Why wasn't President's speech on inequality major front page news? (solution, myth)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This speech is amazing! I lost all hope in Obama since the last election but this speech really hit the nail on the head. It is right on point. Stagnant wages since the late 70s, outsourcing and automation, reliance on debt finance, financial bubbles propping up an economy that lost a huge productive base, inflation, etc. he said it all.
I was shocked to hear a politician say any of this. How in the hell was this not major major news? I heard more about Justin Bieber going to jail in Miami than this riveting speech.
Liberal media my fanny!
Because this isn't going anywhere. Not right now at least. Obama really can't do anything about this, so nothing will be done. If Obama somehow got the Republicans to raise the minimum wage, I guarantee you somebody else will have been thrown under the bus to pay for it. My guess would be Social Security recipients of the near future.
Because this isn't going anywhere. Not right now at least. Obama really can't do anything about this, so nothing will be done. If Obama somehow got the Republicans to raise the minimum wage, I guarantee you somebody else will have been thrown under the bus to pay for it. My guess would be Social Security recipients of the near future.
Why is it all or nothing? It seems like every bit of change for the benefit of the worker comes with some caveat attached to it. People hide behind the notion that if you do X it's going to cost Y. Well I think its because the game is rigged to where if we want something it will cost us but the not those at the top. Everything is geared for their benefit.
When a politician says don't raise corporate taxes cus that will hurt jobs, that's really newspeak for "don't anger the big corporations because they will leave and decimate your town, they own everything so its best to tow their line".
That's why I don't believe in their tripe that's is basic economics. Anyone who's studied it knows that there is more than one school and its not a value free science.
What rubbish. During the 70s the wage gap was closing and cutting into the profits of the major companies. To remedy this companies started looking overseas to maximize profits and crush the unions. Even when the unions were crush the companies still went under and how can anyone blame unions for this latest crises?
The US was well on its way to becoming a more economically equal society but stagflation scared the top brass and they quickly switched gears and started turning vastly right ward economically and politically. Out went Keynes and in came Milton Friedman and neo liberalism.
I will never forget the conservative pundit David Frum writing that the Republicans during the 70s and 80s successfully deterred America from becoming a social democracy. So they knew all along what they were doing.
Bleeping hilarious. Are you stupid enough to believe your own crapola?
Unions succeed by discriminating against other workers. Basic economic, reduce the supply of labor and the remaining laborers make more money.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 14 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,537 posts, read 16,518,482 times
Reputation: 6006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230
My problem with the whole "income inequality" meme is that it presumes facts that aren't true. The notion of "income inequality" presupposes that people who start at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are incapable of financial success. I despise that idea, and it simply isn't true.
I guess if ya a white boy unions might have done ya some good. Fortunately racial discrimination, sexism and unions are on the decline.
For one, I cited the basic political economic history that most scholars accept. The shift from Keynesianism to Neo liberalism is well documented. It's also well known that policy shifted to favor trickle down economics and globalization.
Racism in unions while terrible doesn't mean anything. Only 30% of the workforce was ever unionized at its peak. The point is the impact of the labora movement to create a better environment for all workers by encouraging a rise in wages. The Treaty of Detroit is known as the catalyst for the rise in wages in America during the Golden Age. It was a period of marked economic growth for most.
How dumb are you to just point fingers at the unions? You clearly don't know anything.
Why is it all or nothing? It seems like every bit of change for the benefit of the worker comes with some caveat attached to it. People hide behind the notion that if you do X it's going to cost Y. Well I think its because the game is rigged to where if we want something it will cost us but the not those at the top. Everything is geared for their benefit.
When a politician says don't raise corporate taxes cus that will hurt jobs, that's really newspeak for "don't anger the big corporations because they will leave and decimate your town, they own everything so its best to tow their line".
That's why I don't believe in their tripe that's is basic economics. Anyone who's studied it knows that there is more than one school and its not a value free science.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I think most likely, Obama knows the Republicans won't go for this no matter how much he tries to sweeten the deal, so this is just campaign talk to try and give the Democrats some traction.
But, if he was serious and he really wanted to make a deal, he's been trying to strike a "Grand Bargain" with the GOP since they took control of the House 3 years ago and he's been offering them entitlement cuts (especially to Social Security) to try and get it. If he made this deal, some Social Security would be getting cut. There's no way the Republicans would settle for anything less, they'd want entitlement cuts if they were to pass a minimum wage increase (in reality, I don't think Obama could sweeten the deal enough to make them go for it, the GOP base hates the idea and the businesses that finance GOP campaigns especially hate the idea). Deficit hawks like Paul Ryan might go for it, but that's about it.
They don't care about income inequality or any disparity for that matter. I am just glad they're being more open and honest and dropping this idiotic populist facade of the Bush era.
I hope the Republicans just openly admit their hostility toward any notion of income inequality and start talking about how Americans have TVs and I-phones so they don't need rising wages and healthcare or free education like they do in other developed nations. All they need is some 'gumption'.
They sound like con men motivational speakers more than people who are well versed in political economy.
Just let them keep admitting their hatred for the working class and let them expose themselves.
That sounds like a speech from Stalin. Get your lessons from Lenin's handbook?
That sounds like a speech from Stalin. Get your lessons from Lenin's handbook?
More red baiting. It's all you ppl know what to do. That's why I'm not sweating that people will start to see right through the same tropes.
What does your grassroots base consist of besides aging baby boomers who've been indoctrinated with WAY too much Cold War propaganda?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
