- This topic has 270 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
Bob.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 13, 2009 at 3:36 PM #398937May 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM #398267
CoronitaParticipant[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.
there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example.[/quote]I’m actually familiar with that part of story. Yes, the cultural revolution makes the country poorer (which happens to almost all revolution as it is a destructive force). But the lower/middle class’ status actually improves during the cultural revolution. The income gap is very small at that time and public service offering is at its peak. Any poor student can ride a train to Beijing to see Chairman Mao for free at that time, if they want…lunch/dinner provided.
The worker might get paid at only $10/month but the CEO are getting paid at $20/month. Besides, what’s the difference do money make? Everyone bought their essentials (food, clothes) with quota. It is not like when you have money you can buy imported wine.
[/quote]Um… Chairman Mao is rolling in his grave now…I think even China admits (*ok, almost admits, because they never admit anything wrong*) the Cultural Revolution was a mistake.
And last time i checked, the disparity between the peasants in China and the ultra wealthy was pretty big….
May 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM #398518CoronitaParticipant[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.
there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example.[/quote]I’m actually familiar with that part of story. Yes, the cultural revolution makes the country poorer (which happens to almost all revolution as it is a destructive force). But the lower/middle class’ status actually improves during the cultural revolution. The income gap is very small at that time and public service offering is at its peak. Any poor student can ride a train to Beijing to see Chairman Mao for free at that time, if they want…lunch/dinner provided.
The worker might get paid at only $10/month but the CEO are getting paid at $20/month. Besides, what’s the difference do money make? Everyone bought their essentials (food, clothes) with quota. It is not like when you have money you can buy imported wine.
[/quote]Um… Chairman Mao is rolling in his grave now…I think even China admits (*ok, almost admits, because they never admit anything wrong*) the Cultural Revolution was a mistake.
And last time i checked, the disparity between the peasants in China and the ultra wealthy was pretty big….
May 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM #398744CoronitaParticipant[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.
there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example.[/quote]I’m actually familiar with that part of story. Yes, the cultural revolution makes the country poorer (which happens to almost all revolution as it is a destructive force). But the lower/middle class’ status actually improves during the cultural revolution. The income gap is very small at that time and public service offering is at its peak. Any poor student can ride a train to Beijing to see Chairman Mao for free at that time, if they want…lunch/dinner provided.
The worker might get paid at only $10/month but the CEO are getting paid at $20/month. Besides, what’s the difference do money make? Everyone bought their essentials (food, clothes) with quota. It is not like when you have money you can buy imported wine.
[/quote]Um… Chairman Mao is rolling in his grave now…I think even China admits (*ok, almost admits, because they never admit anything wrong*) the Cultural Revolution was a mistake.
And last time i checked, the disparity between the peasants in China and the ultra wealthy was pretty big….
May 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM #398803CoronitaParticipant[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.
there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example.[/quote]I’m actually familiar with that part of story. Yes, the cultural revolution makes the country poorer (which happens to almost all revolution as it is a destructive force). But the lower/middle class’ status actually improves during the cultural revolution. The income gap is very small at that time and public service offering is at its peak. Any poor student can ride a train to Beijing to see Chairman Mao for free at that time, if they want…lunch/dinner provided.
The worker might get paid at only $10/month but the CEO are getting paid at $20/month. Besides, what’s the difference do money make? Everyone bought their essentials (food, clothes) with quota. It is not like when you have money you can buy imported wine.
[/quote]Um… Chairman Mao is rolling in his grave now…I think even China admits (*ok, almost admits, because they never admit anything wrong*) the Cultural Revolution was a mistake.
And last time i checked, the disparity between the peasants in China and the ultra wealthy was pretty big….
May 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM #398947CoronitaParticipant[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.
there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example.[/quote]I’m actually familiar with that part of story. Yes, the cultural revolution makes the country poorer (which happens to almost all revolution as it is a destructive force). But the lower/middle class’ status actually improves during the cultural revolution. The income gap is very small at that time and public service offering is at its peak. Any poor student can ride a train to Beijing to see Chairman Mao for free at that time, if they want…lunch/dinner provided.
The worker might get paid at only $10/month but the CEO are getting paid at $20/month. Besides, what’s the difference do money make? Everyone bought their essentials (food, clothes) with quota. It is not like when you have money you can buy imported wine.
[/quote]Um… Chairman Mao is rolling in his grave now…I think even China admits (*ok, almost admits, because they never admit anything wrong*) the Cultural Revolution was a mistake.
And last time i checked, the disparity between the peasants in China and the ultra wealthy was pretty big….
May 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM #398312blahblahblah
ParticipantDespite what Obamanator wants you to believe, the banks are surely not the *only* guilty party in this economic fiasco.
Middle class americans lied,cheated, and atm’d to hell their homes to support a lifestyle they couldn’t afford.
Yep, both true. Now let me propose an analogy. The government institutes a new program to increase efficient use of our roadways — rather than have stop signs and signals which unnecessarily impede the flow of traffic, the government removes all signals, stop signs, and speed limits from the roads. Drivers will now be in control of their own movement — they will need to look carefully both ways before proceeding, of course, and drive only within their own abilities.
When the bodies start piling up and the roads are full of wrecked cars and bleeding wounded, the radio waves will be full of conservative commentators bloviating about irresponsible drivers! It’s all the fault of those irresponsible drivers. They should know that they need to drive carefully — whatever happens to them is their fault!
Not a perfect analogy, but basically the government has been dismantling all of the regulatory mechanisms that could have prevented this housing bubble for the last 30 years or so, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Why are we surprised at the result?
May 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM #398563ParticipantDespite what Obamanator wants you to believe, the banks are surely not the *only* guilty party in this economic fiasco.
Middle class americans lied,cheated, and atm’d to hell their homes to support a lifestyle they couldn’t afford.
Yep, both true. Now let me propose an analogy. The government institutes a new program to increase efficient use of our roadways — rather than have stop signs and signals which unnecessarily impede the flow of traffic, the government removes all signals, stop signs, and speed limits from the roads. Drivers will now be in control of their own movement — they will need to look carefully both ways before proceeding, of course, and drive only within their own abilities.
When the bodies start piling up and the roads are full of wrecked cars and bleeding wounded, the radio waves will be full of conservative commentators bloviating about irresponsible drivers! It’s all the fault of those irresponsible drivers. They should know that they need to drive carefully — whatever happens to them is their fault!
Not a perfect analogy, but basically the government has been dismantling all of the regulatory mechanisms that could have prevented this housing bubble for the last 30 years or so, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Why are we surprised at the result?
May 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM #398789ParticipantDespite what Obamanator wants you to believe, the banks are surely not the *only* guilty party in this economic fiasco.
Middle class americans lied,cheated, and atm’d to hell their homes to support a lifestyle they couldn’t afford.
Yep, both true. Now let me propose an analogy. The government institutes a new program to increase efficient use of our roadways — rather than have stop signs and signals which unnecessarily impede the flow of traffic, the government removes all signals, stop signs, and speed limits from the roads. Drivers will now be in control of their own movement — they will need to look carefully both ways before proceeding, of course, and drive only within their own abilities.
When the bodies start piling up and the roads are full of wrecked cars and bleeding wounded, the radio waves will be full of conservative commentators bloviating about irresponsible drivers! It’s all the fault of those irresponsible drivers. They should know that they need to drive carefully — whatever happens to them is their fault!
Not a perfect analogy, but basically the government has been dismantling all of the regulatory mechanisms that could have prevented this housing bubble for the last 30 years or so, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Why are we surprised at the result?
May 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM #398848ParticipantDespite what Obamanator wants you to believe, the banks are surely not the *only* guilty party in this economic fiasco.
Middle class americans lied,cheated, and atm’d to hell their homes to support a lifestyle they couldn’t afford.
Yep, both true. Now let me propose an analogy. The government institutes a new program to increase efficient use of our roadways — rather than have stop signs and signals which unnecessarily impede the flow of traffic, the government removes all signals, stop signs, and speed limits from the roads. Drivers will now be in control of their own movement — they will need to look carefully both ways before proceeding, of course, and drive only within their own abilities.
When the bodies start piling up and the roads are full of wrecked cars and bleeding wounded, the radio waves will be full of conservative commentators bloviating about irresponsible drivers! It’s all the fault of those irresponsible drivers. They should know that they need to drive carefully — whatever happens to them is their fault!
Not a perfect analogy, but basically the government has been dismantling all of the regulatory mechanisms that could have prevented this housing bubble for the last 30 years or so, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Why are we surprised at the result?
May 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM #398992ParticipantDespite what Obamanator wants you to believe, the banks are surely not the *only* guilty party in this economic fiasco.
Middle class americans lied,cheated, and atm’d to hell their homes to support a lifestyle they couldn’t afford.
Yep, both true. Now let me propose an analogy. The government institutes a new program to increase efficient use of our roadways — rather than have stop signs and signals which unnecessarily impede the flow of traffic, the government removes all signals, stop signs, and speed limits from the roads. Drivers will now be in control of their own movement — they will need to look carefully both ways before proceeding, of course, and drive only within their own abilities.
When the bodies start piling up and the roads are full of wrecked cars and bleeding wounded, the radio waves will be full of conservative commentators bloviating about irresponsible drivers! It’s all the fault of those irresponsible drivers. They should know that they need to drive carefully — whatever happens to them is their fault!
Not a perfect analogy, but basically the government has been dismantling all of the regulatory mechanisms that could have prevented this housing bubble for the last 30 years or so, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Why are we surprised at the result?
May 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM #398327an
Participant[quote=CONCHO]Despite what Obamanator wants you to believe, the banks are surely not the *only* guilty party in this economic fiasco.
Middle class americans lied,cheated, and atm’d to hell their homes to support a lifestyle they couldn’t afford.
Yep, both true. Now let me propose an analogy. The government institutes a new program to increase efficient use of our roadways — rather than have stop signs and signals which unnecessarily impede the flow of traffic, the government removes all signals, stop signs, and speed limits from the roads. Drivers will now be in control of their own movement — they will need to look carefully both ways before proceeding, of course, and drive only within their own abilities.
When the bodies start piling up and the roads are full of wrecked cars and bleeding wounded, the radio waves will be full of conservative commentators bloviating about irresponsible drivers! It’s all the fault of those irresponsible drivers. They should know that they need to drive carefully — whatever happens to them is their fault!
Not a perfect analogy, but basically the government has been dismantling all of the regulatory mechanisms that could have prevented this housing bubble for the last 30 years or so, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Why are we surprised at the result?[/quote]
You forgot one critical element. Before, the car dealership/seller would only sell cars to those who can actually drive. The buyer would have to prove to them that they’re responsible drivers. But the government step in and force these car dealership to sell cars to anyone who has a breath. If your dealership don’t want to sell car to everyone, that’s fine, the government just set up their own dealership and sell cars to people you wouldn’t dare sell cars to.May 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM #398578Participant[quote=CONCHO]Despite what Obamanator wants you to believe, the banks are surely not the *only* guilty party in this economic fiasco.
Middle class americans lied,cheated, and atm’d to hell their homes to support a lifestyle they couldn’t afford.
Yep, both true. Now let me propose an analogy. The government institutes a new program to increase efficient use of our roadways — rather than have stop signs and signals which unnecessarily impede the flow of traffic, the government removes all signals, stop signs, and speed limits from the roads. Drivers will now be in control of their own movement — they will need to look carefully both ways before proceeding, of course, and drive only within their own abilities.
When the bodies start piling up and the roads are full of wrecked cars and bleeding wounded, the radio waves will be full of conservative commentators bloviating about irresponsible drivers! It’s all the fault of those irresponsible drivers. They should know that they need to drive carefully — whatever happens to them is their fault!
Not a perfect analogy, but basically the government has been dismantling all of the regulatory mechanisms that could have prevented this housing bubble for the last 30 years or so, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Why are we surprised at the result?[/quote]
You forgot one critical element. Before, the car dealership/seller would only sell cars to those who can actually drive. The buyer would have to prove to them that they’re responsible drivers. But the government step in and force these car dealership to sell cars to anyone who has a breath. If your dealership don’t want to sell car to everyone, that’s fine, the government just set up their own dealership and sell cars to people you wouldn’t dare sell cars to.May 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM #398804Participant[quote=CONCHO]Despite what Obamanator wants you to believe, the banks are surely not the *only* guilty party in this economic fiasco.
Middle class americans lied,cheated, and atm’d to hell their homes to support a lifestyle they couldn’t afford.
Yep, both true. Now let me propose an analogy. The government institutes a new program to increase efficient use of our roadways — rather than have stop signs and signals which unnecessarily impede the flow of traffic, the government removes all signals, stop signs, and speed limits from the roads. Drivers will now be in control of their own movement — they will need to look carefully both ways before proceeding, of course, and drive only within their own abilities.
When the bodies start piling up and the roads are full of wrecked cars and bleeding wounded, the radio waves will be full of conservative commentators bloviating about irresponsible drivers! It’s all the fault of those irresponsible drivers. They should know that they need to drive carefully — whatever happens to them is their fault!
Not a perfect analogy, but basically the government has been dismantling all of the regulatory mechanisms that could have prevented this housing bubble for the last 30 years or so, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Why are we surprised at the result?[/quote]
You forgot one critical element. Before, the car dealership/seller would only sell cars to those who can actually drive. The buyer would have to prove to them that they’re responsible drivers. But the government step in and force these car dealership to sell cars to anyone who has a breath. If your dealership don’t want to sell car to everyone, that’s fine, the government just set up their own dealership and sell cars to people you wouldn’t dare sell cars to.May 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM #398863Participant[quote=CONCHO]Despite what Obamanator wants you to believe, the banks are surely not the *only* guilty party in this economic fiasco.
Middle class americans lied,cheated, and atm’d to hell their homes to support a lifestyle they couldn’t afford.
Yep, both true. Now let me propose an analogy. The government institutes a new program to increase efficient use of our roadways — rather than have stop signs and signals which unnecessarily impede the flow of traffic, the government removes all signals, stop signs, and speed limits from the roads. Drivers will now be in control of their own movement — they will need to look carefully both ways before proceeding, of course, and drive only within their own abilities.
When the bodies start piling up and the roads are full of wrecked cars and bleeding wounded, the radio waves will be full of conservative commentators bloviating about irresponsible drivers! It’s all the fault of those irresponsible drivers. They should know that they need to drive carefully — whatever happens to them is their fault!
Not a perfect analogy, but basically the government has been dismantling all of the regulatory mechanisms that could have prevented this housing bubble for the last 30 years or so, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Why are we surprised at the result?[/quote]
You forgot one critical element. Before, the car dealership/seller would only sell cars to those who can actually drive. The buyer would have to prove to them that they’re responsible drivers. But the government step in and force these car dealership to sell cars to anyone who has a breath. If your dealership don’t want to sell car to everyone, that’s fine, the government just set up their own dealership and sell cars to people you wouldn’t dare sell cars to. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.