I think you need to explain more details of this concept. The larger government is, the more money they have to spend to control it, don't they? If it is smaller, they don't have to buy off as many people. And if they control a smaller government, it is harder for the people to find the chink in the armor where they can take back control of parts of the government with some of the remnants of places where we vote for people to be in office that still remain as a thread of hope of us being able to take back control of it. As I said, I don't want a government that is too big where it is not needed. And I don't want something just being "small" as a fix. That doesn't fix anything. I want a government where there are strong enough rules (that puts people in prison for crimes like bribery if these rules are abused), to make sure that they are independent of cronyism from controlling it, but also that there's enough control by the voters at large to make sure they are answerable to us and not just putting together their own little kingdom immune from our control either. I want an entity that is right sized, and right sized properly by officials that are voted on by processes that properly represent the will of the people with consequences if they don't represent the people that vote for them. It's a matter of making sure that the process of them representing us is what is strong, not whether a government is "big" or "small".
Socialism vs Capitalism
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
I think you need to explain more details of this concept. The larger government is, the more money they have to spend to control it, don't they? If it is smaller, they don't have to buy off as many people. And if they control a smaller government, it is harder for the people to find the chink in the armor where they can take back control of parts of the government with some of the remnants of places where we vote for people to be in office that still remain as a thread of hope of us being able to take back control of it. As I said, I don't want a government that is too big where it is not needed. And I don't want something just being "small" as a fix. That doesn't fix anything. I want a government where there are strong enough rules (that puts people in prison for crimes like bribery if these rules are abused), to make sure that they are independent of cronyism from controlling it, but also that there's enough control by the voters at large to make sure they are answerable to us and not just putting together their own little kingdom immune from our control either. I want an entity that is right sized, and right sized properly by officials that are voted on by processes that properly represent the will of the people with consequences if they don't represent the people that vote for them. It's a matter of making sure that the process of them representing us is what is strong, not whether a government is "big" or "small".
Larger government = More rules, and more ability to make rules
More rules, and more ability to make rules = More chances and opportunity for wealthy people to take advantage of the system.
I don't suppose you can provide an example. Ludwig von Mises was a giant. He called the Great Depression before all others. Now, don't act all butt hurt from the other thread. I asked a simple question to a simple man.
You're right, Ciggy. Let's just keep listening to the Keynesians.
Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year
Posted on October 21, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
By Michael Snyder, End of the American Dream.
We just got more evidence that the middle class in America is dying. According to brand new numbers that were just released by the Social Security Administration, 51 percent of all workers in the United States make less than $30,000 a year. Let that number sink in for a moment. You can’t support a middle class family in America today on just $2,500 a month – especially after taxes are taken out. And yet more than half of all workers in this country make less than that each month. In order to have a thriving middle class, you have got to have an economy that produces lots of middle class jobs, and that simply is not happening in America today.You can find the report that the Social Security Administration just released right here. The following are some of the numbers that really stood out for me…
-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.
-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.
-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.
-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
That first number is truly staggering. The federal poverty level for a family of five is $28,410, and yet almost 40 percent of all American workers do not even bring in $20,000 a year.
If you worked a full-time job at $10 an hour all year long with two weeks off, you would make approximately $20,000. This should tell you something about the quality of the jobs that our economy is producing at this point.
And of course the numbers above are only for those that are actually working. As I discussed just recently, there are 7.9 million working age Americans that are “officially unemployed” right now and another 94.7 million working age Americans that are considered to be “not in the labor force”. When you add those two numbers together, you get a grand total of 102.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now.
So many people that I know are barely scraping by right now. Many families have to fight tooth and nail just to make it from month to month, and there are lots of Americans that find themselves sinking deeper and deeper into debt.
If you can believe it, about a quarter of the country actually has a negative net worth right now.
What that means is that if you have no debt and you also have ten dollars in your pocket that gives you a greater net worth than about 25 percent of the entire country. The following comes from a recent piece by Simon Black…
Credit Suisse estimates that 25% of Americans are in this situation of having a negative net-worth.
“If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than 25% of Americans have collectively that is.”
The thing is– not only did the government create the incentives, but they set the standard.
With a net worth of negative $60 trillion, US citizens are just following dutifully in the government’s footsteps.
As a nation we are flat broke and most of us are living paycheck to paycheck. It has been estimated that it takes approximately $50,000 a year to support a middle class lifestyle for a family of four in the U.S. today, and so the fact that 71 percent of all workers make less than that amount shows how difficult it is for families that try to get by with just a single breadwinner.
Needless to say, a tremendous squeeze has been put on the middle class. In many families, both the husband and the wife are working as hard as they can, but it is still not enough. With each passing day, more Americans are losing their spots in the middle class and this has pushed government dependence to an all-time high. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans now live in a home that receives money from the government each month.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015...kers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year.html
Corporations need an avenue to take advantage of the system. They can't just create laws themselves.
Again, I would have this being suggested reading for all of HROT. Especially if you want to feel great about our Capitalistic economy and how it racks and stacks against the rest of the world.
I would turn your attention to Page 35, table 3 that shows the middle class in the U.S. has grown by 22.1% since 2000.
Now, that is either the rich being pulled into the middle class, or the poor being elevated. Either way that should be a win/win for the resident Socialists.
I also like the next page(36, table 4) that shows the middle class wealth in the US has also grown very nicely over the last 15 years.
The presentation culminates to the wonderful Page 46 entitled "United States: Land of Fortunes". The best part is the graph next to the title that shows overall "wealth per-adult" has been on a significant climb since 2008!!!
I know that puts a damper on the covetous "wealth gap" mentality, but it does make one feel really great about the outlook of our Republic.
This has been inspirational learning. Thanks WWJD!
Glad I could help, 22*.
It isn't all bad for all folks, as you point out.
OTOH, the whole world's middle class increased by 30% - as compared to our 22% - over that same time period.
But my point wasn't whether the middle class is benefiting or not, but to counter the incorrect meme that our capitalism is so great at reducing poverty, especially for those already near the bottom.
Plus, as you allude to, at least some of our middle class growth comes from increasing consolidation of wealth at the very top. That comes at the expense of the poor and lower-middle class, sure, but also at the expense of some formerly very well off.
Last edited:
You attempted to execute a drive by with this statement...
"Ten percent of the poorest decile of adults in the world are in the US."
Which is utterly false,(I'll go as far as to say ridiculous) and not supported anywhere in the link.
You prayed no one would take the time to read the study. Maybe even get a few likes from the echo chamber(thanks ciggy) then move on.
So don't try to reassert your position to make it sound noble.
If you are going to go all arch about using data properly (which I did) you should be honest yourself. Your claim that the US middle class increased by 22% is wrong. That number is actually for the middle class and above. 9.1 million of the 22.0 million added to your "middle class" are really in the "above middle class" category.
So . . . restating my original position after you went of on a completely different point and then tried to act like you were refuting my point is "reassert[ing my] position to make it sound noble"?
Laughable.
You made a different point. And misrepresented that.
If one of us should show humility here, I nominate you.
Why?
I checked the first one, determined you were being dishonest, was surprised and delighted by the encouraging findings of the study and followed up with a retort.
I would imagine you posted other links with distorted interpretations of the data and now you are trying to draw attention to them as a diversionary tactic.
I get it. You made an uncharacteristic mistake and castrated your own argument. It happens some times, but not necessarily to a poster with some demonstrated skill.
Don't mind me while I bath in your blunder for a few more posts...
Well the back this up from the study mentioned.
"Ten percent of the poorest decile of adults in the world are in the US."
Now you are just lying.Why?
I checked the first one, determined you were being dishonest, was surprised and delighted by the encouraging findings of the study and followed up with a retort.
I would imagine you posted other links with distorted interpretations of the data and now you are trying to draw attention to them as a diversionary tactic.
I get it. You made an uncharacteristic mistake and castrated your own argument. It happens some times, but not necessarily to a poster with some demonstrated skill.
Don't mind me while I bath in your blunder for a few more posts...
Not worth any further effort on my part.
Ok, I followed your other two links.
Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo-stick! Did you get that "fact" off of youdesrevefacts.org?
What is that? A memo masquerading as a website?
The second link you posted is another study that is supposedly where your "memo" website collected it's blurb.
Guess what? It doesn't support your statement. You know, the one that appears to have been scanned off of a cock-tail napkin and crudely uploaded onto "youdeservefacts.org"
Not even close to your best work Parser.
Look, if you want to argue that my link is wrong, go for it. If you want to say my other link refutes it, point out where.
You have done neither. Step up or shut up.
Agree. It's an unholy alliance with the Rs and Ds. And, it didn't begin with Citizens United or Ronald Reagan as posted by Hoosier I believe.
Folks should read, Richard Evans "The History Of The Nazi Party".
Hitler was interested in race, DNA, Aryan race to be precise. They were all over Europe and his theory of uniting them was not new. But somehow, he was successful. He did not think of things as we do. He would destroy socialism and communism, worker parties, and replaced them with him own institutions based on Aryan race. no other leader had been able to do that. He knew there were many Aryans in the USA and he recruited as many of them as he could. A leftist Aryan and a right wing Aryan = Nazi.
People should read more and not try to equate ours or other European political system with Hitler's. His was a special kind that will hopefully never be duplicated based racial purity, not capitalism or socialism or communism.
Many of us could not pass the DNA test. And those of us who did would learn to hate others based on their race and religion. Hitler had allies who were not Aryan, but he used them and never intended to include them in his master plan.
I have an article on all this, but cant seem to pull it up. But trust me Hitler would destroy anything Denmark or any other Socialist Country has and replace it with his Aryan ideas. Hitler had NO good ideas, left or right.
The Evans book is a good one to read.
People should also read Robin Wilde articles. He is an European History Expert.
My family comes from Northern France. I might be able to pass the Aryan DNA test. But I find nothing I have in common with Hitler. And I would have to cast out my black niece and nephew. Don't think so. I like the great Liberal thinkers too much.
Hitler was interested in race, DNA, Aryan race to be precise. They were all over Europe and his theory of uniting them was not new. But somehow, he was successful. He did not think of things as we do. He would destroy socialism and communism, worker parties, and replaced them with him own institutions based on Aryan race. no other leader had been able to do that. He knew there were many Aryans in the USA and he recruited as many of them as he could. A leftist Aryan and a right wing Aryan = Nazi.
People should read more and not try to equate ours or other European political system with Hitler's. His was a special kind that will hopefully never be duplicated based racial purity, not capitalism or socialism or communism.
Many of us could not pass the DNA test. And those of us who did would learn to hate others based on their race and religion. Hitler had allies who were not Aryan, but he used them and never intended to include them in his master plan.
I have an article on all this, but cant seem to pull it up. But trust me Hitler would destroy anything Denmark or any other Socialist Country has and replace it with his Aryan ideas. Hitler had NO good ideas, left or right.
The Evans book is a good one to read.
People should also read Robin Wilde articles. He is an European History Expert.
My family comes from Northern France. I might be able to pass the Aryan DNA test. But I find nothing I have in common with Hitler. And I would have to cast out my black niece and nephew. Don't think so. I like the great Liberal thinkers too much.
Last edited:
Look, if you want to argue that my link is wrong, go for it. If you want to say my other link refutes it, point out where.
You have done neither. Step up or shut up.
I'm getting tired of telling you what is in your links.
