Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
The DNC serves the interests of the wealthy.
The DNC serves the interests of the wealthy.
By FOS
1 Nov 2022 9:10 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
1 Nov 2022 2:24 pm
the 2 party system in a representative republic was done to represent male female versions of the population existing in all 5 generation gaps evolving in series parallel time inhabiting space being eternally separated as biologically arrived changing people populating the moment each ancestor alive now.Pastafarian » 01 Nov 2022, 9:14 am » wrote: ↑ That’s why we need more than two parties to choose from. The two we have now don’t care about the little guy.
1 Nov 2022 3:50 pm
Skans » 01 Nov 2022, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑ Let me further define this for you. I am not speaking of general success, but financial success. Pounding a hammer every day for a boss and eating everything you make is not success. That is getting by. Success takes intelligence and creativity. It also takes the ability to recognize opportunities, the ability to plan for opportunities and the ability to take calculated risks and seize upon those opportunities to create additional wealth.
If a man wants to make something more of his life, other than pounding a hammer every day for some boss man, he will have to be a smart, knowledgeable, calculated risk taker. Even the person who inherits wealth will either 1) have a hired professional who is a smart, knowledgeable, calculated risk taker, or he will rise to the occasion and become this himself. Otherwise, that inherited wealth, often family wealth, will be squandered in only a few generations, if not less.
So, what does this mean? It means that there will always be 2 classes of people who will never be successful in their own right: 1) Those with average to low intelligence and 2) those who may possess high intelligence but are too timid to ever put the wheels in motion to build wealth. Fascism, Socialism, Communism, Democracy, Federalism, or any other "ism" is NEVER going to eliminate that gap. Average or below average, timid people are doomed to be the food upon which the more astute among us feast.
so you celebrate parasites and moochers as long as they are billionaires.
But you condemn parasites and moochers if they are not wealthy.
Is it just the taste of a rich man's dick that you crave?
1 Nov 2022 3:53 pm
Skans » 01 Nov 2022, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑ Any guy who pounds a hammer for a living will never do better than "get by". In a free market economy, such a person is at "that level" because that's all he is capable of. There are way more people like that than there are who can think intelligently, think creatively, are willing to plan and delay rewards for future gains, can strategize, can recognize opportunities and are willing to take calculated risks.
In the 1960s, a home could be bought on one years average salary..
Now, home ownership costs decades of salary.
Why don't don't knock off the "everything is always the same in every era and every place " ****
1 Nov 2022 3:56 pm
Good thread, FOS. Only one thing irks me, the vagueness of the thread title.
"The wealthy" is so vague its almost meaningless now. To a homeless bum I'm wealthy cuz I make 6 figures. To me, a millionaire is wealthy.
A millionaire may feel poor next to a multi billionaire who lives in a totally different world.
"The wealthy" is so vague its almost meaningless now. To a homeless bum I'm wealthy cuz I make 6 figures. To me, a millionaire is wealthy.
A millionaire may feel poor next to a multi billionaire who lives in a totally different world.
1 Nov 2022 4:06 pm
They are the two sides of the same coin. I suggest that we eliminate parties altogether! And that we adopt a national PLEBISCITE where the voters can void acts of Congress and impeach presidents and USSC Justices. That would be a 'direct democracy' !Pastafarian » 01 Nov 2022, 9:14 am » wrote: ↑ That’s why we need more than two parties to choose from. The two we have now don’t care about the little guy.
Marx warned us about the 'rentiers'!He was right!
I wish Teddy Roosevelt were alive today and break up the Trusts and Oligarchy!
Who is for this?
1 Nov 2022 4:06 pm
FOS » 01 Nov 2022, 9:10 am » wrote: ↑ Dnc politicians and voters like to sell us this line that they fight for the little guy and want to prevent exploitation. I guess that dnc voters like to just hear that rhetoric because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside.
But because of the contradictions within dnc programming, it is impossible that this could ever occur.
The only revolution in the past few centuries that was good for the 'common man' was fascism. Communism totally failed at its promises because it simply destroyed national industry and replaced it with international elements, and relied far too much on the goodwill of party leaders.
The 'new deal' of fdr was a very fascist collection of policies...and relieved praise from the nazis for its syndicalism and make work programs. Buy it did not do nearly enough (as huey long kept saying) and it seemed to only exist in order to stave off a communist revolution.
A big reason for this is because it failed to address the problem of rent seeking. The REAL cause of wealth inequality in the usa is based on the fact that people can like make a million dollars a day by simply possessing abstract numbers in Wallstreet. It actually has nothing to do with their 'paycheck' and dnc voters seem incapable of figuring out. The reason that many billionaires pay no income tax is because their PAYCHECK is actually quite small...and retards like AOC fans cant seem to understand that money can be may in ways other than via paycheck.
The nazis remedied this with very strict controls over banksand land speculation...and having no stock market at all. They minimized international elements in their economy. And their economy actually had a boom because they were free from the exploitation of international finance.
Also quite telling is stuff like...Amazon explicitly stating that workforce diversity prevents worker collectivizing, and that is a good thing. Fascists will look at this and aay workforce diversity prevents worker collectivizing, and thats a bad thing. And then the dnc supporters will reel in horror at the fascists and cry out "that's racism!".
What is the average DNC voter today? They love Amazon. They love Google. They love Goldman Sachs. They love the fbi. They hate the 'rednecks' working blue collar jobs because they are uneducated and racist.
The Republicans like to pretend the dnc is communist but no the dnc are just shills for the moniesd elite.
there is only one GENUINE movement for the common man, and that is fascism
Some of this is dangerously close to arguments of Henry George .
to use purely economic terms,
The Nazis were successful because they eliminated nearly all deadweight loss in their economy. Our economy is totally mired in deadweight loss, and even 90 years of advancing technology and mass production cannot make up for how inferior this system is
1 Nov 2022 4:10 pm
Your comment reminds me of a poll taken a couple of decades ago.SJConspirator » 01 Nov 2022, 3:56 pm » wrote: ↑ Good thread, FOS. Only one thing irks me, the vagueness of the thread title.
"The wealthy" is so vague its almost meaningless now. To a homeless bum I'm wealthy cuz I make 6 figures. To me, a millionaire is wealthy.
A millionaire may feel poor next to a multi billionaire who lives in a totally different world.
The thing worth noting was the average reply to one of the questions.
Peeling out of my memory, it was:
How much more money would you want in order to feel secure or successful?
(I'm guessing on the secure/successful thing. Words to that effect.)
Basically the answers, when taken as a whole, was double whatever the current wage/savings of that person.
So, the moral is: It's never enough, whatever you have. -or- Wealth is relative.
Please seat yourself.
I like the very things you hate.
I like the very things you hate.
1 Nov 2022 4:11 pm
There's always a wealthy **** enabling every parasite and moocher. I mooch off of no one. I pay people for the work they perform at the price they request. I expect to be paid for the work I perform at the price I request. As for what I do with the fruits of my labor is my business, not yours. And, if my intelligence has allowed me to capitalize on investment opportunities, that should be celebrated, not condemned. Why? Because I don't have my hands deep inside of your own pockets!SJConspirator » 01 Nov 2022, 3:50 pm » wrote: ↑ so you celebrate parasites and moochers as long as they are billionaires.
But you condemn parasites and moochers if they are not wealthy.
Is it just the taste of a rich man's dick that you crave?
1 Nov 2022 4:15 pm
DeezerShoove » 01 Nov 2022, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑ Your comment reminds me of a poll taken a couple of decades ago.
The thing worth noting was the average reply to one of the questions.
Peeling out of my memory, it was:
How much more money would you want in order to feel secure or successful?
(I'm guessing on the secure/successful thing. Words to that effect.)
Basically the answers, when taken as a whole, was double whatever the current wage/savings of that person.
So, the moral is: It's never enough, whatever you have. -or- Wealth is relative.
there was a study at some university in the 1980s I read about. A few thousand individuals were interviewed from different economic classes and their subjective rating of their own happiness was noted, along with their yearly income.
It was discovered that life satisfaction increased tremendously for someone making $50k to $100k over anyone making $49k or less.
What was surprising to researchers, is that making over $100k in the 1980s did not equate to any commensurate increase in happiness, and many participants seemed to become unhappy as they reached higher levels of wealth
1 Nov 2022 4:17 pm
Your first statement is marginally close to accurate. Your second is not.SJConspirator » 01 Nov 2022, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑ In the 1960s, a home could be bought on one years average salary..
Now, home ownership costs decades of salary.
Why don't don't knock off the "everything is always the same in every era and every place " ****
In the 1960's an average 3/2 home (1,400sf) cost around $18,000. That was not an average salary in the 1960's though. Closer to $10,000. A seasoned professional might have made $18,000, but not an uneducated hourly worker. So, for the average guy and average house would cost about 2 years worth of salary.
Now, today you can still find a 1400 sf house for about $250,000 plus or minus. The average salary is closer to $60,000. So, it takes 4 years of work to afford the same house. If you want a 2-2 condo, more like 2-3 years.
1 Nov 2022 4:24 pm
FYI the nazis did thisnuckinfutz » 01 Nov 2022, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑ They are the two sides of the same coin. I suggest that we eliminate parties altogether! And that we adopt a national PLEBISCITE where the voters can void acts of Congress and impeach presidents and USSC Justices. That would be a 'direct democracy' !
Marx warned us about the 'rentiers'!He was right!
I wish Teddy Roosevelt were alive today and break up the Trusts and Oligarchy!
Who is for this?
1 Nov 2022 4:26 pm
That's the old saying "Money doesn't bring happiness." in play, I guess.SJConspirator » 01 Nov 2022, 4:15 pm » wrote: ↑ there was a study at some university in the 1980s I read about. A few thousand individuals were interviewed from different economic classes and their subjective rating of their own happiness was noted, along with their yearly income.
It was discovered that life satisfaction increased tremendously for someone making $50k to $100k over anyone making $49k or less.
What was surprising to researchers, is that making over $100k in the 1980s did not equate to any commensurate increase in happiness, and many participants seemed to become unhappy as they reached higher levels of wealth
That is, of course, once you've reached that plateau of shelter, food, secure future.
Which was apparently $49k then.
Please seat yourself.
I like the very things you hate.
I like the very things you hate.
1 Nov 2022 4:32 pm
It is not merely relative...it it would be a serious error to imagine that wealth inequality is simply a matter of subjective loved experiences.DeezerShoove » 01 Nov 2022, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑ Your comment reminds me of a poll taken a couple of decades ago.
The thing worth noting was the average reply to one of the questions.
Peeling out of my memory, it was:
How much more money would you want in order to feel secure or successful?
(I'm guessing on the secure/successful thing. Words to that effect.)
Basically the answers, when taken as a whole, was double whatever the current wage/savings of that person.
So, the moral is: It's never enough, whatever you have. -or- Wealth is relative.
There is an objective measure to this stuff and it has tangible onjective consequences.
1 Nov 2022 4:37 pm
Instead of thinking about the threshold of an individual having shelter and food you should instead consider the cost of raising a family with 2 kids that is at least marginally healthy (no black majority schools of course)DeezerShoove » 01 Nov 2022, 4:26 pm » wrote: ↑ That's the old saying "Money doesn't bring happiness." in play, I guess.
That is, of course, once you've reached that plateau of shelter, food, secure future.
Which was apparently $49k then.
if 90% of your population cannot afford to have kids...and 40% can only afford it because they are so useless that they are on welfare.. that is going to have serious long term consequences for the general population
1 Nov 2022 5:12 pm
$250k is average for homes, but the places that are close to major opportunity career wise cost much moreSkans » 01 Nov 2022, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑ Your first statement is marginally close to accurate. Your second is not.
In the 1960's an average 3/2 home (1,400sf) cost around $18,000. That was not an average salary in the 1960's though. Closer to $10,000. A seasoned professional might have made $18,000, but not an uneducated hourly worker. So, for the average guy and average house would cost about 2 years worth of salary.
Now, today you can still find a 1400 sf house for about $250,000 plus or minus. The average salary is closer to $60,000. So, it takes 4 years of work to afford the same house. If you want a 2-2 condo, more like 2-3 years.
1 Nov 2022 5:17 pm
Did they??? Let's hear more!
1 Nov 2022 5:18 pm
Yeah, if you're looking for a job in Menlo Park, then you better have an engineering degree and the IQ necessary to get the job to pay for the ridiculously priced shack.SJConspirator » 01 Nov 2022, 5:12 pm » wrote: ↑ $250k is average for homes, but the places that are close to major opportunity career wise cost much more
But, if you want to work in Huntsville AL, you can find some reasonably priced homes around there.
1 Nov 2022 5:19 pm
Skans » 01 Nov 2022, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑ Let me further define this for you. I am not speaking of general success, but financial success. Pounding a hammer every day for a boss and eating everything you make is not success. That is getting by. Success takes intelligence and creativity. It also takes the ability to recognize opportunities, the ability to plan for opportunities and the ability to take calculated risks and seize upon those opportunities to create additional wealth.
If a man wants to make something more of his life, other than pounding a hammer every day for some boss man, he will have to be a smart, knowledgeable, calculated risk taker. Even the person who inherits wealth will either 1) have a hired professional who is a smart, knowledgeable, calculated risk taker, or he will rise to the occasion and become this himself. Otherwise, that inherited wealth, often family wealth, will be squandered in only a few generations, if not less.
So, what does this mean? It means that there will always be 2 classes of people who will never be successful in their own right: 1) Those with average to low intelligence and 2) those who may possess high intelligence but are too timid to ever put the wheels in motion to build wealth. Fascism, Socialism, Communism, Democracy, Federalism, or any other "ism" is NEVER going to eliminate that gap. Average or below average, timid people are doomed to be the food upon which the more astute among us feast.
“the Khmer Rouge was just as good as modern Republicans, because human nature is always the same in every government”.
1 Nov 2022 5:22 pm
this is known dude. How doyou think anschylus happened?
1 Nov 2022 5:32 pm
There are exceptions to everything. This info is just a generalized thumbnail sketch.FOS » 01 Nov 2022, 4:32 pm » wrote: ↑ It is not merely relative...it it would be a serious error to imagine that wealth inequality is simply a matter of subjective loved experiences.
There is an objective measure to this stuff and it has tangible onjective consequences.
I look at it as more of a re-phrasing the offer: Would you be happy if I doubled your money?
Few people would say 'no' to that question.
I did alright in life (especially considering my starting point)
and my family thinks I'm way wealthier than I do.
Relative...s
Please seat yourself.
I like the very things you hate.
I like the very things you hate.
Who is online
In total there are 3249 users online :: 3 registered, 15 bots, and 3231 guests
Bots: LCC, Not, MicroMessenger, ADmantX, aiohttp, CriteoBot, TTD-Content, YandexBot, proximic, facebookexternalhit, Googlebot, Mediapartners-Google, curl/7, Applebot, bingbot