You can do your own google to find the story. The point of this post is to dispel the myth that liberals and atheists are fascists.
I really hate it when you challenge someone on economic issues or point out that their political tent is narrow, that you are seeking a nanny state.
There are a growing number of minorities now voting for the GOP. For the life of me I cannot understand why. But in a free society that is certainly their choice.
So if the GOP is going to claim minorities now, then fine, there still is a history of good economics and bad economic policy. And there also is a history of who is hurt more in a given population by that policy.
Before I go on, I am going to make it clear. Liberals DO NOT want a one party state, or become like North Korea. So whomever votes libertarian or GOP spare me and skip it.
In evolution, in other species ecosystems we see diversity, so to think economics should be monochromatic is absurd. We also see in other species that when there is balance in the ecosystem there is more order and less conflict. Again, economies should not be treated any differently. You have too much of a gap in access to resources even with in the same species you will see more fighting over those resources.
1. Less rules.....no rules......we know what we are doing.
Sounds nice, but that does not take into account that all aspects of life. The people who make this their blanket solution rightfully see the abuse of one party states, or theocracies. Both forms of fascism. They are right to condemn them.
Money runs the world, lets not pretend it does not. Where their logic fails is that there is not one political or religious entity that we would call fascist and our enemy that does not own investments in the global market. It is a myth that the private sector is only used by open states. The difference between closed states and open states is who controls the market, but everyone is involved in the global market, open or closed states.
The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies, banks and invests in the global market. Hardly a bastion of religious or political pluralism. Gaddaffie was a billionaire who owned stock in GE. China's one party state has plenty of western businesses in it that the party uses to make money to keep their one party state. The free market DOES NOT by itself constitute pluralism. The market is global.
So now back to the United States. It is not tyranny to state that wages do not keep up with the cost of living. It is not fascist to state the fact that blacks and Latinos are still hurt ratio wise most by lack of livable wages. There are also poor suburban whites and rural whites who are hurting economically as well.
What is hurting America is the same thing that can cause disaster in other species and the ecosystems they live in. Balance. You can have political and economic diversity but you cannot have centralized power held by anyone, be it political, religious OR business. All those things are run by humans and all of them require money to maintain their power.
So it is not for me a CHE state nanny state North Korea solution. Nor is it a naive Ayn Rand Somalian "fuck you I got mine".
No one should begrudge others for their own personal desires. But you have to make sure in that inequity that does provide a drive, that it does not become a monopoly. It is the same monopoly that Gadaffi had, the same concentration of wealth North Korea has. It is a matter of who controls the the wealth, not open or closed.
So when liberals attack the 1% we are not attacking, or for most, we should not be attacking them to get rid of all wealth. It is more along the lines of the climate of their mentality. Liberals can and to point out to businesses that do the right thing and point out billionaires who do agree with liberals.
EVERYTHING boils down to economics and we all do better when more people can make ends meet. The only disagreement between the left and right is how we get to that point.
But the record over the past 30 years is not on the side of the right. It is clear that we have allowed businesses and big money to get most of what they want and the only thing it has produced in that time is subsidizing their tax breaks, their tax shelters, bubble after bubble that we end up paying for, exploding profits and exploding pay gap.
We don't want wealth to go away, but to claim it knows what is best for us misses the point that there is more than one class in society and that is all that liberals are saying.
I really hate it when you challenge someone on economic issues or point out that their political tent is narrow, that you are seeking a nanny state.
There are a growing number of minorities now voting for the GOP. For the life of me I cannot understand why. But in a free society that is certainly their choice.
So if the GOP is going to claim minorities now, then fine, there still is a history of good economics and bad economic policy. And there also is a history of who is hurt more in a given population by that policy.
Before I go on, I am going to make it clear. Liberals DO NOT want a one party state, or become like North Korea. So whomever votes libertarian or GOP spare me and skip it.
In evolution, in other species ecosystems we see diversity, so to think economics should be monochromatic is absurd. We also see in other species that when there is balance in the ecosystem there is more order and less conflict. Again, economies should not be treated any differently. You have too much of a gap in access to resources even with in the same species you will see more fighting over those resources.
1. Less rules.....no rules......we know what we are doing.
Sounds nice, but that does not take into account that all aspects of life. The people who make this their blanket solution rightfully see the abuse of one party states, or theocracies. Both forms of fascism. They are right to condemn them.
Money runs the world, lets not pretend it does not. Where their logic fails is that there is not one political or religious entity that we would call fascist and our enemy that does not own investments in the global market. It is a myth that the private sector is only used by open states. The difference between closed states and open states is who controls the market, but everyone is involved in the global market, open or closed states.
The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies, banks and invests in the global market. Hardly a bastion of religious or political pluralism. Gaddaffie was a billionaire who owned stock in GE. China's one party state has plenty of western businesses in it that the party uses to make money to keep their one party state. The free market DOES NOT by itself constitute pluralism. The market is global.
So now back to the United States. It is not tyranny to state that wages do not keep up with the cost of living. It is not fascist to state the fact that blacks and Latinos are still hurt ratio wise most by lack of livable wages. There are also poor suburban whites and rural whites who are hurting economically as well.
What is hurting America is the same thing that can cause disaster in other species and the ecosystems they live in. Balance. You can have political and economic diversity but you cannot have centralized power held by anyone, be it political, religious OR business. All those things are run by humans and all of them require money to maintain their power.
So it is not for me a CHE state nanny state North Korea solution. Nor is it a naive Ayn Rand Somalian "fuck you I got mine".
No one should begrudge others for their own personal desires. But you have to make sure in that inequity that does provide a drive, that it does not become a monopoly. It is the same monopoly that Gadaffi had, the same concentration of wealth North Korea has. It is a matter of who controls the the wealth, not open or closed.
So when liberals attack the 1% we are not attacking, or for most, we should not be attacking them to get rid of all wealth. It is more along the lines of the climate of their mentality. Liberals can and to point out to businesses that do the right thing and point out billionaires who do agree with liberals.
EVERYTHING boils down to economics and we all do better when more people can make ends meet. The only disagreement between the left and right is how we get to that point.
But the record over the past 30 years is not on the side of the right. It is clear that we have allowed businesses and big money to get most of what they want and the only thing it has produced in that time is subsidizing their tax breaks, their tax shelters, bubble after bubble that we end up paying for, exploding profits and exploding pay gap.
We don't want wealth to go away, but to claim it knows what is best for us misses the point that there is more than one class in society and that is all that liberals are saying.
