Deranged Rhino Posted September 21, 2017 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 Why do you hate freedom? (I am of course kidding. I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 I know you don't like this truth, but you are in opposition to political freedom with this particular stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 21, 2017 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 I know you don't like this truth, but you are in opposition to political freedom with this particular stance. Disagree. Money isn't speech, it's an amplifier - especially in a gamed system. If you treat money as speech, and simultaneously game the system to not only legalize bribery but make taking big money donations a necessity for any politician who hopes to actually win, then you're disenfranchising hundreds of millions of Americans in order to destroy the republic and replace it with an oligarchy. Past tense. Because it's already happened. We just haven't admitted it to ourselves yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Why do you hate freedom? (I am of course kidding. I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.) Freedom is offensive, because it means people have the freedom to call you an idiot and hurt your feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Freedom is offensive, because it means people have the freedom to call you an idiot and hurt your feelings. I think it's disingenuous to play the "freedom" card in this case. Sure, there is some *technical* truth to what you are saying. However, allowing a slice of the population to bully the system and hijack democracy by choking out the interests of the vast majority with what amounts to large-scale bribery is not exactly the greatest example of the true *spirit* of freedom that our founders intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Disagree. Money isn't speech, it's an amplifier - especially in a gamed system. If you treat money as speech, and simultaneously game the system to not only legalize bribery but make taking big money donations a necessity for any politician who hopes to actually win, then you're disenfranchising hundreds of millions of Americans in order to destroy the republic and replace it with an oligarchy. Past tense. Because it's already happened. We just haven't admitted it to ourselves yet. Incorrect. The spoken word is speech, but so are print, television ads, the internet etc. and each medium has a different cost associated. What your argument is saying is that we must restrict freedom to the lowest common denominator, and that's not freedom at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Incorrect. The spoken word is speech, but so are print, television ads, the internet etc. and each medium has a different cost associated. What your argument is saying is that we must restrict freedom to the lowest common denominator, and that's not freedom at all. The irony being is that the cost of speech has been declining exponentially since the dawn of the Republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 21, 2017 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 Incorrect. The spoken word is speech, but so are print, television ads, the internet etc. and each medium has a different cost associated. What your argument is saying is that we must restrict freedom to the lowest common denominator, and that's not freedom at all. Respectfully disagree. You're operating under the assumption that the system is on the level. It's not and hasn't been in either of our lifetimes. The wealth has been systemically stolen from the lower, middle, and upper classes of this country for the past several decades by the very same people and institutions who gamed the system. They've managed to convince you this is a first amendment issue - it's not. It's about access to the levers of power on the federal level. Right now, today, there isn't a single person posting on this board that has enough in their bank accounts to compete politically with the 0.001%. Not a single person. That means there isn't a single person on this board who isn't already disenfranchised by this fallacy. That's not hyperbole, that's truth. You don't have a say in our federal government or its policies. I don't have a say, none of us have a say unless we're donating millions (not thousands, or hundreds of thousands, millions) to our congressional representatives. We shouldn't call a system a democratic republic when less than 1% of the population has enough cash to have a voice in the political system. We should call it what it is: an oligarchy. We have a government that routinely violates the constitution, that unlawfully restricts the civil liberties of its people without giving them a say in the matter, a government that controls the media and has legalized domestic propaganda designed to keep us ignorant and scared, a government that caters only to those who can afford to pay for the privilege of having a Senator or Congressman listen to them. The system is broken, pretending speech is equal to money only guarantees that a solution will never be found. Why would it? The people with all the money like the system. It's the other 99% of us who are getting fuccked. As the late, great Carlin once said: "it's a big club and you ain't in it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Please, name a period in the American Republic where wealth has been more spread out that it is now? The middle class didn't even exist until after WW2, and that didn't mean they had a higher proportion of wealth. They just earned a lot more than their impoverished parents ands improving standards of living meant they could buy more things. Don't confuse that with wealth, which was always more concentrated than it is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Respectfully disagree. You're operating under the assumption that the system is on the level. It's not and hasn't been in either of our lifetimes. The wealth has been systemically stolen from the lower, middle, and upper classes of this country for the past several decades by the very same people and institutions who gamed the system. They've managed to convince you this is a first amendment issue - it's not. It's about access to the levers of power on the federal level. Right now, today, there isn't a single person posting on this board that has enough in their bank accounts to compete politically with the 0.001%. Not a single person. That means there isn't a single person on this board who isn't already disenfranchised by this fallacy. That's not hyperbole, that's truth. You don't have a say in our federal government or its policies. I don't have a say, none of us have a say unless we're donating millions (not thousands, or hundreds of thousands, millions) to our congressional representatives. We shouldn't call a system a democratic republic when less than 1% of the population has enough cash to have a voice in the political system. We should call it what it is: an oligarchy. We have a government that routinely violates the constitution, that unlawfully restricts the civil liberties of its people without giving them a say in the matter, a government that controls the media and has legalized domestic propaganda designed to keep us ignorant and scared, a government that caters only to those who can afford to pay for the privilege of having a Senator or Congressman listen to them. The system is broken, pretending speech is equal to money only guarantees that a solution will never be found. Why would it? The people with all the money like the system. It's the other 99% of us who are getting fuccked. As the late, great Carlin once said: "it's a big club and you ain't in it." I grew up with six high school friends who came from humble backgrounds who studied hard and got into the best law schools and went into politics and have done quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 21, 2017 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) Please, name a period in the American Republic where wealth has been more spread out that it is now? The middle class didn't even exist until after WW2, and that didn't mean they had a higher proportion of wealth. They just earned a lot more than their impoverished parents ands improving standards of living meant they could buy more things. Don't confuse that with wealth, which was always more concentrated than it is today. Fair, but I mean wealth when I say it's been systematically stripped from the lower, middle, and upper-middle class. Home ownership in the US has dropped to pre-1965 levels and an entire generation is coming up who will be renters for life - and that's the "middle" class. The younger generations coming up now are saddled with unprecedented levels of debt, unable to buy homes - they certainly don't have the income available to pay off their senators and congressmen. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/homeownership-rate-in-the-u-s-tumbles-to-the-lowest-since-1965 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50 This is a growing problem. I grew up with six high school friends who came from humble backgrounds who studied hard and got into the best law schools and went into politics and have done quite well. This is irrelevant to the conversation, I'm assuming they weren't xennials/millenials. The bribery system wasn't fully implemented until 2010. Edited September 21, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Disagree. Money isn't speech, it's an amplifier - especially in a gamed system. If you treat money as speech, and simultaneously game the system to not only legalize bribery but make taking big money donations a necessity for any politician who hopes to actually win, then you're disenfranchising hundreds of millions of Americans in order to destroy the republic and replace it with an oligarchy. Past tense. Because it's already happened. We just haven't admitted it to ourselves yet. Well put. Beer emoji. Please, name a period in the American Republic where wealth has been more spread out that it is now? The middle class didn't even exist until after WW2, and that didn't mean they had a higher proportion of wealth. They just earned a lot more than their impoverished parents ands improving standards of living meant they could buy more things. Don't confuse that with wealth, which was always more concentrated than it is today. Found this: https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality It's not clear but figure 5 suggests between 1940 and 1980 were proportionally the most equitable wrt share of wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Well put. Beer emoji. Found this: https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality It's not clear but figure 5 suggests between 1940 and 1980 were proportionally the most equitable wrt share of wealth. I had to read that twice before I caught how subtly they cherry-picked their data to support their preconceived notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Fair, but I mean wealth when I say it's been systematically stripped from the lower, middle, and upper-middle class. Home ownership in the US has dropped to pre-1965 levels and an entire generation is coming up who will be renters for life - and that's the "middle" class. The younger generations coming up now are saddled with unprecedented levels of debt, unable to buy homes - they certainly don't have the income available to pay off their senators and congressmen. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/homeownership-rate-in-the-u-s-tumbles-to-the-lowest-since-1965 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50 This is a growing problem. This is irrelevant to the conversation, I'm assuming they weren't xennials/millenials. The bribery system wasn't fully implemented until 2010. The question you should be asking is whether using the 1950's - 1980's home ownership data for wealth measurement is the norm or anomaly? I know my answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Fair, but I mean wealth when I say it's been systematically stripped from the lower, middle, and upper-middle class. Home ownership in the US has dropped to pre-1965 levels and an entire generation is coming up who will be renters for life - and that's the "middle" class. The younger generations coming up now are saddled with unprecedented levels of debt, unable to buy homes - they certainly don't have the income available to pay off their senators and congressmen. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/homeownership-rate-in-the-u-s-tumbles-to-the-lowest-since-1965 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50 This is a growing problem. This is irrelevant to the conversation, I'm assuming they weren't xennials/millenials. The bribery system wasn't fully implemented until 2010. Higher home prices stimulate more home building. But since the xenophobia crowd is in charge, home builders are facing a labor shortage which is driving up home building costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Fair, but I mean wealth when I say it's been systematically stripped from the lower, middle, and upper-middle class. Home ownership in the US has dropped to pre-1965 levels and an entire generation is coming up who will be renters for life - and that's the "middle" class. The younger generations coming up now are saddled with unprecedented levels of debt, unable to buy homes - they certainly don't have the income available to pay off their senators and congressmen. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/homeownership-rate-in-the-u-s-tumbles-to-the-lowest-since-1965 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50 This is a growing problem. This is irrelevant to the conversation, I'm assuming they weren't xennials/millenials. The bribery system wasn't fully implemented until 2010. There is an industry that does nothing but point out all the inequities in life, the highest intellectual apparatus was the Frankfurt School in the 20th century. But it comes down to.... SO FRICKIN WHAT!!!???? You have a life to live and it's going to be unfair, so suck it up buttercup and don't use obvious excuses to justify not even trying in the first place. Yup, money rules everything. Yup, those born with huge advantages still cheat and bend everything to benefit themselves. Yup, you are pacified by an entertainment industry that kills off revolution in exchange for watching TV and sports and fiddling around on your iPhone. So what, how are YOU going to be a productive person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 There is an industry that does nothing but point out all the inequities in life, the highest intellectual apparatus was the Frankfurt School in the 20th century. But it comes down to.... SO FRICKIN WHAT!!!???? You have a life to live and it's going to be unfair, so suck it up buttercup and don't use obvious excuses to justify not even trying in the first place. Yup, money rules everything. Yup, those born with huge advantages still cheat and bend everything to benefit themselves. Yup, you are pacified by an entertainment industry that kills off revolution in exchange for watching TV and sports and fiddling around on your iPhone. So what, how are YOU going to be a productive person? For starters, by not trying to stifle productive dialogue in some misguided attempt to prove your own personal realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 For starters, by not trying to stifle productive dialogue in some misguided attempt to prove your own personal realism. what productive? whining about some George Carlin usual pap and saying you don't have a shot??? realism, yes thank you, please join it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 I had to read that twice before I caught how subtly they cherry-picked their data to support their preconceived notion. It's true. But I think the takeaway is that proportionally the gap is widening due to an accumulation at the top and stagnation at the middle- and lower 'wealth' brackets, as opposed to the Gilded Age when the bottom 40% of the country was flat broke...as in zero wealth. Like you, I'm less convinced that those figures depict THAT kind of discrepancy but they're instructive regarding DR's point about wealth and political influence, and your average American's access to federal policy. what productive? whining about some George Carlin usual pap and saying you don't have a shot??? realism, yes thank you, please join it Some people want a bigger voice in the direction our society and government take. I refuse to call that 'whining', however misguided you may feel their opinion is. I think it's one of the absolute bedrocks of our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 It's true. But I think the takeaway is that proportionally the gap is widening due to an accumulation at the top and stagnation at the middle- and lower 'wealth' brackets, as opposed to the Gilded Age when the bottom 40% of the country was flat broke...as in zero wealth. Like you, I'm less convinced that those figures depict THAT kind of discrepancy but they're instructive regarding DR's point about wealth and political influence, and your average American's access to federal policy. Some people want a bigger voice in the direction our society and government take. I refuse to call that 'whining', however misguided you may feel their opinion is. I think it's one of the absolute bedrocks of our country. Is that why the Cheetoh Dust Gollem got elected by spending a fraction of his opponents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts