New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Liberals creating class war and encouraging the choice of poverty

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
The effort to improve the lives of millions started in the early 60s. You say it was meant to buy votes. Do you have evidence that that was the intent? I assume it was to help people. Do people then vote for the party that makes their lives better? Sometimes...sometimes they vote republican.

Yes, because everyone knows new big government initiatives go from legislation to full operation in weeks, not years. So, in your infinite logic - 1. what was the cause of the steep decline prior to its enactment and 2. why would the "Great Society" legislation work so well in its first three years and then, well, suddenly stop working?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Slackers like Gates, Buffet, the Wall family, and Trump with the help of the Republicans?

I agree.

BTW, who was to blame in the age of Feudalism? Who kept the slaves down here in America?

How about during the time of Christ?
Not libertarians. You are criticizing capitalism for something it had absolutely noting to do with. Unless, of course, you are suggesting Hitler, Stalin and Mao were "capitalists…"
 

redtide

Mayor
Would you apply the same principle to income inequality, and the government favoring the wealthy, and corporations?

And what was there about the Great Depression that was causing poverty to end?
income inequality is due to motivation inequality. true the government favors the wealthy which is why we need to eliminate the racist and hate based programs that have been imposed upon the poor that keep them poor. No more vote buying programs.
 

redtide

Mayor
Slackers like Gates, Buffet, the Wall family, and Trump with the help of the Republicans?

I agree.

BTW, who was to blame in the age of Feudalism? Who kept the slaves down here in America?

How about during the time of Christ?
You might not realize this but the history of this nation is a bit VOID of feudalism. When I refer to poverty as being a choice I am speaking of poverty in this nation as we are fortunate to live in a nation where by we determine our own destiny. In nations that were once or still are based upon feudalism it is extremely difficult to escape the station for which one is born.
 

freyasman

Senator
In the real world those that have much are the few, the poor are the many.

And the cure is not capitalism as the Scandinavian countries have proven. In America the capitalist system has led to income inequality, and more poverty. There is a balance, however, greed in this country has destroyed that balance.

“The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes."
Noah Webster

https://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

President Obama's State of the Union speech last week focused on America's severe and growing inequality, but he stopped short of repeating the Founding Fathers' many warnings that this condition could doom American democracy.

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches."
Utter bullshit.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-09/how-much-longer-will-middle-class-politely-tolerate-its-own-destruction
From the link;
"Intellectual condescension towards the middle class is so common it’s a cliché. What’s rare are attempts to go back in history and see things through the perspectives of that despised group and its progenitors, the poor.

In 1800, virtually everyone was poor, living under conditions of deprivation and grinding poverty. Even being wealthy was no picnic; present-day poverty-line Americans live better. Life expectancy was an estimated twenty-nine years. Farming, the occupation of most, was dangerous, backbreaking labor from dawn to dusk. Most of those so engaged eked out a tenuous subsistence. There was no electricity, no running water, primitive sanitation and health care, and none of the machinery, gadgets, and appliances we take for granted. Only a few wealthy poets who didn’t have to wrest a living from nature waxed euphoric about its “joys.”

As the nineteenth century progressed, primitive factories, mostly in cities, began producing goods of better quality, in more quantity, and at lower cost than had been possible by artisans handcrafting their wares. No doubt conditions in those factories were abysmal—long hours, pittance pay, child labor, dangerous and filthy conditions, and horrible accidents and injuries. All that has been well-chronicled and dramatized, but an important point gets overlooked. Bad as they were, the factories were a better option for those who worked in them than the farms from whence many of them came, or they would have stayed there.


Capitalism requires capital, and early industrialization provided profits to capitalize: more factories, further innovation, new inventions and industries, and eventually the astonishing burst of dynamic energy that became the Industrial Revolution. Each new generation of mines, factories, ships, trains, farms and other productive assets became less labor-intensive, produced higher average real wages, had lower percentages of child labor, and were less dangerous than their predecessors. Again, by present day standards most working conditions were still abysmal, but less so than what had preceded them. That was the relevant consideration for the millions of people who worked in Dickensian conditions: it was their best option, and better than anything they had previously known.

The nineteenth century produced more technological and scientific innovation that all the centuries before it combined. Societies don’t go from poor to rich overnight. However, real world conditions―opportunity, income, wealth, health, and overall quality of life―steadily improved. By 1900, life expectancy in the US was 46 years for males and 48 years for females, an unprecedented one-century increase.

Those who throw rocks at the Industrial Revolution, the period when America approached laissez faire capitalism, have to minimize or ignore one simple fact.

Millions of people braved the dangers of travel, the uncertainties of life in a new land, the difficulties of learning a new language, the prejudice and hostility they knew they would encounter, the daunting challenges of starting at the bottom, and the absence of government giveaways and freely chose to immigrate to the United States.

Sometimes the payoff was huge. Andrew Carnegie really did get off the boat with eleven cents in his pocket. Cyrus McCormack, John D. Rockefeller, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and other success stories came from impoverished or modest backgrounds and made multimillion dollar fortunes. The self-made businessman became the American archetype, fueling countless aspirations.

The emergent middle class was a cohesive force for political stability. The immigrants passed their memories of what they had escaped to their children and grandchildren. They embraced the reality and the promise of America based on their own fruitful experience. Life was good and would get even better, why rock the boat? Few noticed the thunderhead on the horizon.

That thunderhead was hate, directed not at America’s flaws and weaknesses, but at its virtues and strengths. The sacrifice, hard work, thrift, and ingenuity that had lifted millions from poverty was condemned as selfishness, blind ambition, and greed. The middle class that didn’t exist a century ago was materialistic, anti-intellectual, and spiritually impoverished. The unprecedented wealth America was producing was wrong because it was unequally distributed, or the most philanthropic and charitable people in history weren’t giving enough away.


You can guess where the hostility came from: the intellectuals who found what they peddled commanded little attention or respect, and would-be rulers in a nation with little desire to be ruled. The desire for autonomy, to be left alone, to be free to make one’s own decisions and live one’s own life, are the benchmarks of well-adjusted normalcy. The desires to tell or force other people what to do are the opposite, wellsprings of hate which are, depending on their intensity and quality, neurotic, sociopathic, or psychopathic.

That the middle class is now fighting for its life reflects two intellectual failures.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the intellectuals, political class, and many of the tycoons were pressing for expanded government, the income tax, central banking, and American interventionism and imperialism. The truisms that any expansion of the government’s power and resources would only reduce the people’s liberty and be funded with money stolen from them was overwhelmed by what’s become the standard propaganda: coercion is necessary to address some risk, danger, or “unacceptable” condition. There were no prominent voices connecting the prevalent peace, prosperity, and optimism with the era’s unprecedented personal freedom, nor arguing their essential inseparability.

The other failure: most “average” Americans simply couldn’t comprehend or even conceive of the hatred directed against them. Statism, whatever its variations, is never about doing something for people, it’s about doing something to them. Even now, with virulent vitriol and hatred on full display, much of it is minimized or rationalized by people who should know better. The corruption of the “middle-grounders” may run deeper than the statists and the collectivists, who at least no longer try to hide their agenda and acknowledge that freedom cannot coexist with the unlimited governmental power they covet.

When somebody claims that your life is their property, they’re telling you that they have the right to do with it what they will, which includes killing you. All manner of statist belladonna reached full florescence in the twentieth century—socialism, communism, nazism, fascism, welfare statism, cronyism, kleptocracy, kakistocracy—and the murder, genocide, and war have been orders of magnitude greater than anything that preceded it.

You shall know them by their works. The thing that statism does best to people is kill them; the record is clear and unmistakable. Anyone now promoting more of the same is simply evil. Only unmitigated hatred accounts for the particular antipathy directed towards the middle class: their values, their prosperity, and their predominate race (white) and religion (Christianity)."
 

OldTrapper

Council Member
Utter bullshit.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-09/how-much-longer-will-middle-class-politely-tolerate-its-own-destruction



That the middle class is now fighting for its life reflects two intellectual failures.

The other failure: most “average” Americans simply couldn’t comprehend or even conceive of the hatred directed against them. Statism, whatever its variations, is never about doing something for people, it’s about doing something to them. Even now, with virulent vitriol and hatred on full display, much of it is minimized or rationalized by people who should know better. The corruption of the “middle-grounders” may run deeper than the statists and the collectivists, who at least no longer try to hide their agenda and acknowledge that freedom cannot coexist with the unlimited governmental power they covet.
Do you even bother to read, or try to comprehend, what you are responding to? NOTHING in the article you posted refutes what I said. In fact, it supports it. Yet fools like you think posting something, anything, and then pretending that it says what it does not say, is an adequate rebuke.
 

freyasman

Senator
Do you even bother to read, or try to comprehend, what you are responding to? NOTHING in the article you posted refutes what I said. In fact, it supports it. Yet fools like you think posting something, anything, and then pretending that it says what it does not say, is an adequate rebuke.
I disagree.
 

OldTrapper

Council Member
You might not realize this but the history of this nation is a bit VOID of feudalism. When I refer to poverty as being a choice I am speaking of poverty in this nation as we are fortunate to live in a nation where by we determine our own destiny. In nations that were once or still are based upon feudalism it is extremely difficult to escape the station for which one is born.

You might not realize it but upward mobility is rapidly disappearing in America today, and the form of "feudalism" is returning. This is a direct result of income inequality:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-mobility-america/491240/
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
You really don't get it do you? Doctor bills should be covered by insurance, you should be paying a mortgage not rent, college is not a feel good thing but requirement like the previous 2 items.
College is not a requirement. Ask Bill Gates.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
The effort to improve the lives of millions started in the early 60s. You say it was meant to buy votes. Do you have evidence that that was the intent? I assume it was to help people. Do people then vote for the party that makes their lives better? Sometimes...sometimes they vote republican.

There were no efforts to improve the lives of millions prior to the 1960s? I call BS on that.
 

redtide

Mayor
Would you apply the same principle to income inequality, and the government favoring the wealthy, and corporations?

And what was there about the Great Depression that was causing poverty to end?
the liberal racist programs are designed to keep the poor, poor and voting for them. It makes me sick when I hear liberals or their leaders crying about income inequality when it is they themselves who are making it this way
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Utter bullshit.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-09/how-much-longer-will-middle-class-politely-tolerate-its-own-destruction
From the link;
"Intellectual condescension towards the middle class is so common it’s a cliché. What’s rare are attempts to go back in history and see things through the perspectives of that despised group and its progenitors, the poor.

In 1800, virtually everyone was poor, living under conditions of deprivation and grinding poverty. Even being wealthy was no picnic; present-day poverty-line Americans live better. Life expectancy was an estimated twenty-nine years. Farming, the occupation of most, was dangerous, backbreaking labor from dawn to dusk. Most of those so engaged eked out a tenuous subsistence. There was no electricity, no running water, primitive sanitation and health care, and none of the machinery, gadgets, and appliances we take for granted. Only a few wealthy poets who didn’t have to wrest a living from nature waxed euphoric about its “joys.”

As the nineteenth century progressed, primitive factories, mostly in cities, began producing goods of better quality, in more quantity, and at lower cost than had been possible by artisans handcrafting their wares. No doubt conditions in those factories were abysmal—long hours, pittance pay, child labor, dangerous and filthy conditions, and horrible accidents and injuries. All that has been well-chronicled and dramatized, but an important point gets overlooked. Bad as they were, the factories were a better option for those who worked in them than the farms from whence many of them came, or they would have stayed there.


Capitalism requires capital, and early industrialization provided profits to capitalize: more factories, further innovation, new inventions and industries, and eventually the astonishing burst of dynamic energy that became the Industrial Revolution. Each new generation of mines, factories, ships, trains, farms and other productive assets became less labor-intensive, produced higher average real wages, had lower percentages of child labor, and were less dangerous than their predecessors. Again, by present day standards most working conditions were still abysmal, but less so than what had preceded them. That was the relevant consideration for the millions of people who worked in Dickensian conditions: it was their best option, and better than anything they had previously known.

The nineteenth century produced more technological and scientific innovation that all the centuries before it combined. Societies don’t go from poor to rich overnight. However, real world conditions―opportunity, income, wealth, health, and overall quality of life―steadily improved. By 1900, life expectancy in the US was 46 years for males and 48 years for females, an unprecedented one-century increase.

Those who throw rocks at the Industrial Revolution, the period when America approached laissez faire capitalism, have to minimize or ignore one simple fact.

Millions of people braved the dangers of travel, the uncertainties of life in a new land, the difficulties of learning a new language, the prejudice and hostility they knew they would encounter, the daunting challenges of starting at the bottom, and the absence of government giveaways and freely chose to immigrate to the United States.

Sometimes the payoff was huge. Andrew Carnegie really did get off the boat with eleven cents in his pocket. Cyrus McCormack, John D. Rockefeller, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and other success stories came from impoverished or modest backgrounds and made multimillion dollar fortunes. The self-made businessman became the American archetype, fueling countless aspirations.

The emergent middle class was a cohesive force for political stability. The immigrants passed their memories of what they had escaped to their children and grandchildren. They embraced the reality and the promise of America based on their own fruitful experience. Life was good and would get even better, why rock the boat? Few noticed the thunderhead on the horizon.

That thunderhead was hate, directed not at America’s flaws and weaknesses, but at its virtues and strengths. The sacrifice, hard work, thrift, and ingenuity that had lifted millions from poverty was condemned as selfishness, blind ambition, and greed. The middle class that didn’t exist a century ago was materialistic, anti-intellectual, and spiritually impoverished. The unprecedented wealth America was producing was wrong because it was unequally distributed, or the most philanthropic and charitable people in history weren’t giving enough away.


You can guess where the hostility came from: the intellectuals who found what they peddled commanded little attention or respect, and would-be rulers in a nation with little desire to be ruled. The desire for autonomy, to be left alone, to be free to make one’s own decisions and live one’s own life, are the benchmarks of well-adjusted normalcy. The desires to tell or force other people what to do are the opposite, wellsprings of hate which are, depending on their intensity and quality, neurotic, sociopathic, or psychopathic.

That the middle class is now fighting for its life reflects two intellectual failures.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the intellectuals, political class, and many of the tycoons were pressing for expanded government, the income tax, central banking, and American interventionism and imperialism. The truisms that any expansion of the government’s power and resources would only reduce the people’s liberty and be funded with money stolen from them was overwhelmed by what’s become the standard propaganda: coercion is necessary to address some risk, danger, or “unacceptable” condition. There were no prominent voices connecting the prevalent peace, prosperity, and optimism with the era’s unprecedented personal freedom, nor arguing their essential inseparability.

The other failure: most “average” Americans simply couldn’t comprehend or even conceive of the hatred directed against them. Statism, whatever its variations, is never about doing something for people, it’s about doing something to them. Even now, with virulent vitriol and hatred on full display, much of it is minimized or rationalized by people who should know better. The corruption of the “middle-grounders” may run deeper than the statists and the collectivists, who at least no longer try to hide their agenda and acknowledge that freedom cannot coexist with the unlimited governmental power they covet.

When somebody claims that your life is their property, they’re telling you that they have the right to do with it what they will, which includes killing you. All manner of statist belladonna reached full florescence in the twentieth century—socialism, communism, nazism, fascism, welfare statism, cronyism, kleptocracy, kakistocracy—and the murder, genocide, and war have been orders of magnitude greater than anything that preceded it.

You shall know them by their works. The thing that statism does best to people is kill them; the record is clear and unmistakable. Anyone now promoting more of the same is simply evil. Only unmitigated hatred accounts for the particular antipathy directed towards the middle class: their values, their prosperity, and their predominate race (white) and religion (Christianity)."
Bad as they were, the factories were a better option for those who worked in them than the farms from whence many of them came, or they would have stayed there.

Precisely! The lefties seem perplexed by this simple logic. I guess it's because their (Marxist) ideology requires so much forced labor to "succeed" that they can't understand the concept of willingly subjecting yourself to grueling effort and personal danger in order to secure a better future for your progeny. Of course, the fact that their preferred system obviates the concept of a "better future" entirely probably contributes to their confusion...
 

OldTrapper

Council Member

OldTrapper

Council Member
Bad as they were, the factories were a better option for those who worked in them than the farms from whence many of them came, or they would have stayed there.

Precisely! The lefties seem perplexed by this simple logic. I guess it's because their (Marxist) ideology requires so much forced labor to "succeed" that they can't understand the concept of willingly subjecting yourself to grueling effort and personal danger in order to secure a better future for your progeny. Of course, the fact that their preferred system obviates the concept of a "better future" entirely probably contributes to their confusion...
Where it is tried it works. The system we have here now, crony capitalism, and corporatism, devoting itself to a Plutocracy, or Oligarchy, is failing the majority of the people. Of course, your kind has been on its knees in front of the likes of Trump for so long that you have lost the ability to act like, or think like, a man. One of the reasons the Founders of the country fled Europe was the reason why the country is failing now. They warned against establishing an aristocracy, you welcome it.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

https://www.thenation.com/article/thomas-jefferson-feared-aristocracy-corporations/

But you are too stupid, and subservient, to see it.
 
Last edited:
Top