No Matter Who You Are Tell Me When You Think Our Current Form of Government Became Dysfunctional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And were unions truly bad or rendered obsolete due to capitalism run amok?


Good question. There were definitely union corruption stories. But unions also hindered competition in a global economy. I think it was more of the latter than the former in hindsight. Unions had brought significant benefits to workers over the years.

Pensions went away and federal government came up with IRA and 401K accounts as the answer. It now turns out that this was a colossal failure for workers. Many will never retire or will retire in poverty.
So how do protect worker's rights in a global economy? Blue collar has changed from using your hands to pick vegetables or man a cash register to basically collecting data if you are trained to do so. And yet conservatives push back on minimum wage reform, public and further education. Let's take some of the $ out of the military industrial complex (not all just some) and figure out how to train in STEM sciences?

Another good question that someone needs to address. I think, again, that Reagan's idea of trickle down has been clearly debunked, yet you have people who still want to go there (cut taxes to get growth). But it didn't work. Workers need protections or we will not have a stable, functional government. It's that simple. We need reliable health care and a system that supports education and old age. People say it's too expensive, but not having these things could cost way more if society becomes so unstable as to produce constant conflict. That is starting.

[Anonymous]

Oh they're a structure alright. They build monuments to themselves. Big monuments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Another good question that someone needs to address. I think, again, that Reagan's idea of trickle down has been clearly debunked, yet you have people who still want to go there (cut taxes to get growth). But it didn't work. Workers need protections or we will not have a stable, functional government. It's that simple. We need reliable health care and a system that supports education and old age. People say it's too expensive, but not having these things could cost way more if society becomes so unstable as to produce constant conflict. That is starting.

How did it not work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And were unions truly bad or rendered obsolete due to capitalism run amok?


Good question. There were definitely union corruption stories. But unions also hindered competition in a global economy. I think it was more of the latter than the former in hindsight. Unions had brought significant benefits to workers over the years.

Pensions went away and federal government came up with IRA and 401K accounts as the answer. It now turns out that this was a colossal failure for workers. Many will never retire or will retire in poverty.
So how do protect worker's rights in a global economy? Blue collar has changed from using your hands to pick vegetables or man a cash register to basically collecting data if you are trained to do so. And yet conservatives push back on minimum wage reform, public and further education. Let's take some of the $ out of the military industrial complex (not all just some) and figure out how to train in STEM sciences?

Another good question that someone needs to address. I think, again, that Reagan's idea of trickle down has been clearly debunked, yet you have people who still want to go there (cut taxes to get growth). But it didn't work. Workers need protections or we will not have a stable, functional government. It's that simple. We need reliable health care and a system that supports education and old age. People say it's too expensive, but not having these things could cost way more if society becomes so unstable as to produce constant conflict. That is starting.

How do we fund it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Another good question that someone needs to address. I think, again, that Reagan's idea of trickle down has been clearly debunked, yet you have people who still want to go there (cut taxes to get growth). But it didn't work. Workers need protections or we will not have a stable, functional government. It's that simple. We need reliable health care and a system that supports education and old age. People say it's too expensive, but not having these things could cost way more if society becomes so unstable as to produce constant conflict. That is starting.


How did it not work?

It did not lift all boats as it was advertised that it would do. Instead we had a further divide in incomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And were unions truly bad or rendered obsolete due to capitalism run amok?


Good question. There were definitely union corruption stories. But unions also hindered competition in a global economy. I think it was more of the latter than the former in hindsight. Unions had brought significant benefits to workers over the years.

Pensions went away and federal government came up with IRA and 401K accounts as the answer. It now turns out that this was a colossal failure for workers. Many will never retire or will retire in poverty.
So how do protect worker's rights in a global economy? Blue collar has changed from using your hands to pick vegetables or man a cash register to basically collecting data if you are trained to do so. And yet conservatives push back on minimum wage reform, public and further education. Let's take some of the $ out of the military industrial complex (not all just some) and figure out how to train in STEM sciences?


Another good question that someone needs to address. I think, again, that Reagan's idea of trickle down has been clearly debunked, yet you have people who still want to go there (cut taxes to get growth). But it didn't work. Workers need protections or we will not have a stable, functional government. It's that simple. We need reliable health care and a system that supports education and old age. People say it's too expensive, but not having these things could cost way more if society becomes so unstable as to produce constant conflict. That is starting.
How do we fund it?

Yeah, nobody wants to pay for this. The above poster said to take some money out of the military industrial complex. We could also raise the capital gains tax. Whatever we do, we cannot have a country that is starting to look third world (lack of educational opportunity, limited health care, and more poverty) and expect to survive as a leader in the world. We cannot continue to have wars while we have third rate educational and health systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It did not lift all boats as it was advertised that it would do. Instead we had a further divide in incomes.

No, we had the greatest expansion in U.S. history post WWII. That was coming off of Carter's misery index. Did you forget?

You aren't even attributing the correct quote to the correct person. You're just a liberal trying to argue economics and like the majority of them, when you do, you walk around in circles.

And as to, lifting all boats...ooooh this is going to STING

[Anonymous]

Back in JFK's day it may have had more impact, but now it doesn't. The tax cuts don't mean more employment. There is more automation now and more of the money goes into the global economy and not into the national economy. Reagan showed us that.

[Anonymous]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9455

"As the income of Michigan rises, so does the income of the United States. A rising tide lifts all the boats and as Arkansas becomes more prosperous so does the United States and as this section declines so does the United States."

John F. Kennedy
400 - Remarks in Heber Springs, Arkansas, at the Dedication of Greers Ferry Dam.
October 3, 1963

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Back in JFK's day it may have had more impact, but now it doesn't. The tax cuts don't mean more employment. There is more automation now and more of the money goes into the global economy and not into the national economy. Reagan showed us that.

Not a good at backpedaling and trying to save face.

Poly wanna cracker! A rising tide lifts all boats!

[Anonymous]

No, we had the greatest expansion in U.S. history post WWII. That was coming off of Carter's misery index. Did you forget?

No, I didn't forget. But that ended because other countries (namely Japan and now China) recovered from the war and started competing with us. After WWII we were the only game in town for years. That's over.

[Anonymous]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9455

"As the income of Michigan rises, so does the income of the United States. A rising tide lifts all the boats and as Arkansas becomes more prosperous so does the United States and as this section declines so does the United States."

John F. Kennedy
400 - Remarks in Heber Springs, Arkansas, at the Dedication of Greers Ferry Dam.
October 3, 1963

Sorry for the wrong attribution, but the idea of everyone benefiting was the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, we had the greatest expansion in U.S. history post WWII. That was coming off of Carter's misery index. Did you forget?

No, I didn't forget. But that ended because other countries (namely Japan and now China) recovered from the war and started competing with us. After WWII we were the only game in town for years. That's over.

No kidding. It ended. Do you understand what you are saying? Reagan was in office for eight years, but somehow this rising tide is supposed to go on for 40 years, even though you've had other presidents after and his policies are no longer in effect?

So why are you bring up trickle down economics as the problem that you somehow have answers to?

LEARN ECONOMICS IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE ECONOMICS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Another good question that someone needs to address. I think, again, that Reagan's idea of trickle down has been clearly debunked, yet you have people who still want to go there (cut taxes to get growth). But it didn't work. Workers need protections or we will not have a stable, functional government. It's that simple. We need reliable health care and a system that supports education and old age. People say it's too expensive, but not having these things could cost way more if society becomes so unstable as to produce constant conflict. That is starting.

How did it not work?

Take George W. Bush's big tax cut. It mainly benefitted the wealthier, the supposed "job creators and investors" yet they didn't create jobs (in fact we lost millions of jobs under Bush with his tax cuts in full force) and did not provide any meaningful economic growth. In fact, the Bush tax cuts ended up costing us 2.1 trillion dollars over ten years. It did very little for the working class. And as for investments - we got all the wrong things - wealth extraction, hoarding and offshoring of money and the investments were horrendously irresponsible, we had tons of real estate speculating driving the housing market up into an unsustainable bubble, we had a lot of things like rebundling of the bad debt and other high-risk things going on.

Republican tax policy has already been tried. It did nothing for us. The evidence is in,, and it's irrefutable. It's time to abandon the notion of tax cuts for the rich and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2008: Obama was THE most liberal senator in the senate. Don't try to rewrite history.

Not according to some liberals. They felt he wasn't combative enough in terms of gun control, immigration reform, etc . Who's trying to rewrite history here? No matter what Obama clearly had the best interests of the majority of Americans at heart. Not so today. Obama didn't add to dysfunction but he certainly tried to fix it ham handed so be it. The current administration, not so much.

I don't care. You are trying to rewrite history. He was THE most liberal senator in 2008, period.

"No matter what Obama clearly had the best interests of the majority of Americans at heart." No, he had the best interests of his voting block at heart.

He worked to get his constituency freebies (and obamaphones), at the expense of others. He was a community organizer, FFS. He, Axelrod, Jarrett, Holder and the other morons at 1600 played divide and conquer politics. He perfected it. An "us vs. them" proposition. There in NO disputing that.

You. You and your kind are what's wrong in America. You've clearly pickled your brains in right wing media brine and no facts can penetrate.

Rather than me picking apart every boneheaded non-fact you put forth, I'll just challenge you to find that Valerie Jarrett "quote" on a non-right wing nutjob site.