*****************
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2010/04/american-wage-stagnationposner.html

Between 1997 and 2008, median U.S. household income fell by 4 percent after adjustment for inflation. It presumably did not rise in 2009, and may not in 2010 either. A median is not an average; average income rose because the incomes of high earners rose, and so the effect was to increase the inequality of the income distribution.
*****************

Never mind losing their job, or their house. It's hard to live the American dream when you're unemployed and facing being homeless...

You can understand why the working class are getting pissed and the republicans are scared shitless about it. And holdouts like QM, with his quaint little almost racial slurs and real bad ass insults (occupoopers... lol, what are you, 6? Or is that your IQ?), are just a pebble before the avalanche. Europe goes under and the US slides back in to recession, you may well see a decent reenactment of the French revolution on Wall St.

>> ^Kofi:

You are right Voodoo.
As soon as the genealogy of disadvantage born from forced immigration, slavery, segregation and racism are no longer evident in hindering ones prospects in society then these organisations have no legitimacy. As soon as America ditches the notion of total individual accountability that is so crucial to the "American dream" they might realise that their empire was built on the backs of an injustice that continues to this day. One either has to accept that there is something inherently inferior about being black that makes them predisposed to poverty (and by extension crime and lack of education) or accept that the social institutions that govern American life are complacent with not addressing past injustices.


beautifully put... but completely avoids addressing the issue when is there no need for affirmative action... who decides it, and is dependent on an outcome that is unattainable in the same vein you could philosophize that Utopia is unattainable?

not only that, but the whole concept of "two wrongs make a right" comes into play alot when discussing affirmative action... and the whole irony involved in disadvantaging someone based on the possible actions of an ancestor to advantage someone who's ancestor may have been the recipient of racism (and in any given situation isn't going to be a direct relationship of your ancestor did this to mine directly) and how that relates to personal responsibility

there's definitely a problem with the education system in the US, and race definitely plays it's part there... but it's not limited to race either... it's just that previously, race and economics were determining factors alot more in sync... where as today economics is ruining the education system with much broader strokes

there are plenty of examples of HAVES who waste their starting position, and plenty of examples of HAVENOTS who succeed despite their starting position... painting with broad strokes here tends to get people's back up for that very reason... and the line between HANDOUT and HANDUP is very indistinct and subjective

a question I put to you is now that we're 2-3 generations removed from the civil rights movement, do you think in our lifetime, we'll reach a point where affirmative action will no longer be needed? where actual equality will be attained and not "enforced"

my feeling is that when money is a VERY strong driving factor in that question... I don't think we will

*and to clarify that last statement... I mean BOTH sides of the for and against argument being motivated by money

>> ^packo:

>> ^marbles:
Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.

did you actually read that article? the only thing you got right is the 90% of tax filers wouldn't be millionaires... if you think the 99% is made of people making 200k+ / yr... you are living in a world where pigs fly and Nickelback rocks
and to defend the 200k+/yr statement against the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that the 99% make an avg wage/salary FAR FAR lower than that, the article defends itself by saying these "200 thousandnaires" might only make this level of pay for a few years of their life... wow! how will they ever get by when a few thousand is obviously so much more large a number to them than people making millions
woops, i guess cold hearted conservatism kinda blinds one to the ironic nature of the difference someone making 30-50k/yr might figure a few thousand is proportionally
cry, cry for the 200 thousandnaires... because the American Dream no longer works as a carrot on a stick when dealing with millions... while you may not be able to become a millionaire, you might be able to still become a 200 thousandnaire... so you better not mess with them
the irony that most won't become a 200 thousandnaire is probably lost on you as well
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


Thanks for confirming what I've already said.

The "tax the rich" legislation is mostly a tax on the middle class and small business owners and NOT on millionaires and corporations.

By the way, it ignores the crux of the problem anyway. ie: Financial fraud and corruption.

>> ^marbles:

Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.


did you actually read that article? the only thing you got right is the 90% of tax filers wouldn't be millionaires... if you think the 99% is made of people making 200k+ / yr... you are living in a world where pigs fly and Nickelback rocks

and to defend the 200k+/yr statement against the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that the 99% make an avg wage/salary FAR FAR lower than that, the article defends itself by saying these "200 thousandnaires" might only make this level of pay for a few years of their life... wow! how will they ever get by when a few thousand is obviously so much more large a number to them than people making millions

woops, i guess cold hearted conservatism kinda blinds one to the ironic nature of the difference someone making 30-50k/yr might figure a few thousand is proportionally

cry, cry for the 200 thousandnaires... because the American Dream no longer works as a carrot on a stick when dealing with millions... while you may not be able to become a millionaire, you might be able to still become a 200 thousandnaire... so you better not mess with them

the irony that most won't become a 200 thousandnaire is probably lost on you as well

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

@quantumushroom, I'm not old enough to remember things before FDR, much less the time of Jefferson.

I'm not old enough to remember Nixon either, but while I agree that he did found the EPA, I should point out he was a Republican, not a Democrat.

I guess the real difference between us is that I see America's progress over the period from the Civil War through to about 1968 or so as being mostly in the right direction. Increased individual rights, increased equality, increased prosperity, and a largely shared prosperity.

Sometime in the 1968-1980 period that started to break down. In the Reagan-era, I mostly just saw the pieces of what was the American Dream being hauled off and sold, with the rich keeping the proceeds.

My goal is not to see government controlling everything -- that's the mirror-image assumption again.

I would like to see us have a more generous set of welfare programs, like many European countries have. But that's not socialism, it's still capitalism, just like we've had since the country was founded. Socialism would be the government literally running everything, with private ownership of capital being illegal. The only place that still runs that way is North Korea, and I'm no more eager to emulate them than you are.

I don't like corporations using government to stamp out competition, or to line their pockets with subsidies and tax cuts, either. I just think the solution to that problem is to get corporations out of government, rather than government out of corporations.

I want to see everyone get richer, I just don't think that cutting taxes on the rich and abolishing environmental regulations helps anyone, not even the rich.

And I've definitely not "won" with millions of people unemployed, millions without health care, millions of children needing food stamps, and seeing our roads, bridges, and schools crumbling away, while the military budget keeps on going up and up and up.

You're winning! The public sector is shrinking! Corporate profits are at all-time highs! Union participation is at historic lows! Taxes collected are at historic lows! The Pentagon budget is bigger than ever, and we're at war with two countries!

The world outside your window is the result of your triumph! Aren't you happy?

Maybe if he said that what screws everything up is government colluding with banks and corporations, when they should have been saying no, that's a bad idea, he'd be right. Isn't that what it all basically comes down to?

Walsh uses the example of the post office going bankrupt to prove how useless big government is, but if you get specific, it was the Bush administration changing the retirement fund rules to something obviously unsustainable that may kill it.

Sabotaging government programs, and then claiming they weren't working in the first place is sick.

Oh, and here's Bush saying everybody should own a home, and how he's gonna make that happen:
http://videosift.com/video/President-Bushs-American-Dream-of-Everybody-Owning-a-Home

They mock the reality of the American Dream in IV too.

"If the Americans want to live the American Dream - they should move to Denmark!" Classic!

>> ^lantern53:

What he said does not offend me. If anyone, he has earned his right to speak.
What offends me is the stupidity of people trying to stop corporate greed.
You might as well try to stop a bee from stinging, or a pig from rolling in shit.
Let's play a game...you're now in charge of the world. Ten people come up to you and demand you provide them with a job. What do you do?


Oh man...you're just...what world do you live in?

"What he said does not offend me. If anyone, he has earned his right to speak."

Guess what...he has the right to speak regardless of whether or not his words offend you. That's what you don't seem to get. You come from a community where conformity is the rule and echoing common concensus views is an element of acceptance in the group. You seem to take that to the extreme by twisting that into a belief that only viewpoints you agree with are worthy of free speach. But the very basis of free speach is that it protects every view point, not just the ones you support. No one has to "earn" their first amendment rights. They're inherent to the free civilization you enjoy the benefits of.

"What offends me is the stupidity of people trying to stop corporate greed. You might as well try to stop a bee from stinging, or a pig from rolling in shit."

No one is trying to stop greed. Greed will out. But you have to be stupid to think that greed should not be contained, at least minimally, to prevent it from undermining our entire economy and the wellfare of hard working people. Because that's exactly what greed has been allowed to do and it's put us in the situation we're in now. Greed will not stop. Greed does not have a conscience. Greed will consume everything you allow it to. That's what Greed is. That's how you know Greed when you see it.

And here's a novel concept, perhaps "greed" should not be the highest ideal of American culture.
Greed is not the American dream.

"Let's play a game...you're now in charge of the world. Ten people come up to you and demand you provide them with a job. What do you do?"

What the fuck are you even talking about? I think you let that one out of your conservative echo chamber before it had a chance to ripen.

Those who are abused by the system tend to protect it the most.

>> ^Peroxide:

A lot of the (lower to middle class) right wing supporters that I meet, who endorse all sorts of values like, "don't tax the rich" and "don't help the poor," a lot of these folks seem to buy into the dream that someday they will be pulling in a million dollar salary, they will be rich. Or even that they could already be rich without taxes.
It's scary how the American dream makes slaves of the poor in much the same way that casino psychology works. "Just keep working the slots, someday I'll strike it rich, someday I'll achieve the dream." Just keep working at that job you hate,
someday...someday...someday...
Then one day, you wake up and you're life is over and you struggled the whole time, "pulling the slot machine handle," competing against everyone else instead of cooperating within communities for the common goals that are truly fulfilling.
It's obvious that markets work, but in my opinion extreme unregulated capitalism is addicting in the same way that gambling is,
Isn't it obvious who wins when you play the slots? There's a reason organized crime invests in casinos.

A lot of the (lower to middle class) right wing supporters that I meet, who endorse all sorts of values like, "don't tax the rich" and "don't help the poor," a lot of these folks seem to buy into the dream that someday they will be pulling in a million dollar salary, they will be rich. Or even that they could already be rich without taxes.

It's scary how the American dream makes slaves of the poor in much the same way that casino psychology works. "Just keep working the slots, someday I'll strike it rich, someday I'll achieve the dream." Just keep working at that job you hate,
someday...someday...someday...

Then one day, you wake up and you're life is over and you struggled the whole time, "pulling the slot machine handle," competing against everyone else instead of cooperating within communities for the common goals that are truly fulfilling.

It's obvious that markets work, but in my opinion extreme unregulated capitalism is addicting in the same way that gambling is,

Isn't it obvious who wins when you play the slots? There's a reason organized crime invests in casinos.

And when you say the government pushed for subprime lending so everybody could buy a house, don't you mean bank lobbyists told Bush to push the idea in the first place? I'm not saying Bush was the only one in the deregulation game, but I remember him speechifying about it being the American dream for everybody to own a house, and what he was going to do about it.

aye it's hard to pick on someone that looks like death and makes cool toys for everyone, but Steve Jobs was the epitome of the American dream corporate greed. What would the tax rate have been on his stocks, 15%?

Property > People = American Dream

In your first paragraph you paint the picture of absent federalism or nullification, practically pre-civil war state power restored. If it'd come to that, I think the USA would cease to exist in its current form of 50 states.

2nd paragraph: Aurens hinted at the antitrust laws being too lenient. I agree that money needs to be taken out of the political process, but I don't think dissolving anti-trust instead of fixing and enforcing it is preferable.

third paragraph and following: American Dream and American Exceptionalism and Excellence have turned negative, i agree.

My rant : I think RP'S fight against selfishness is in the wrong direction, but social policies are decried as "Socialism!" too fast, succumbing to scaretactics, which sadly work. Imho, market libertarianism is a political ideology: The solution to everything is "free market!" and "Voluntary everything!"; this sounds nice, but will likely fail, because everything is too complex for a one-phrase-solution. "How will our country prosper? - Communism!"

I (think I) know how it works, I've been ideological myself, it is very nice to think one's movement as better than all other movements, and everyone else is wrong. All solutions of my movement will work, and all imperfections couldn't be helped, they who fell through the cracks did not trust the movement enough.

Isms do not hold the answer,imo, not statism, not liberalism, not communism, not fascism, not liberalism, and not conservativism. Instead of trying to see how an -ism can provide the solution, a politician should just try to find the best solution. Rant end.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...
Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.
And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.
"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.
Off soapbox.