What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It does make sense that the high end pays a larger share of the total taxes, as their share of total income has also grown. I generally agree with you that this growing chasm between the rich and poor in this country, with less of a middle class, is a bad trend. I'm just not sure how it can be reversed, or meaningfully slowed down. Basic jobs that used to pay a good wage, in an industry like textiles, can now be done overseas for a small fraction of the cost, so those type of decent paying jobs just aren't around like they used to be. Even higher end jobs like engineering are increasingly going elsewhere. There is some job creation in other/new sectors, but it's pretty murky to try to figure out how one can restore/maintain the middle class in this country. Of course on the flip side, you have a sizable chunk of the population paying no federal income taxes and even maybe getting some credits back, and such a situation can lead to those folks pushing for more spending, since none of it is directly coming out of their own pocket. Problematic stuff all the way around.

I think you've identified both ends of the dilemma. We did face this situation in some part before, though, with the transition from agricultural labor to semi- and high-skilled industrial labor. By the end of the 19th century we were seeing the already well-developed agribusinesses moving off shore to cheaper Third World sources. A huge percentage of the American labor pool was still categorized as "laborers" then -- part of what exascrebated the Great Depression was food price deflation. From the 30's through the 60's, jobs moved "indoors" to unionized factory floors, higher education became democratized, and the middle class grew precisely because of a concern for "social justice" now so snidely dismissed by people with a hardon to return to the Gilded Age.

The government doesn't have to be the sole provider of these opportunities -- it seems like half the great men who rose from poverty during the golden age of the America middle class between 1935 and 1975 came from private Catholic schools. But the government does have a role through things like the GI Bill, guarantees of savings, and a progressive tax code that prevents an aristocracy from choking off the American dream.

The Dems were in charge of protecting that until recently, but it appears more and more that even they have been co-opted, in which case we really only have a tiny clique running the show now. It's my clique, and I'll do fine. But if I were the rest of you, I'd be pissed.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

...The government doesn't have to be the sole provider of these opportunities -- it seems like half the great men who rose from poverty during the golden age of the America middle class between 1935 and 1975 came from private Catholic schools. But the government does have a role through things like the GI Bill, guarantees of savings, and a progressive tax code that prevents an aristocracy from choking off the American dream...
As a product of Catholic education, I would venture that during that period of time, Catholic schools were, well, Catholic to a Capital C. Now I'm not sure what is taught there, but I doubt many products of current catholic education could recite the 7 deadly sins, the corporal works of mercy, and all the moral codes that were built into the Catholic psyche to make the world a better place.

As to the latter part of the paragraph, the amount of role the government has in our individual lives is what the debate needs to focus on. I would prefer that the private citizenry claimed back what Uncle Sam has co-oped in the name of "good government". We can think something is a great idea, but if it bankrupts the country, is it doable??
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Its unfortunate that a huge proponent of uniting this country may get drilled by the left, who feels that he's not extreme enough...and the right, who would never have given him a chance anyways.

The latter is what really amuses me about Obama. He seems to be under the impression with this and a few other things (Afghanistan for one) that somehow he can make people on the right like him. It just comes off as desperate to me.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So Republicans who all campaigned on reducing the deficit now want to reduce taxes, reduce payroll taxes (when social security trust fund is going to run out eventually anyway), and increase spending. Sounds like Washington is really changing!

Just a slight thing here, but Republicans loudly and vocally campaigned on reducing taxes and having some sort of payroll tax holiday. You can take issue with if you think that idea will work or not, or is a good idea at all, but I think it's wrong to paint it like they've broken some campaign promise. They are doing what they said they would do.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I think you've identified both ends of the dilemma. We did face this situation in some part before, though, with the transition from agricultural labor to semi- and high-skilled industrial labor. By the end of the 19th century we were seeing the already well-developed agribusinesses moving off shore to cheaper Third World sources. A huge percentage of the American labor pool was still categorized as "laborers" then -- part of what exascrebated the Great Depression was food price deflation. From the 30's through the 60's, jobs moved "indoors" to unionized factory floors, higher education became democratized, and the middle class grew precisely because of a concern for "social justice" now so snidely dismissed by people with a hardon to return to the Gilded Age.

The government doesn't have to be the sole provider of these opportunities -- it seems like half the great men who rose from poverty during the golden age of the America middle class between 1935 and 1975 came from private Catholic schools. But the government does have a role through things like the GI Bill, guarantees of savings, and a progressive tax code that prevents an aristocracy from choking off the American dream.

The Dems were in charge of protecting that until recently, but it appears more and more that even they have been co-opted, in which case we really only have a tiny clique running the show now. It's my clique, and I'll do fine. But if I were the rest of you, I'd be pissed.
But, I'm this wacko, if you've been following this thread at all! How can I corrrectly identify anything? ;)

Government policy certainly has significant influence, but I think a lot of these big broad sweeping changes that take place over decades are driven by large trends, like the Industrial Revolution, technological change, etc. that would happen regardless of whether a given policy is in place or not. I don't fundamentally see the rise of the American middle class as being due to a given goverment policy or set of policies, but being driven more by large changes in how things are grown, how things are made, how business is conducted that were to a large extent beyond government control or direction.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So what's stopping Buffett from giving more to the gov't. If he thinks the gov't knows best or he is that concerned aobut funding gov't he should gladly give more.

With 47% of the country paying no income tax and the top 10% paying 71% of the taxes its pretty easy to see which side is winning.

Yeah, because it's so much better being the sports information intern making 20,000/year than it is the millionaire athlete. Clearly the intern is winning because he qualifies for the EITC and the athlete doesn't. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You're an idiot.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I don't fundamentally see the rise of the American middle class as being due to a given goverment policy or set of policies, but being driven more by large changes in how things are grown, how things are made, how business is conducted that were to a large extent beyond government control or direction.
One could as well say the waxing and waning of government policies is likewise a product of these changes.

I'll see your trend and raise you a meta-trend. :)
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

As a product of Catholic education, I would venture that during that period of time, Catholic schools were, well, Catholic to a Capital C. Now I'm not sure what is taught there, but I doubt many products of current catholic education could recite the 7 deadly sins, the corporal works of mercy, and all the moral codes that were built into the Catholic psyche to make the world a better place.

I think this is quite correct and I agree the cultural preparation of that period contributed to what came afterwards. The Capital C Catholic intellectual tradition balances personal fulfillment and freedom with social obligation and understands a better world doesn't just make itself. But I would think that -- I come from the same tradition. :)
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The latter is what really amuses me about Obama. He seems to be under the impression with this and a few other things (Afghanistan for one) that somehow he can make people on the right like him. It just comes off as desperate to me.

I don't think being Obama's centrist positions are 'desperate'...but usually rather pragmatic. I think he truly believes that he's taking the best course of action based on individual situations regardless of party affiliation. There's just not much Karl Rove in the approach.

Having said that...there may be some maneuvering in the tax compromise. I would imagine the Dems don't have the votes to do what they want regarding this...and just letting them expire might be a political hand grenade. So to keep his campaign promises of not increasing taxes on the middle class, he needed to keep some of the lower end tax cuts around...and the only way to do this was via a compromise with the right that the left won't like.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

One could as well say the waxing and waning of government policies is likewise a product of these changes.

I'll see your trend and raise you a meta-trend. :)

They are definitely intertwined. I just think people tend to think people overemphasize the role government has in things happening. A whole lot of stuff was going to happen regardless of what government does or doesn't do.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I don't think being Obama's centrist positions are 'desperate'...but usually rather pragmatic.

It is pragmatic, but one has to ask, to what end? Granting that the people who actually believed he was a Raging Muslin Socialist!!!1!, on either the left or the right, were either idiots or dupes, what IS true is he stood up there and said "vote for me because I'm not those guys." And what we got was:

+ continuing to fight the wars at the same level
+ re-upping the Patriot Act without modification
+ financial "reform" written by the financial industry
+ official policy of cowering to bigots on gays
+ continuing the Bush tax holiday for the wealthy

This all makes me ask: how exactly IS he better than the other guys? Does it really come down to "we haven't started a third war in Iran"? Are we supposed to just be thankful that Miss Self-Pity isn't VP?

Is the bar really that low at this point?

Not only is this not a Revolution, it isn't even a Return to Normalcy. We're still waist deep in the Cheney swamp, only now it's the Cheney-Obama swamp and even partisan opposition to it has been neutralized. This administration governs to the right of Bush Senior.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I think this is quite correct and I agree the cultural preparation of that period contributed to what came afterwards. The Capital C Catholic intellectual tradition balances personal fulfillment and freedom with social obligation and understands a better world doesn't just make itself. But I would think that -- I come from the same tradition. :)

I think I grew up in the middle of the shift.

I remember there being huge differences in teaching between say, 2nd grade and 7th grade religion classes as far as doctrine and the like. Part of that was changing schools, to be sure, but even before then the trend was away from the traditional Catholic guilt trip (original sin, penance, etc.) and more towards the happy go lucky buddy jesus types (christ, confession isn't even called confession anymore. It's Reconciliation).
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I don't think being Obama's centrist positions are 'desperate'...but usually rather pragmatic. I think he truly believes that he's taking the best course of action based on individual situations regardless of party affiliation. There's just not much Karl Rove in the approach.

Ah, yeah, I thought after I typed it that desperate was probably very much the wrong word. Still, I really do think that Obama believes that by golly if he can just talk to people, they'll be automatically talked into his position. I think that's silly, and quite naive.

However, if you think he thinks he's taking the best course of action, why has that course of action deviated from what he promised he would do?
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I think I grew up in the middle of the shift.

I remember there being huge differences in teaching between say, 2nd grade and 7th grade religion classes as far as doctrine and the like. Part of that was changing schools, to be sure, but even before then the trend was away from the traditional Catholic guilt trip (original sin, penance, etc.) and more towards the happy go lucky buddy jesus types (christ, confession isn't even called confession anymore. It's Reconciliation).

buddy+jesus.jpg
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Having said that...there may be some maneuvering in the tax compromise. I would imagine the Dems don't have the votes to do what they want regarding this...and just letting them expire might be a political hand grenade. So to keep his campaign promises of not increasing taxes on the middle class, he needed to keep some of the lower end tax cuts around...and the only way to do this was via a compromise with the right that the left won't like.

That's just it, though. He should be going on the offense on this one. He was keeping his campaign promise; the GOP was blocking it. So let them block it, and make them defend raising taxes on the middle class in order to protect the wealthiest 2%. In the meantime, you're also helping shore up the budget.

For the love of god - this country voted for gridlock. But if Obama keeps rolling over on **** like this, we might as well have a GOP president in the White House.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Another effort to make Obama out as a centrist and not pushing liberal causes.:eek:
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I didn't vote for him. We may as well still have Bush in office.

I don't think being Obama's centrist positions are 'desperate'...but usually rather pragmatic. I think he truly believes that he's taking the best course of action based on individual situations regardless of party affiliation. There's just not much Karl Rove in the approach.

Having said that...there may be some maneuvering in the tax compromise. I would imagine the Dems don't have the votes to do what they want regarding this...and just letting them expire might be a political hand grenade. So to keep his campaign promises of not increasing taxes on the middle class, he needed to keep some of the lower end tax cuts around...and the only way to do this was via a compromise with the right that the left won't like.

Please. :rolleyes:

Just put more burden on my kids. Thanks Mr. President.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It is pragmatic, but one has to ask, to what end? Granting that the people who actually believed he was a Raging Muslin Socialist!!!1!, on either the left or the right, were either idiots or dupes, what IS true is he stood up there and said "vote for me because I'm not those guys." And what we got was:

+ continuing to fight the wars at the same level
+ re-upping the Patriot Act without modification
+ financial "reform" written by the financial industry
+ official policy of cowering to bigots on gays
+ continuing the Bush tax holiday for the wealthy

This all makes me ask: how exactly IS he better than the other guys? Does it really come down to "we haven't started a third war in Iran"? Are we supposed to just be thankful that Miss Self-Pity isn't VP?

Is the bar really that low at this point?

Not only is this not a Revolution, it isn't even a Return to Normalcy. We're still waist deep in the Cheney swamp, only now it's the Cheney-Obama swamp and even partisan opposition to it has been neutralized. This administration governs to the right of Bush Senior.

For the most part I agree, esp with the part about overseas and military shenanagans. Yet a part of this IMO is not a bad approach (no, not the part where he appears that he's trying to appease conservatives).

The economy has been in the toilet and I for one am happy for legislation has been business friendly and that the govt didn't stop spending when everyone else did. Having said that, now is the right time to address your list...but will it be too late with the shift in congress?
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Scooby arguing with 5mn that Obama is even more conservative than 5mn is claiming. Hilarious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top