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.
We have alwaqys had that 1% . But the real probelm is that too mnay have 20th centruy skills of a screwdriver nature in a 21st century america. More and more the third world worker has risen to compete in that market. The same has we use to supply 20th centruy products to them because they couldn't produce them. The future market is those same people as far as growth is concerned.
Since right-wingers are constantly posting threads accusing Liberals of being envious of the rich and wanting handouts, I felt that this topic needed to be addressed. Republicans would like us to believe that increasing income inequality will have a positive effect on the economy. This is far from true. Getting rid of the minimum wage, cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating labor unions will not create an environment which facilitates economic growth. Implementing these policies would do just the opposite. As history has shown a thriving middle class in our country is essential to a thriving economy. The last time our economy experienced inequalities in income and wealth distribution comparable to what we are seeing today was just prior to the market crash that caused the Great Depression. During the Great Compression, also known as the Golden Years, after World War II, the middle class grew, income inequality decreased and the economy thrived. The tax rate for the wealthy was much higher than it is today, the minimum wage was actually a livable wage, labor unions were seen as good thing and American products were actually made by Americans in America. Middle class Americans did not have to go into debt to live the American dream. It is quite ironic that the same people that are against these policies are the ones hollering about taking their country back. Where are they taking? 1850?
I am constantly seeing posts here about Liberals being selfish or not wanting to work hard. I see it the other way around. I see the right wanting to implement policies which concentrate the wealth to small portion of the population, making it difficult for working class and middle class Americans to prosper. Income inequality is going to exist, but when it exists on the scale that it does now, it’s not good for the country as a whole. We hear so much about patriotism and the American people from the right, but creating policies that burden the middle class is unpatriotic. By constantly throwing out words like “freedom†and “democracy,†Republicans would like us to believe that they care for the average American. We are actually moving closer to third world status as the rich become richer and the middle class become poorer. All the fear-mongering is nothing but a diversion. If you think that they want to take your freedom away, just wait until your money is worthless and soup lines become commonplace. It won’t be because of less salt in prepared foods, regulations on creditors, healthier school lunches or where the president was born. There are bigger fish to fry.
I know that much of my focus here has been on Republicans but Democrats are to blame just as much for being spineless and appeasing. Both parties are more concerned with pleasing the lobbyist that line their pockets than they are with the well-being of the country. Unfortunately, people are so afraid and so polarized on issues that don’t even matter. While politicians pretend to fight about ideological differences, we are becoming more polarized and less aware of what’s really going on.
Usually I hate when people bump their threads like this, but this is a great post. Income inequality is extremely deleterious to the health of our nation, and neither the Republicans and the Democrats, for the most part, seem all that concerned with the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is why Obama's concession to the Republicans re: the Bush tax cuts is so atrocious.
LOL, what an embarrassing video for Thatcher. She absolutely strawmanned both of the arguments raised to her while a bunch of weak-kneed sycophants cheered her on. Thatcher and Reagan are absolutely indicative of the neoliberal policies which serve the interests of the rich above all else.
The argument you rarely hear is income has increased across the board, the poorest people in this country are much better off than the poorest people 50 years ago.
True.
Quote:
The problem with liberal policies is while shrinking that gap you're also making everyone less properous.
Not true. The highest tax rates in the 1950s were around 90%. That rate applied to incomes over $400,000, which would be equivalent to over $30 million in today's dollars. Taxing the very rich at high rates would not be felt by the vast majority of Americans at all.
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.
