| Author | Post |
|---|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 02:35 am |
|
Fred wrote: Kinda hard for anyone to be middle class when you make 170K a year, wouldn't you say CR?
The problem with defining middle class is that there is no standard defination. Some like to use family income with the justification that all the money coming is should quite rightly count towards the income. Based on that, households ARE making more money.
What other do is focus on the individual salary, or buying power of the individual. Based on this, incomes ARE becoming more different between the rich and poor.
The main issue you have with these two approaches is trying to compare them to previous eras....do you count what a single income family made in 1955 as the same as dual income family today? Both approaches have their pluses and minuses, but it shows why two sets of politicians can look at the numbers and come up with two different conclusions.
However you examine it, there are fewer haves and lots more have nots.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 02:33 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: So name me a Democrat in National politics who is not a member of the upper middle to upper class. How nice of them to worry. Since you mentioned it, the greater growth in individual wealth in this country was under the administration of Clinton not Bush. If anyone was more responsible for the demise of the middle class, it was the Clinton Administration and its policies.
Terrance wrote:
I think we are in for some very hard economic times. I also think that over the last 16 years wealth has been shifting to a dangerous extreme. There are fewer and fewer people holding the majority of all wealth in this country.
That's never a good thing. We are losing our middle class. Democrats are not the only people who worry about our economy.
You are correct about more money moving into fewer hands under Clinton. The trend continues under Bush, but not as rapidly as under Clinton.
Clinton did not bust the economy. It took Bush to do that. The loss of the middle class and the overwhelming amassing of wealth in the hands of so few really stands out when the economy goes down the drain.
Most national politicians have money. Mc Cain is one of the richest people in the Senate.
I don't really like either party. You wrongfully labeled me as a Dem. You come across as a do or die Republican. It too bad that you can't see how corrupt both parties are.
I support Obama because he appears to be the better of the two. He is also intelligent. Clinton was intelligent. We got screwed, but he didn't let it get so apparent. Bush is not intelligent. We got screwed and everybody knows it. People died.
If you're going to deal from the bottom of the deck, it helps if you're coordinated. I didn't support Hillary because I think we have had all the Clintons we can stand. People are surprised how Obama is adjusting his positions now that the primary is over. I'm not. He is a politician. That's what they do. That's why I don't trust them.
I pick the lesser of evils when I vote. You can't do that if you are blinded by partisan loyalties.
I would prefer to have exchanges like this. The choice is yours.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1077 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 02:21 am |
|
My point exactly Fred, we pay them too much. Our Elected Representatives should hold office as a secondary career not a primary one. Were this the case, we could attract farmers, electricians, welders, businessmen, soldiers and other regular folk.
Wouldn't the laws be looked upon differently then?
The less time they spend in Washington the better. They don't need to meet more than a few times a year, kind of like the Reserves. We can call them up when we need them.
Last edited on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 02:26 am by Playing the Game
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 02:16 am |
|
Kinda hard for anyone to be middle class when you make 170K a year, wouldn't you say CR?
The problem with defining middle class is that there is no standard defination. Some like to use family income with the justification that all the money coming is should quite rightly count towards the income. Based on that, households ARE making more money.
What other do is focus on the individual salary, or buying power of the individual. Based on this, incomes ARE becoming more different between the rich and poor.
The main issue you have with these two approaches is trying to compare them to previous eras....do you count what a single income family made in 1955 as the same as dual income family today? Both approaches have their pluses and minuses, but it shows why two sets of politicians can look at the numbers and come up with two different conclusions.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1077 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 02:00 am |
|
So name me a Democrat in National politics who is not a member of the upper middle to upper class. How nice of them to worry. Since you mentioned it, the greater growth in individual wealth in this country was under the administration of Clinton not Bush. If anyone was more responsible for the demise of the middle class, it was the Clinton Administration and its policies.
Terrance wrote:
I think we are in for some very hard economic times. I also think that over the last 16 years wealth has been shifting to a dangerous extreme. There are fewer and fewer people holding the majority of all wealth in this country.
That's never a good thing. We are losing our middle class. Democrats are not the only people who worry about our economy.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 01:52 am |
|
Peekaboo wrote: Democrats always wail that we are a nation in decline. Are we really a "Nation in Decline?"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Just in time for Independence Day, the bible of the American left, the New York Times, continues to opine that the United States is a "nation in decline." Hoping to see a Democrat in the White House, the newspaper has been hammering home that theme on its editorial pages.
The Times bases its claims on two primary situations: The negative view of America abroad, and income inequality at home. So let's take a look at the supposed "decline." Overseas, the world is largely a mess. Africa remains a chaotic cauldron of corruption, China continues its authoritarian rule and there's no letup in the India-Pakistan hatred. Would you like to live in those countries?
Read the full story online at:
http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=23824
The Times is a good newspaper. I prefer to live here. The fact that other countries are worse off doesn't mean anything in terms of whether or not our country is suffering.
I think we are in for some very hard economic times. I also think that over the last 16 years wealth has been shifting to a dangerous extreme. There are fewer and fewer people holding the majority of all wealth in this country.
That's never a good thing. We are losing our middle class. Democrats are not the only people who worry about our economy.
|
Peekaboo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 239 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 11:36 pm |
|
Democrats always wail that we are a nation in decline. Are we really a "Nation in Decline?"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Just in time for Independence Day, the bible of the American left, the New York Times, continues to opine that the United States is a "nation in decline." Hoping to see a Democrat in the White House, the newspaper has been hammering home that theme on its editorial pages.
The Times bases its claims on two primary situations: The negative view of America abroad, and income inequality at home. So let's take a look at the supposed "decline." Overseas, the world is largely a mess. Africa remains a chaotic cauldron of corruption, China continues its authoritarian rule and there's no letup in the India-Pakistan hatred. Would you like to live in those countries?
Read the full story online at:
http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=23824
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 07:44 pm |
|
We have a quandry.
We have had our country up and running for 200 plus years, and we've picked up a lot of baggage along the way. Some good. some bad, but like crazy Aunt Myrtle, you are stick with them for the foreseeable future.
Lawyers are needed because it has gotten so complex...and it got complex because people found ways around it when it was very simple. Some of it is overkill, but a lot of the wording in any law or regulation is there because if it wasn't, someone would take advantage of it.
I think non-lawyers can do the job, and do the job well, but to suggest that we are better off because a pest exterminator like Tom Delay was in Congress goes to prove that you don't have to be corrupt to be a lawyer....it helps, perhaps, especially when coming up with ways to get around the law, but business people are as bad, if not worse, then lawyers.
I think lawyers are one of the few occupations, however, that benefit from going away to Congress. Unless you are independently wealthy, it is very difficult to take the challenge of quitting your job for a few months while you pursue a job that really doesn't pay all that much, given the responsibility. If you are a lawyer, at least, the experience gives you contacts with the government and others, and you can certainly parlay that into your next job. Unless you want to change your job field, however, I am not sure how it benefits an electrician, auto worker, mechanic, or computer worker....you wind up worse in your field then when you started.
|
Observant
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1649 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 07:20 pm |
|
One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself. If you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably want to forget this.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson
|
Footloose
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 22nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 294 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 06:41 pm |
|
Wow, PTG. That was a nice long post you had there, better than your one-liners. You gave people something to think about. There has been a lot of talk over the years about lawyers (besides Jesus' rebuke and Shakespear's "kill all the lawyers.") I think it was either Bixby or JP, or maybe Fred who brought out that lawyers thrive on matters of controversy so that's why they do nothing but create and legislate controversy. Job security. There's something to be said about having far too many lawyers in congress.
And Terrance (welcome, newcomer) I agree that there's nothing to prevent a broad spectrum of other than lawyers from geetting into government but as PTG said, they all seem to want to get into the Democratic party. The Republicans offer a better diversity geared more towards business. Good, I think, for a supposedly capitalist society.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 04:06 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I don't think they intended the lawyers to control the Legislative and the Judicial and the Executive, however. Some of the brightest minds and members of the Supreme Court were not lawyers.
The House of Representatives was designed to be representative of the broad spectrum of citizens, not the largest Bar Association in the World. It is generally the broad spectrum that is the most lawful and the attorneys who find a way to bend the law for their personal benefit or that of their client.
Terrance wrote:
That's why they created 3 branches of government which includes the Judicial Branch.
There's nothing to prevent a broad spectrum of citizens from running for office.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1077 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 03:31 pm |
|
I don't think they intended the lawyers to control the Legislative and the Judicial and the Executive, however. Some of the brightest minds and members of the Supreme Court were not lawyers.
The House of Representatives was designed to be representative of the broad spectrum of citizens, not the largest Bar Association in the World. It is generally the broad spectrum that is the most lawful and the attorneys who find a way to bend the law for their personal benefit or that of their client.
Terrance wrote:
That's why they created 3 branches of government which includes the Judicial Branch.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 03:11 pm |
|
This is an overly simplistic, distorted description of how things work that is of no practical value. The one thing worth disputing is that our founding fathers did want every action subject to legal examination if need be. That's why they created 3 branches of government which includes the Judicial Branch.
We are a nation of laws. That can be onerous at times, but the alternative is lawlessness, vigilantism and mob rule.
This is the clearest insight into what is behind your thinking that you have offered to date.
Democrats have no monopoly on wanting a lawful country. As the Democratic Party has its left wing extremists, the Republican Party has its right wing extremists.
No one benefits from either sided extremism.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1077 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 01:19 pm |
|
The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become "adverse parties" of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform, or real hope in America . Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
|
Current time is 01:51 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|