Income inequality at an all time high

[Sstashmoo]

MamaJackson wrote: "I would have rather seen Pres. Obama follow through on his campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA to fair trade than the Health Care reform. Health Care reform is needed, but not as much as fixing the NAFTA agreement."

MamaJackson, to the head of the class.

[ccbatson]

Real health care reform, like real SS reform involves a gradual phasing out of the socialist entitlements in favor of capitalism. If this is the context of the argument [[and it should be), then I am all for reform.

[Lorax]

Bravo, Gistok- things I've been saying for years. It's obvious CC has never been to Europe, for if he went with his eyes open, and his mind [[choke), then he would be forced to realize how much better organized and altruistic the socialized democracies of western Europe really are.

[ccbatson]

Absolutely I agree, European socialism is altruistic. Altruism however, is a tremendous social evil as it requires an individual to sacrifice him or herself for the benefit and use of someone else. Once that is a possibility, slavery is inevitable over time. Not the blatant slavery of pre abolitionist America, slavery whereby the state, the collective owns the individual philosophically.

The antithesis of liberty and freedom which is the foundation of American exceptionalism.

[Lorax]

Absolutely I agree, European socialism is altruistic. Altruism however, is a tremendous social evil as it requires an individual to sacrifice him or herself for the benefit and use of someone else. Once that is a possibility, slavery is inevitable over time. Not the blatant slavery of pre abolitionist America, slavery whereby the state, the collective owns the individual philosophically.

The antithesis of liberty and freedom which is the foundation of American exceptionalism.

American exceptionalism is an evil concept, proven to be the foundation for the Gordon Gekkos of this world- greed, avarice, crookedness, death of the human spirit.

Altruism is actually what religion used to stand for before the Christian Fascists co-opted Jesus and his message. Just ask Erik Prince who is quoted as saying his purpose in being is to kill all Muslims, and instructed his Blackwater mercenaries to do so. Our evil president Tush, head of the Bush Crime Family ordered these mercenaries to kill at will.

So much for your premise, shot to hell, yet again.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Altruism is actually what religion used to stand for before the Christian Fascists co-opted Jesus and his message. Just ask Erik Prince who is quoted as saying his purpose in being is to kill all Muslims, and instructed his Blackwater mercenaries to do so. Our evil president Tush, head of the Bush Crime Family ordered these mercenaries to kill at will."

Bush also lit a Menora every year, any hatred for the Jews? He also wore a flag on his lapel and urged others to do the same, ready to burn the American flag? Or will you just halt your imbecilic reasoning at Christianity? Ready to throw the masses under the bus due to the actions of a few. Bushesque very Bushesque.

[Lorax]

Quote: "Altruism is actually what religion used to stand for before the Christian Fascists co-opted Jesus and his message. Just ask Erik Prince who is quoted as saying his purpose in being is to kill all Muslims, and instructed his Blackwater mercenaries to do so. Our evil president Tush, head of the Bush Crime Family ordered these mercenaries to kill at will."

Bush also lit a Menora every year, any hatred for the Jews? He also wore a flag on his lapel and urged others to do the same, ready to burn the American flag? Or will you just halt your imbecilic reasoning at Christianity?

And what of what I posted above is untrue?

The only imbicillic reasoning is yours. Not realizing how all religion and it's basic precepts have been co opted by thugs is blind on your part.

What do you call the Taliban? Or the Christian Fascists like Prince?

Open your eyes.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: " Not realizing how all religion and it's basic precepts have been co opted by thugs is blind on your part.
"
What in the hell are you talking about?

Quote: "Open your eyes."

Be more like you? [[Laughing wildly)

[Lorax]

Quote: " Not realizing how all religion and it's basic precepts have been co opted by thugs is blind on your part.
"
What in the hell are you talking about?

Quote: "Open your eyes."

Be more like you? [[Laughing wildly)

Keep grinning, you're being fooled again.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Keep grinning, you're being fooled again."

Oh yeah? Please explain.

[Bobl]

MamaJackson wrote: "I would have rather seen Pres. Obama follow through on his campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA to fair trade than the Health Care reform. Health Care reform is needed, but not as much as fixing the NAFTA agreement."

MamaJackson, to the head of the class.

Yes. We need both, now.

[Lorax]

Quote: "Keep grinning, you're being fooled again."

Oh yeah? Please explain.

Let me see, let's try this on for size:


http://newsmutiny.com/pages/HandicappedProtest.htm

Or perhaps this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shanny...21.html?page=8

Or perhaps this:

http://christianpeoplesalliance.com/

Or perhaps this:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/13400...itual_warfare/

And all I will ask you to do is read the titles of the articles, or perhpas, if you are so inclined, the first line or two, and if you think as well as breathe, you may get it.

[Sstashmoo]

If that's all the dirt you can find on 240 million Americans, I'd say Christianity is the way. See what you and yours fail to realize, we Christians don't worship other men. There are some bad folks or confused folks doing things in the name of Christianity, or it's being presented that way, taken out of context. Keep in mind, the media loves to discredit Jesus and his followers any way they possibly can. Think the media won't twist things and out right lie? Guess again. And of the above sources only one is marginally credible. And that was written by a "girl from homer" Wherever that is. Some Credentials.

You have failed once again.

[ghettopalmetto]

If that's all the dirt you can find on 240 million Americans, I'd say Christianity is the way. See what you and yours fail to realize, we Christians don't worship other men.

Don't include me in your 240 million. Any faith where any person can get a soapbox, ordain himself a "minister" and preach whatever cracked-out interpretation of the Bible he wishes, is not a faith in my opinion.

If "Christianity" is the way, as you claim, please explain why the Protestant factions found it necessary to split from the Church.

[Jimaz]

Rise of the Super-Rich Hits a Sobering Wall

The rich have been getting richer for so long that the trend has come to seem almost permanent.

They began to pull away from everyone else in the 1970s. By 2006, income was more concentrated at the top than it had been since the late 1920s. The recent news about resurgent Wall Street pay has seemed to suggest that not even the Great Recession could reverse the rise in income inequality.

But economists say — and data is beginning to show — that a significant change may in fact be under way. The rich, as a group, are no longer getting richer. Over the last two years, they have become poorer. And many may not return to their old levels of wealth and income anytime soon....

I suppose they'll have to start making a constructive contribution to society for a change, assuming they're even capable of doing that.

[Lorax]

If that's all the dirt you can find on 240 million Americans, I'd say Christianity is the way. See what you and yours fail to realize, we Christians don't worship other men. There are some bad folks or confused folks doing things in the name of Christianity, or it's being presented that way, taken out of context. Keep in mind, the media loves to discredit Jesus and his followers any way they possibly can. Think the media won't twist things and out right lie? Guess again. And of the above sources only one is marginally credible. And that was written by a "girl from homer" Wherever that is. Some Credentials.

You have failed once again.

LOL!!!!

Perhaps in your own mind.

I can provide thousands of similar examples, you know they are out there. How about Fred Phelps, the uber-Christian protester who goes around with his grandkids protesting the funerals of dead GI's, saying they support homosexuality by dying for a homosexual federal government?

You say you don't worship a man? What was Jesus? All religion is man-created, and developed first as a personality cult. In an age when we have science to explain why the sun goes away at night, many of the reasons for religion's existence is becoming irrelevant. This is not a slam, only an observation. Religion served a great purpose when lack of education was the order of the day. Now with many of the world's mysteries answered, much of what religion sought to accomplish in bringing order to a chaotic human view of the world is no longer relevant.

Back to Fred Phelps- he's emblamatic of the view of ALL organized religions of the world, that homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic characteristic, which science has proven. If religion can't drop the phony outrage over this genetic condition, then they haven't progressed that far from the days of the Inquisition.

Here's a few names of charlatans who are self-described "Christians"

Jim Jones
Jimmy Swaggart
Jim Bakker
Jerry Falwell
Rev. Muthee
Ted Haggard
Rev. Hagee
Joel Osteen
Fred Phelps
Pat Robertson
Tony Perkins
James Dobson
Bob Jones
Oral Roberts
Rick Warren


Need more? There's plenty. And these are only some of the most hypocritical, egregious of the bunch. There are thousands more. If these fools were more oriented to the benevolent teachings of Christ than making money and influencing politics, we'd have a better world.

Anyone who would choose to be a member of any branch of Christianity that includes any of these charlatans, is just as bad as they are, in my view.

[elganned]

elganned... You try to make the case for large government.

You make an extraordinary leap to a conclusion unwarrented by the statement I made. I am not addressing public sector aid vs. private sector aid, though that seems to be where you want to take the conversation.

I am addressing what seems to be an axiom of the conservative right, which is that success is a pure function of individual effort and that equal opportunity exist for all, therefore if you are not successful it is because you lack the will or the capability to act on that opportunity. The "Any Kid Can Grow Up To Be President" axiom, if you will.

My position is that individual success is not purely the result of individual effort, but rather the combination of individual effort and the right combination of circumstances, be that communal support or being in the right place at the right time or whatever.

Opportunity is not equally distributed over the ground. Those with large extended families, affluent parents, networks formed by belonging to the "right" organizations, etc., have greater opportunities than those without these things. And these opportunities are correlated directly with money. In sum, those with money have more opportunites than those without.

The "self-made man" is a myth. I agree that nothing happens without hard work, but hard work alone won't do it except in the very rarest of cases.

I once had a "motivational" poster from Despair.com that said, "When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do."

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "The "self-made man" is a myth."

You keep thinking that. You are so wrong about that, it's not even funny. I'm laughing out loud, honestly. Definition of Defeatist.

It's ironic how so many claiming to be liberal, are so tight-pantied and downright backward in their thinking. Using the actions of .0001% of a group and condemning the whole. You folks do know, this was the thinking of folks like Hitler, it is the backbone of the doctrine of white supremacy.

[ghettopalmetto]

Quote: "The "self-made man" is a myth."

You keep thinking that. You are so wrong about that, it's not even funny. I'm laughing out loud, honestly.

It's ironic how so many claiming to be liberal, are so tight-pantied and downright backward in their thinking. Using the actions of .0001% of a group and condemning the whole. You folks do know, this was the thinking of folks like Hitler, it is the backbone of the doctrine of white supremacy.

Are you even writing in English anymore? I can't tell. I read the above as "babble babble babble babble *made-up irrelevant number* babble babble babble babble babble HITLER."

Are we to understand that you raised yourself, educated yourself, and never relied on anyone for employment?

[elganned]

Sstashmoo, you need to get some sleep. You're not making sense anymore. I would have expected a more reasoned response from you, based on some of your other postings.

It's ironic how so many claiming to be liberal, are so tight-pantied and downright backward in their thinking.

What does this even mean? What is "tight-pantied" and how does what I posted qualify? Explain, if you can.

Using the actions of .0001% of a group and condemning the whole.

Again, you're not making sense. Whose "actions" did I reference? What "whole" did I condemn?

You folks do know, this was the thinking of folks like Hitler, it is the backbone of the doctrine of white supremacy.

Are you trying to say that Hitler also believed that poor people don't have the same opportunities as rich people? When or where did he ever say anything about it? And what in the world does "white supremacy" have to do with the discussion? It's totally irrelevent to the topic.

Go lie down. Take an aspirin. Come back and repost when you're thinking straight. I'll wait.

[oladub]

Don't include me in your 240 million. Any faith where any person can get a soapbox, ordain himself a "minister" and preach whatever cracked-out interpretation of the Bible he wishes, is not a faith in my opinion.

If "Christianity" is the way, as you claim, please explain why the Protestant factions found it necessary to split from the Church.

It would probably be better to go back to 1054AD when the Eastern bishops were confronted with the Roman bishop's assertion that he was their superior. They said no. Luther was a nationalist angered that Rome had invented indulgences to strip the poor of their meager pocessions to finance St. Peter's Cathedral. He was kicked out of the Roman Church. The leaders of a number of German city states used this incident to become independent thus making northern German churches independent of Rome with their own local bishops like the Eastern Churches. King Henry separated the Church of England. There were further western European separations based of theological points. Many of the separatists came to America for religious freedom or to escape persecution and eventually set up a Constitution without a state church. Immigrants from European state churches were often not provided with clergy and eventually also set up their own churches.

Once, I was killing some time in a sort of rust belt city on a Sunday morning. The downtown theater was being used as a church. People of every description were going in. Maybe 15% Black, lots of kids and youth, some looked poor, others were well dressed. Anyway, there is enough of a sociologist in me that I went in to see what the church was doing right that it could be attracting such a large and diverse group. The theater was packed. I didn't go in but could see the singing groups were very contemporary, almost competative.. The lobby was bustling meanwhile with groups going here and there. I talked to one lady who said she used to be Lutheran. She went to this place now because it was so vibrant and offered so much to her family in terms of study and activities. Also,she said, this 'church' had a huge social welfare component, both for members and non-members.

It occurred to me that this street church was sort of representative of the evolution of an American Church. Sure it has its outlandish bad apples as Lorax points out. Then again, the Roman Church has had its occasional problems with holy wars, an inquisition, and pedophile priests but religions and government leaders have been known to do tacky things.

I realize that this discussion is way off thread but these local adaptations of religion have huge implications on how a society develops. When northern Europe broke away from Roman religious domination, it allowed feudalism to die and be replaced with more capitalism. Northern Europe soon became richer, and stronger than southern Europe. Things change though and Europe has since become secular; largely leaving religion behind except for its Muslim immigrants. As religion died in Europe, and to a lesser extent here, it is being replaced by quasi-religious secularism with its own set of beliefs [[e.g. Global warming, its own definition of 'fairness', no one can succeed without government, Keynesian economics works, etc..) and I suspect we are all headed back toward a new feudalism headed by the State with bureaucrats being a proxy for clergy. I think this will be a useful concept to understand China, which is lessening it's state grip, as it sails by us economically.

[ghettopalmetto]

Appreciate your opinion, Oladub. I wouldn't go so far as to equate belief in effective government with "religion", though. Just because one doesn't agree with the B-list actor who became President in 1981, doesn't make one a zealot.

I question the "Good Christian" defense that seems to have become a shrill masquerade. Evangelical churches--which are forming the basis of the modern right-wing Republican movement--do not subscribe to a particular and consistent canon, as does the Catholic Church. Any nutjob can start himself an Evangelical church, and use his "belief in God" to justify any sort of hatred and closed-mindedness that he chooses. You know, the whole "love your neighbor"--except if they're black, gay, Catholic, educated, liberal, immigrant, homeless, poor, or in any way different from the demographic makeup of a small, rural, Southern town.

I'd like to see an Evangelical respond to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Give to God what is God's." Do we really need "religious" people advocating for destruction of government and hence, complete and total anarchy?

I do think religion ties in with this idea of income disparity. I find it comical [[if only it weren't so serious) that poor rural white folks will vote the economic interest of Wall Street traders above themselves, under the mistaken impression that one day, they too will be wealthy. Why are we supposed to feel bad about the taxes that millionaires pay [[capital gains, estate taxes), yet in order to pay for these gifts, we cut opportunities for the people who need them most? Where's the compassion in that?

[elganned]

I do think religion ties in with this idea of income disparity. I find it comical [[if only it weren't so serious) that poor rural white folks will vote the economic interest of Wall Street traders above themselves, under the mistaken impression that one day, they too will be wealthy.

It is my personal belief is that the Republican party will never allow the issues of gay rights and abortion to be solved.

If those problems ever went away they would no longer be able to energize their "base" by waving the religious "bloody shirt", and the poor folks would wake up to the fact that rich conservatives don't really have working class interests at heart.

So they continue to talk about overturning Roe vs. Wade or passing a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, but they make sure their efforts in those areas are ineffectual because accomplishing something there would neutralize their political clout.

Just my opinion.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "you're not making sense."

I was responding to about three posters at once. Not sure if you've noticed, but I'm a bit outnumbered here. As far as you the others misunderstandings of my posts, I can break out the Bamboo tablet and sketch you something?

I stand by what I said, liberals are the most intolerant folks on the planet. They hate religion, but they sure love talking about it. They claim to be free of prejudice, but let a Christian walk in to the room. They are no better than what they condemn.

[ghettopalmetto]

Quote: "you're not making sense."

I was responding to about three posters at once. Not sure if you've noticed, but I'm a bit outnumbered here. As far as you the others misunderstandings of my posts, I can break out the Bamboo tablet and sketch you something?

I stand by what I said, liberals are the most intolerant folks on the planet. They hate religion, but they sure love talking about it. They claim to be free of prejudice, but let a Christian walk in to the room. They are no better than what they condemn.

And you can cite your sources and objective data for all this, I presume?

As someone who leans left-of-center, I'll say that the two of the few things of which I'm intolerant are willful ignorance and people who are judgmental of others. But then again, I was raised Catholic, not "Christian".