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.
Not at all. The Founding 1% went to great lengths to keep the 99% from having any significant role or involvement in the new government. Keep in mind that George Washington was elected our first President on the basis of votes from less that 5% of the free adult population. That's what those who wrote the phrase "We, the People" meant by the phrase "We, the People." They meant THEMSELVES -- i.e., the landed aristocracy. Not the "common man" at all.
With consumers not increasing in their income as they did in the past (pre 1970) we're unlikely too increased demand as we did back then.
The only thing that kept demand strong from 1980-2008 was rising workforce participation (women), escalating debt (easy credit), and fiscal deficits. Guess what happens when all this stimulus maxes out and we are left standing in a deep pit of caca?
The dogmatic left-wingers are the people that will do anything no matter how costly in the name of helping "struggling middle class families".
One example is insuring mortgages for houses that have 4 bedrooms even if a family only has 2 kids, and at taxpayer expense. Same with vacation homes - WHY should they even get a tax break? Utterly ridiculous.
Are you suggesting the form have a space to indicate how many kids they have? How many kids they intend to have?
Not at all. The Founding 1% went to great lengths to keep the 99% from having any significant role or involvement in the new government.
It was necessary. History proves that post revolution times are highly precarious.
Our founding fathers had the wisdom to codify an effective constitution and install themselves as the political power for a good while. But what would happen when they were gone? They also knew that a just government had no chance of lasting unless it was subject to an informed and free public.
Just to answer the main question of the thread (err topic), im somewhat of a liberal although i guess youd say more of an independent, but im not for money nor production; im for quality.
Why don't you make the same apology for the top 0.01%? They experienced a *real* 700% increase in income in the last 40 years compared the median 0%. Didn't they get all these new tech toys as well?
Yup, that worked really well for the haves in France circa 1789. Or for the haves in Russia in 1917. Or for the haves in Cuba in 1959.
Militaristically speaking, firearms are simply a force-multiplier, but when the have-nots population exceeds that multiplier and the have-nots feel that they have nothing else to lose, then it's just a matter of how many the have's will kill before the have-nots bring them down.
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.
