the accumulation of wealth. We have a nation run by people who exhibit an uncanny genius for making money, but not necessarily for making THINGS we actually need. Of course in Rand's alternate universe, those are one and the same. You'd think she never strolled down Wall Street
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:23 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:Unbridled capitalism is what inevitably leads to crony capitalism. If there were good functioning laws in place to regulate the market and keep it reasonably fair, you wouldn't get cronyism because that is one of the things that would be regulated against, and harshly. I'm really curious as to just how unregulated a system you think could work

Crony capitalism exists because government gets outside of its scope and tries to "help" the economy and this empowers the politicians to help their friends and sponsors.

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: My comfort is not impacted in any why by your wealth or lack there off. All you are arguing for is a nationwide imposition of a keeping up with the Jones imposed by law.

?!?!?! Your "comfort is not impacted in any way by my (sic) wealth or lack thereof?" When the system is absolutely controlled by those of wealth and power (virtually synonymous terms) My power can and does absolutely and inarguably affect your comfort level.
Power comes from government. Not from producing the lowest price product.

Both of you guys need to remember that the more regulations there are, the more people you must higher to deal with those regulations. The more ambiguous those regulations. The more likely the success of your business will be on the quality of your legal team. The more powerful government. The more likely the success of your business is tied to your political donations.

The bigger and more expansive government is. The greater the economy of scale that exists for dealing with it. The greater the economy of scale. The larger the most profitable size of business and the larger the minimum economic size of that business.

This is why big government always leads to crony capitalism. It's just common sense.

And until you adjust for the wealth "inequality" between the young that have zero and recently retired that often have 1,000s of times more than when they started working, it is a horribly fatally flawed statistic. BDD2 may describe Rand a lazy writer, but you all are the laziest of all statisticians and economists. Rand's fiction which has caricatures of all the people we see in society. Your caricatures of society have almost no reflection on reality.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby boney fingers » Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:40 am

Liberals believe that wealth is a singular concept and can only be divided and not added to or subtracted from (this is why Obama thinks we have to "spread the wealth" instead of create more). People like Jim and BDD think if someone has wealth they had to have taken it from someone else. Liberals also confuse the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of wealth (some of the happiest people I know have little wealth and some of the wealthiest people I know have little happiness). Common sense dictates that these concepts are false, but then again we are talking about liberal and common sense is not very common.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby cartervj » Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:49 am

Socialism is so great China has no one living in poverty, India is much the same. :fingerhead:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-23/a-socialist-push-behind-india-capitalist-rise-commentary-by-pankaj-mishra.html
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7336
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Mon Oct 14, 2013 7:44 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:In its most basic form, the concept that ANY form of control over business or its most "successful" participants be eliminated, leaving those for whom a good hand has been, in most cases, rather arbitrarily dealt to live in splendor, and those less fortunate, for a myriad of reasons, be left in squalor. The rationale for this is that the "best" will ultimately provide for the most benefit to the society, while the "least" are not worth consideration. Which proposes essentially that the value of a man resides in his/her personal accumulation of whatever is considered in the society as symbolic of "value". This is with complete indifference in most cases to the method of accumulation, such as say the Kennedy family. While Rand tries to shroud this in terms of the benefits being rightully accorded to the most productive and beneficial to society at large, the fact is that often times those in possession of the most wealth and power are the same ones that are responsible in many ways for the decline of a society. From a group of individuals attempting to improve the lot of the masses and raise the concept and perception of "civilization", it devolves into a miniscule proportion of the society working to obtain more power and wealth, ie control, at the obvious and inhumane expense of the vast majority.

Well said, Jim.......and I just have to add that even if you absent the effects of inherited wealth, we have a system that rewards participants not for building and contributing to a better society, in terms of infrastructure and culture, but for the accumulation of wealth. We have a nation run by people who exhibit an uncanny genius for making money, but not necessarily for making THINGS we actually need. Of course in Rand's alternate universe, those are one and the same. You'd think she never strolled down Wall Street



Philosophical difference, I guess, and one that I quite frankly don't feel like rehashing in-depth at the moment.

But I will say this regarding economic systems, unequivocally:
Throughout human history, attempts at "unbridled capitalism" have made peoples' lives far, FAR better than attempts at "unbridled socialism". And that's a fact. I say "attempts" because neither has ever been perfect (nor can they be- it's a chimera, anyhoo). So we're left with the processes entailed in attaining a stated end goal to evaluate. And the results brought about by seeking unbridled capitalism have proven to be better for humanity by a long shot than the results brought about by seeking unbridled socialism. I'm not even sure that that point can be argued.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 7:58 am

boney fingers wrote:Liberals believe that wealth is a singular concept and can only be divided and not added to or subtracted from (this is why Obama thinks we have to "spread the wealth" instead of create more). People like Jim and BDD think if someone has wealth they had to have taken it from someone else. Liberals also confuse the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of wealth (some of the happiest people I know have little wealth and some of the wealthiest people I know have little happiness). Common sense dictates that these concepts are false, but then again we are talking about liberal and common sense is not very common.

First of all, BF, if you wouldn't mind too much, the name is BDD2, since my black duck dog #!, Cleto, may he rest in peace, is sleeping under the dogwood out back. A small and admittedly sappy distinction but one with which most in here can relate. It's not a big deal, but I will appreciate it if you can remember.
Don't jump to such extreme conclusions here........Jim and I are both free market advocates (I'm a small businessman myself, not a great one by any means and more than willing to admit I was more lucky than savvy when I made my money) but consider the converse of what you're trying to imply here......Neither of us (nor any liberal in here) believes that "if someone has wealth they had to have taken it from someone else". But we're willing to see the possibility that that might be the case, and perhaps more urgently, we recognize the dangers involved. In other words, we recognize that freedom isn't free, and you're flat going to need good laws in the market just like you need good laws in society. That seems pretty obvious to us, but whenever we dare suggest it, you guys start screaming that we're all a bunch of socialists. Patently ridiculous.
And as far as liberals believing that the pursuit of money is equal to the pursuit of happiness, I can't tell you how many conservatives have told me over the years that pursuing an inner goal is just stupid if it won't make you the most money. They actually didn't live that way, but that surely was their philosophy. Between two people with say, musical talents, whom do you thing is more likely to pursue a career in music: a liberal or a conservative?
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:01 am

assateague wrote:But I will say this regarding economic systems, unequivocally:
Throughout human history, attempts at "unbridled capitalism" have made peoples' lives far, FAR better than attempts at "unbridled socialism".
Depends on whose lives we're looking at. Charles Dickens basically put a career together characterizing the suffering of London slum dwellers, of whom there were far more than the aristocracy who owned everything. But yeah, it certainly did work out well for some of them
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:22 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:Jim and I are both free market advocates
Big government and free market are oxymorons. You and Jim live in an economic fantasyland.

blackduckdog2 wrote:Neither of us (nor any liberal in here) believes that "if someone has wealth they had to have taken it from someone else". But we're willing to see the possibility that that might be the case
And it is government's job to ensure that the wealth was not taken. That is part of the limited scope of an efficient government. Being better is NOT taking. It is easy to amass great wealth by being just a sliver better than the competition. Providing something that is worth one dollar, just $1.00, in the U.S. is over 300 million dollars, yes, $300,000,000, for making a profit of $1 from every American on average. You don't have to cure cancer to amass billions. And with the most trivial of things if widely valued, it is easy to amass man millions.

Granted most of the rest of us have to work for decades to amass a million or two, but it's easy to do if you remain disciplined. And if not for the massive amount taken by government and pissed away in the form of social security and medicare, it would be a lot easier. Most of us will get probably 50% of the value of what was taken from these. Of course, we are going broke because they have spent 100% of what was taken. Just think of the real investments that would exist and their productive capacity if not wasted by government to amass political power.

blackduckdog2 wrote:I can't tell you how many conservatives have told me over the years that pursuing an inner goal is just stupid if it won't make you the most money.
Those are RINOs. They are not conservatives. Those are the ones that want to bring in foreign nationals to the U.S. so they can undercut the wages of Americans so they can make more profit. They are the people we are having a political civil war with. Granted, nobody wants to own up to their personal failings, but that is totally Image in the head. Conservatives are the ones that volunteer for the military when the crap hits the fan. Where's the profit in that? Conservatives are the ones that spend their own money to help others in legitimate need? Where's the profit in that? This is 100% antithetical to everything Jesus taught. These people are self-centered idiots. The world is full of them. They are the establishment Republicans that are almost as bad as the extremist nutjobs like Obama that are playing chicken with the government so he can spend and borrow even more money that we cannot afford.

blackduckdog2 wrote:They actually didn't live that way, but that surely was their philosophy.
And maybe they were just screwing with you? Or maybe they simply didn't understand the philosophical underpinnings conservatism and the free market. There are also a lot of well-meaning clueless people that don't understand.

blackduckdog2 wrote:Between two people with say, musical talents, whom do you thing is more likely to pursue a career in music: a liberal or a conservative?
Are their ONLY talents in music?

If only the liberal were smart enough to understand that their music career means that have informed opinions on music and waiting tables and not on the environment and the economy or anything outside of their limited training and experience, the world would be so much better.

A conservative will do both. They are that good :tongue:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:55 am

SpinnerMan wrote:Big government and free market are oxymorons. You and Jim live in an economic fantasyland.

The economic fantasy is in your own mind, and those like you, who believe that we should have zero controls whatsoever, because people will just play nice in the market, and everything will be all hunky-dory.
I'd like to think you're capable of catching the ironic straw-man implications there, but that's not exactly your strength, so I'll spell it out. I want exactly as much government as is necessary, no more and no less. Typical conservative...demonize the opposition, then project radical views onto them so the inadequacies of your own arguments won't be quite so glaring
Last edited by blackduckdog2 on Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:56 am

SpinnerMan wrote:A conservative will do both. They are that good :tongue:

That's why the arts are just so chock full of conservatives, right? Because they're so talented they can do both
:lol: :lol:
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:04 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:A conservative will do both. They are that good :tongue:

That's why the arts are just so chock full of conservatives, right? Because they're so talented they can do both
:lol: :lol:


No. It's because conservatives wake up early and don't feel like waiting til noon for the industries liberal majority to roll out of bed. :lol3:
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:06 am

clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:A conservative will do both. They are that good :tongue:

That's why the arts are just so chock full of conservatives, right? Because they're so talented they can do both
:lol: :lol:


No. It's because conservatives wake up early and don't feel like waiting til noon for the industries liberal majority to roll out of bed. :lol3:

Not really very familiar with the arts, are you?
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:18 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:A conservative will do both. They are that good :tongue:

That's why the arts are just so chock full of conservatives, right? Because they're so talented they can do both
:lol: :lol:


No. It's because conservatives wake up early and don't feel like waiting til noon for the industries liberal majority to roll out of bed. :lol3:

Not really very familiar with the arts, are you?

Just trying to lighten the mood.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:21 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Big government and free market are oxymorons. You and Jim live in an economic fantasyland.

The economic fantasy is in your own mind, and those like you, who believe that we should have zero controls whatsoever, because people will just play nice in the market, and everything will be all hunky-dory.
I'd like to think you're capable of catching the ironic straw-man implications there, but that's not exactly your strength, so I'll spell it out. I want exactly as much government as is necessary, no more and no less. Typical conservative...demonize the opposition, then project radical views onto them so the inadequacies of your own arguments won't be quite so glaring

So everything government is doing now is necessary? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

Is 50% of what the government is doing now necessary? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

That is a seriously perverse definition of necessary and need.

If you believe what you just wrote, you would be a right-winger.

blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:A conservative will do both. They are that good :tongue:

That's why the arts are just so chock full of conservatives, right? Because they're so talented they can do both
:lol: :lol:

Don't conflate art with commercial entertainment. Is Miley Cyrus an artist or an entertainer? If you want a twerking fool, you want an empty head. The same if you want to create an impenetrable power base of poverty. They go hand in hand.

If you get to the truly creative artists, it's a broad spectrum. The rabid left have run the thinking out of everything they control. Creative thinking is not conducive to the mindless following of the extremists on the left that dominate commercial entertainment and politics.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby boney fingers » Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:12 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
boney fingers wrote:Liberals believe that wealth is a singular concept and can only be divided and not added to or subtracted from (this is why Obama thinks we have to "spread the wealth" instead of create more). People like Jim and BDD think if someone has wealth they had to have taken it from someone else. Liberals also confuse the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of wealth (some of the happiest people I know have little wealth and some of the wealthiest people I know have little happiness). Common sense dictates that these concepts are false, but then again we are talking about liberal and common sense is not very common.

First of all, BF, if you wouldn't mind too much, the name is BDD2, since my black duck dog #!, Cleto, may he rest in peace, is sleeping under the dogwood out back. A small and admittedly sappy distinction but one with which most in here can relate. It's not a big deal, but I will appreciate it if you can remember.
Don't jump to such extreme conclusions here........Jim and I are both free market advocates (I'm a small businessman myself, not a great one by any means and more than willing to admit I was more lucky than savvy when I made my money) but consider the converse of what you're trying to imply here......Neither of us (nor any liberal in here) believes that "if someone has wealth they had to have taken it from someone else". But we're willing to see the possibility that that might be the case, and perhaps more urgently, we recognize the dangers involved. In other words, we recognize that freedom isn't free, and you're flat going to need good laws in the market just like you need good laws in society. That seems pretty obvious to us, but whenever we dare suggest it, you guys start screaming that we're all a bunch of socialists. Patently ridiculous.
And as far as liberals believing that the pursuit of money is equal to the pursuit of happiness, I can't tell you how many conservatives have told me over the years that pursuing an inner goal is just stupid if it won't make you the most money. They actually didn't live that way, but that surely was their philosophy. Between two people with say, musical talents, whom do you thing is more likely to pursue a career in music: a liberal or a conservative?



Low interest loans to minorities, quota systems for college acceptance, Obama care, graduated income tax, food stamps, all these liberal programs are designed to take from the haves and give to the have nots based on the philosophy that those in need cant achieve success on their own because others already are holding what they need (that is how it is sold to the voters). These concepts also come with the added benefit of being able to hold these goodies over the heads of the voters insuring your own political power indefinitely. My conclusion then is if you don't believe these concepts, then you support them because they place power in the hands of people you like. Smart politicians (Obama is not dumb) know these programs have never worked, but continue to push for them based on the power it gives them over the people.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:14 am

SpinnerMan wrote: If you get to the truly creative artists, it's a broad spectrum. The rabid left have run the thinking out of everything they control. Creative thinking is not conducive to the mindless following of the extremists on the left that dominate commercial entertainment and politics.

That explains why Colbert and Stewart are such bland, enervating, puppets of ennui when promoting the company line, while Fox News and Limbaugh are so subtle and clever in their creative ability to subtly make their points with such concepts as irony, satire, humor, and entertainment value. You know, communication more suited to a thinking person than an insipid, voracious sponge waiting breathlessly for any suggestion of agreement with their own, personal concepts of how unfair society and government are while vociferously denying the vary concept of fairness. I think I'm starting to get it.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:16 am

clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:A conservative will do both. They are that good :tongue:

That's why the arts are just so chock full of conservatives, right? Because they're so talented they can do both
:lol: :lol:


No. It's because conservatives wake up early and don't feel like waiting til noon for the industries liberal majority to roll out of bed. :lol3:

Not really very familiar with the arts, are you?

Just trying to lighten the mood.

Which you did, and I thoroughly whiffed on it. My bad :oops:
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:17 am

SpinnerMan wrote:If you get to the truly creative artists, it's a broad spectrum

Care to back that up? A lifetime in and around the arts has shown me different
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:19 am

boney fingers wrote: Smart politicians (Obama is not dumb) know these programs have never worked, but continue to push for them based on the power it gives them over the people.

Just one minor change if I may, boney, they are attempts, sometimes miguided, to achieve power TO the people, not power over the people.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:29 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:A conservative will do both. They are that good :tongue:

That's why the arts are just so chock full of conservatives, right? Because they're so talented they can do both
:lol: :lol:


No. It's because conservatives wake up early and don't feel like waiting til noon for the industries liberal majority to roll out of bed. :lol3:

Not really very familiar with the arts, are you?

Just trying to lighten the mood.

Which you did, and I thoroughly whiffed on it. My bad :oops:

No problem, but it could be argued that America's largest musical demographic (country music) has a fairly solid conservative base, but as in all art it's qualification as true "art" is up to ones personal criteria of what art is.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:36 am

clampdaddy wrote: No problem, but it could be argued that America's largest musical demographic (country music) has a fairly solid conservative base, but as in all art it's qualification as true "art" is up to ones personal criteria of what art is.

Calling "Country Music" art is like calling poker playing dogs on velvet Da Vincian! Just kidding! I like some country too! :lol3: :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests