Ronald Reagan; Savior or Scum

[MoreFeasts]

I'm saying that in general if someone has a decent job and a decent home and decent health and a decent social life, then things aren't that bad, relatively speaking. Individual circumstances will vary.

If someone loses one or more of the above 4 things, than that is suffering.
I would think that poor people have lost more of those 4 things on average than middle class people for a sustained period over the last 10 years.

 

[The Thriller]

I'm saying that in general if someone has a decent job and a decent home and decent health and a decent social life, then things aren't that bad, relatively speaking. Individual circumstances will vary.

But you need to look at this with a historical context. The middle-class of today has never been worse off.

 

[MoreFeasts]

I just don't see that if you are talking about purchasing power of the median income person.

One might argue that quality of life was better in simpler times of yore for other reasons.

 

[franklin]

I'm a little surprised to see certain posters using the notion of a "free market" as some sort of measuring rod against the status quo. Can't we ditch that notion for good? Capitalist States have ALWAYS been serious meddlers, and the "free market" idea has always been a sort of heaven -- a distraction for the weak from the conflictual and highly differential conditions in which value is actually created and CERTAIN methods of value creation sustained.

It's hard to see how the interests of the middle and poorer classes have been anything but placated to. To talk in heavy puffs about who suffers more is sort of embarrassing when the tippy-top of the elite have been making out soooo well.

True. Free market has been hijacked by the pro-business crowd who sell nothing better than the old British feudal system -- worship your overlord "jobs providers" with their "have you ever worked for a poor person" mental midgetry. ****, lemme leave it up to the master Milton Friedman himself:

You must separate out being “pro free-enterprise” from being “pro-business.” The two greatest enemies of the free enterprise system in my opinion have been on one hand my fellow intellectuals, and on the other hand, the big businessmen – for opposite reasons.

Almost every businessman is in favor of free enterprise for everybody else, but special privilege and special government protection for himself. As a result, they have been a major force in undermining the free enterprise system. Stop kidding yourself into thinking you can use the business community as a way to promote free enterprise. Unfortunately, most of them are not our friends in that respect.

I don't know why liberals demonize Milton Friedman. Understanding this basic tenet went along way into my deep respect for One Brow's insight. Good to have you back, too.

 

[franklin]

BTW, the response to that stupid question is "have you ever had a destitute customer?". Not like it will ring any bells...

 

[One Brow]

Sorry for splitting hairs, but I still disagree on "comparative degree". If you go from poor to losing everything, that is worse than going from middle class to middle class in a downturn.

I agree. Individual who lose everything suffer most of all (and that happens, less often, to the middle class in a serious economic downturn, particularly if you are over 40 or 45). I was thinking of the change in median income suffered by the group as a whole, but you are right that can mask individual suffering.

 

[One Brow]

I'm saying that in general if someone has a decent job and a decent home and decent health and a decent social life, then things aren't that bad, relatively speaking. Individual circumstances will vary.

If someone loses one or more of the above 4 things, than that is suffering.
I would think that poor people have lost more of those 4 things on average than middle class people for a sustained period over the last 10 years.

Depending on where you live, the poor often did not have them to begin with.

 

[Stoked]

Talking about all this suffering...someone post that youtube video about third world people complaining about first world problems.

Puts it into a nice perspective for you.

 

[Harambe]

First of all, your grammar sucks.

Second of all, if Obamacare is so great, why does Obama keep pushing the dates that parts of it begins past the next election?

See that's an easy answer. It's not that Obamacare is a bad idea, or can never work. They push it back because finding a way to enforce it effectively is eluding them.

Perhaps with the time wasted on repealing obamacare, the anti-bamacarians could have helped solve the problem instead of draw time, money, and effort away from the law we now have.

I'm all for the Reagan Hate. But can we please have some Clinton Hate for dessert?

Clinton just went along with it. He didn't start anything, he just basked in the glory of what existed and rode it out.

Which in itself is a sin, but not near as bad as instituting it in the first place.

Life expectancy is at an all-time high. Crime is at an all-time low. People are living more comfortably than ever. The environment of the developed world is getting better each year (air and water pollution, forests health and coverage, etc). The U.S. is still the main source of innovation world-wide. The U.S. is still, far and away, the most significant player in the science and technology sector.

Are there problems? Of course. A government that conspires with business elites to ensure their continued benefiting of the status quo at the expense of others. A broken congress that is occupied by people with zero interest in governing, and total interest in using their position for personal gain. Abuse of executive power to establish an indiscriminate surveillance blanket. A military industry that requires the endless creation of conflict in order to stay in business, despite living in a world where war is largely a relic of the past. And plenty else.

But I wouldn't say that we're doomed or in the ****house. There will always be problems, and the vast majority of today's problems are caused by a manipulated market that disproportionately benefits the entrenched players. It isn't a free market, and I don't think a truly free market is a much better solution anyway. A freer market where companies can live and die in fair competition, and a strong government with a purely bureaucratic administrative and peace-keeping purpose would serve us much better.

We're only doomed to the ****house until we're not. Just like everything else. We have hope for our future, but only if we get on a different road. Obamacare, Growing the middle class, immigration reform, marital rights are all part of a different road.

Talking about all this suffering...someone post that youtube video about third world people complaining about first world problems.

Puts it into a nice perspective for you.

I for one never said we were "suffering" where the measure of suffering is 50% of our population are not only hungry and poor, but destitute.

I want to really thank everyone for posting here. It's pretty fantastic to see such a weighing in on something I didn't see would be taken very far at all.

 

[Harambe]

Once thrown onto social security, an inmate needs food, housing, healthcare and other services. This means huge profits for capitalists at the expense of the working middle class and poor.





Yeah, because the cost of incarceration isn't included into the equation. This could have been a good article if it didn't jump to outlandish b.s. like implying incarceration is a way to get cheap labor, rather than having cheap labor help to pay for incarceration costs.

I don't see the problem here, Mr Wuggins. Faux news says something outlandish all the time to get their listeners attention. Some of them believe it and think they know everything. Some of them are confused, and then try to look into it more.

More to your point though, it's very expensive to house and care for incarcerated individuals. They're saving a buck by having the inmates do things. Which I'll go out on a limb here and say that's accurate, and exactly what should happen. For profit prisons I'm sure take this even a step further.

And you're right in that the implication made in the article(that we actively put more people in Prison to make money off of them) is mostly unfounded and only used for shock to get people to read(much like the thread title). The article doesn't talk about lifetime sentences, three strike rules, unfair warden judgements of incidents, when you get out it's usually into a halfway house where you're tracked all the time, or that when you get off of that any form of incident that you are even suspected being involved in you're going to end up guilty and sent back(all true btw).

But, if I may contribute a different way of thinking to open your mind to...

During a time of "excess labor" you have a lot of people living in tent communities. Or just plain homeless a lot of the time. Let's say I'm a rich jerk, and I don't want to see that. If I create jobs for them, I have to spend a lot of money for possibly a long time. If I create laws to put them in jail(out of sight, out of mind), the government pays for them not to be on my street, thus making xxxx neighborhood look and feel nicer. That takes a lot of money too, but the law only needs to be written once.

Ok great. We just made it illegal to xxxxxx, which makes all these homeless people criminals, and now put in jail. So glad we got rid of them. And more to it, others won't be able to do that in the future without going to jail. GO US!

But you know.. I don't think I care much for that franklin guy. That guy's always posting on the forums with <incessantly obnoxious behavior>. How do we get him to go away?

 

[Stoked]

Once thrown onto social security, an inmate needs food, housing, healthcare and other services. This means huge profits for capitalists at the expense of the working middle class and poor.



Yeah, because the cost of incarceration isn't included into the equation. This could have been a good article if it didn't jump to outlandish b.s. like implying incarceration is a way to get cheap labor, rather than having cheap labor help to pay for incarceration costs.

Confused here. Are you implying that conviceted criminals/incarcerated peopel receive Social Secuirty? Or were you doing a play on words?

 

[franklin]

But, if I may contribute a different way of thinking to open your mind to...

During a time of "excess labor" you have a lot of people living in tent communities. Or just plain homeless a lot of the time. Let's say I'm a rich jerk, and I don't want to see that. If I create jobs for them, I have to spend a lot of money for possibly a long time. If I create laws to put them in jail(out of sight, out of mind), the government pays for them not to be on my street, thus making xxxx neighborhood look and feel nicer. That takes a lot of money too, but the law only needs to be written once.

Ok great. We just made it illegal to xxxxxx, which makes all these homeless people criminals, and now put in jail. So glad we got rid of them. And more to it, others won't be able to do that in the future without going to jail. GO US!

But you know.. I don't think I care much for that franklin guy. That guy's always posting on the forums with <incessantly obnoxious behavior>. How do we get him to go away?

I think that's way over thinking things. The way I see it is we've become a nation of snooty self righteous christians who've shunned the basic tenet of the religion: forgiveness and compassion. We want to throw those dirty devils in prison and swallow the key. Forget the fact that it's immoral for a parent of a starving child to not steal to keep his child alive... forget making him a job to replace the crime... we have this ideology that free markets will save everything and these dirt bag freeloader ******** are getting in the way. Lock 'em up, close your eyes, and when you open them in the morning the market fairies will have made everything better. It's magic, God said so the Bible clearly lays out free market God said so you're turning America evil by not doing what God said in Bible.

And BTW, it's only good to have make jobs programs once their behind bars. We can't ever have FDR CCC outside of prison, only inside. Get it?

Confused here. Are you implying that conviceted criminals/incarcerated peopel receive Social Secuirty? Or were you doing a play on words?

It's my m.o. Follow the fungible money trail out of your pocket, through government to social security recipients hands, who spend it into the hands of the elite, where it concentrates over and over.

Social security is the greatest wealth transfer scheme ever invented.

 

[Stoked]

I think that's way over thinking things. The way I see it is we've become a nation of snooty self righteous christians who've shunned the basic tenet of the religion: forgiveness and compassion. We want to throw those dirty devils in prison and swallow the key. Forget the fact that it's immoral for a parent of a starving child to not steal to keep his child alive... forget making him a job to replace the crime... we have this ideology that free markets will save everything and these dirt bag freeloader ******** are getting in the way. Lock 'em up, close your eyes, and when you open them in the morning the market fairies will have made everything better. It's magic, God said so the Bible clearly lays out free market God said so you're turning America evil by not doing what God said in Bible.

And BTW, it's only good to have make jobs programs once their behind bars. We can't ever have FDR CCC outside of prison, only inside. Get it?



It's my m.o. Follow the fungible money trail out of your pocket, through government to social security recipients hands, who spend it into the hands of the elite, where it concentrates over and over.

Social security is the greatest wealth transfer scheme ever invented.

This did not really answer my question. But OK.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

This did not really answer my question. But OK.

Follow the money... The distinction between the institutions isn't as great as one might first assume. Call it a play on words... call it a fresh look... Whatev.

 

[green]

Life expectancy is at an all-time high. Crime is at an all-time low. People are living more comfortably than ever. The environment of the developed world is getting better each year (air and water pollution, forests health and coverage, etc). The U.S. is still the main source of innovation world-wide. The U.S. is still, far and away, the most significant player in the science and technology sector.

Are there problems? Of course. A government that conspires with business elites to ensure their continued benefiting of the status quo at the expense of others. A broken congress that is occupied by people with zero interest in governing, and total interest in using their position for personal gain. Abuse of executive power to establish an indiscriminate surveillance blanket. A military industry that requires the endless creation of conflict in order to stay in business, despite living in a world where war is largely a relic of the past. And plenty else.

But I wouldn't say that we're doomed or in the ****house. There will always be problems, and the vast majority of today's problems are caused by a manipulated market that disproportionately benefits the entrenched players. It isn't a free market, and I don't think a truly free market is a much better solution anyway. A freer market where companies can live and die in fair competition, and a strong government with a purely bureaucratic administrative and peace-keeping purpose would serve us much better.

This here. There has never been more abundance, less corruption, more transparency than what we have now. But thanks to Fox News, MSNBC, CNN we are all at each others throats instead of taking the most glorious period in time and making it better.

 

[The Thriller]

This here. There has never been more abundance, less corruption, more transparency than what we have now. But thanks to Fox News, MSNBC, CNN we are all at each others throats instead of taking the most glorious period in time and making it better.

Yes.

We should all be celebrating high unemployment, record underemployment, stagnant wages, record bankruptcies, and lost retirements.

Those 1950s sure sucked.

Look at the distribution of wealth. That's a huge indicator many here are refusing to acknowledge.

 

[The Pearl]

But you need to look at this with a historical context. The middle-class of today has never been worse off.

The current middle class maybe worse off in a relative sense compared to the top 1% but in terms of an absolute historical context your statement is absurd. I grew up in the 70's and graduated in 1981. We were solid middle class, maybe even upper middle class in comparison to our town. One TV with 3 channels, no AC in either car or the home. For most of my early childhood we owned one automobile. Our house was 3 bedrooms, one bath, one kitchen, one small dining room, one living room. Ranch style with less than 2000 square feet. 4 people.

We had enough clothes to last about 8 or 9 days tops. Everything I owned you could fit easily in the backseat of a car and a trunk. One bike, one ball glove, one basketball. I played in high school with the same glove I used in little league. One pair of sneakers, one pair of dress shoes at a time.

I only remember one set of furniture, one lawn mower, one washer and dryer, 2 TV sets total in my whole life.

I can remember one family vacation.

That lifestyle now is considered borderline poverty. What is now considered a middle class lifestyle is above and beyond what any middle class family could have conceived 30 plus years ago. With every generation the bar gets raised higher and living standards and lifestyles become more extraordinary.

 

[candrew]

Reagan turned almost the entire south Republican in 1980 and it's still that way 30 plus years later.

Has there ever been a president other than Lincoln that had that much of a lasting influence on an entire voting demographic?

Reagan gets high marks for transforming the military from the ground up. Our armed forces were in shambles after Vietnam. Reagan threw a lot of money at the Pentagon to build bombs and jets; but he also held senior officers accountable for the quality of soldier they produced.

Reagan did not end The Cold War by himself but he deserves some of the credit.

I also give Reagan credit for at least recognizing that the supply-side zealots that he put in charge of the economy early in his first term were full of ****.

There was plenty of bad stuff - but I'd say the worst was Iran-Contra. If the founding fathers got in a room and went over every single political scandal in our nation's history, I'd bet they'd say this one was the worst and went most against their core beliefs when framing our constitution.

 

[The Pearl]

Yes.

We should all be celebrating high unemployment, record underemployment, stagnant wages, record bankruptcies, and lost retirements.

Those 1950s sure sucked.

Look at the distribution of wealth. That's a huge indicator many here are refusing to acknowledge.

Ask women and African-Americans or other minorities how they felt about the 1950's.

 

[Gameface]

Look at the distribution of wealth. That's a huge indicator many here are refusing to acknowledge.

I find distribution of wealth without additional context to be completely meaningless.