Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-30-2015, 11:05 AM
 
659 posts, read 311,293 times
Reputation: 65

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Why has it significantly accelerated in the Obama era?
Best answers are the ones you find yourself..., but real quick, two reasons come to mind.

One: the Great Recession drove the divide even further as people lost jobs, homes -- you name it, while the most wealthy were much better able to "ride the storm" with far less damage as a percent of their entire wealth.

Two: those following the issue of income and/or wealth inequality the closest have been pointing to the fact that the divide is growing more dramatic every decade, the problem more severe or dramatic as time goes on, as wealth continues to accumulate into the hands of the few.

One might say that "wealth begets wealth," and generally speaking they would be right.

It will take more than one POTUS to turn that golden rule around any...

Compare and contrast:

Poor person who rents, loses job, year one: no income, no wealth.
Poor person gets job, rents apartment, year two: some income, no wealth.

1 percenter: Great Recession, loses bonus, year one, makes only $5 million, after tax wealth another $4 million.
1 percenter: post Great Recession, still no bonus, year two, again only makes $5 million, after tax wealth now $8 million.

See the difference, the divide, exponentially?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-30-2015, 11:08 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,733 posts, read 44,535,751 times
Reputation: 13601
Quote:
Originally Posted by And D View Post
Best answers are the ones you find yourself...
Exactly:

http://geke.us/GSVenn.001.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2015, 11:15 AM
 
659 posts, read 311,293 times
Reputation: 65
Knee-jerk reactions are rarely good ones...

Expecting perfection in an imperfect world is also foolish.

Hoping for at least a basic level of balanced reason and logic here is perhaps even more foolish...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2015, 11:34 AM
 
659 posts, read 311,293 times
Reputation: 65
Default Geke this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Look at this intersection of government appointees and Goldman Sachs, and yet again we see the propaganda oozing, the conservative spin without any check or balance.

I suppose we should never mind these federal government organizations are comprised of many who are pulled from all levels of government and private industry. You look at this quickie geke presentation, and you get the feeling that Goldman Sachs appointees somehow dominate these halls -- wrong.

Also the complete disregard for history and context, or maybe someone remembers what Goldman Sachs represented before it's fall? Founded in 1869?

Here we see the first Goldman Sacks executive listed, serving WAY back in 1995 under Clinton. Robert Rubin oversaw the loosening of financial industry underwriting guidelines that at the time most if not all conservatives loved to champion!

Now we see him on a list serving as yet another conservative propaganda piece, only this time as part of the problem.

Some people sure are good at blowing with the wind no matter the direction...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2015, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,907,902 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaConservative View Post
Endless failures and scandals: Cash for clunkers, Benghazi, Hiring a Communist(Van Jones) to be his Environment Czar, Operation Fast and Furious, etc.

Obama employed more rent-a-mob's than any other Administration in history: Black Panthers, ACORN and FEMA Youth Brigades.


Failure or Success?
Limbaugh talking points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2015, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,418,650 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Limbaugh talking points.
liberal deferrals and deflections
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2015, 12:24 PM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,923,105 times
Reputation: 7458
Pragmatic.

Big government programs and bureaucracies are inefficient, wasteful, and oftentimes criminally corrupt. The fact that one major party (the Democrat Party) views the government as the answer to almost every societal problem is a huge problem, compounded by the fact that the other party (the GOP) usually goes along with the continuous expansion of big government.

I can appreciate the intentions of people who view government as a vehicle to address societal ills. However, the track record of success is simply not present and to continue to believe otherwise is pure ignorance. We are overtaxing and overspending into our own destruction and the Democrats want to accelerate the process, with token resistance from a GOP that really only cares about its own survival. It is mindless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2015, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa!
7,783 posts, read 6,058,633 times
Reputation: 7099
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
Alan Greenspan to Larry Kudlow: No the stimulus did not help. Actually it hurt - Radio Vice Online


heck even obama said this
"Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected," Obama said.
The only thing that turned out to be shovel ready was his efforts to bury the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2015, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa!
7,783 posts, read 6,058,633 times
Reputation: 7099
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveToRow View Post
Pragmatic.

Big government programs and bureaucracies are inefficient, wasteful, and oftentimes criminally corrupt. The fact that one major party (the Democrat Party) views the government as the answer to almost every societal problem is a huge problem, compounded by the fact that the other party (the GOP) usually goes along with the continuous expansion of big government.

I can appreciate the intentions of people who view government as a vehicle to address societal ills. However, the track record of success is simply not present and to continue to believe otherwise is pure ignorance. We are overtaxing and overspending into our own destruction and the Democrats want to accelerate the process, with token resistance from a GOP that really only cares about its own survival. It is mindless.
And this is the reason the rank and file Republicans are polling higher for the three outsiders, Trump, Carson and Fiorino. Well said!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2015, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,907,902 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveToRow View Post
Pragmatic.

Big government programs and bureaucracies are inefficient, wasteful, and oftentimes criminally corrupt. The fact that one major party (the Democrat Party) views the government as the answer to almost every societal problem is a huge problem, compounded by the fact that the other party (the GOP) usually goes along with the continuous expansion of big government.

I can appreciate the intentions of people who view government as a vehicle to address societal ills. However, the track record of success is simply not present and to continue to believe otherwise is pure ignorance. We are overtaxing and overspending into our own destruction and the Democrats want to accelerate the process, with token resistance from a GOP that really only cares about its own survival. It is mindless.
That's just your mirror thinking.

First of all, while conservatives see smaller government as an end in itself, liberals don’t see bigger government the same way. Think about it: while you often see conservatives crow about, say, reducing discretionary spending as a good thing just because the number is down, do you ever see liberals crowing about a rise in spending, never mind what on? Liberals want government to do certain things, like provide essential health care; the size of government per se isn’t the objective.

Moreover, much of government is quite efficient. Social Security runs on 1% overhead rate. Medicare rises have been 1% smaller per year than the rise in private insurance for 40 years.

Lastly, Obama hasn't presided over a rise in big government. You know who did? His predecessor.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top