quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Trick question: Which northern politician said this in a speech?

"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Strawman is your thing, Jeffee.

quote:

calling out strawmen is my thing .. but i don't expect you to understand the difference

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 04 January 2025 22:46

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 04 January 2025 22:46

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Here's an article that is interesting to me. I've been thinking of where to post the link. This thread seems as good as any. It's related to the OP premise.

The good old days:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone...631752db04b8a9&ei=19

What the science of predators tells us about the morbidly rich | Opinion
Opinion by Thom Hartmann • 14h • 8 min read

(excerpt)

To see this pattern in action, look at a remarkable period in American history called the “Great Compression.” From 1900 to 1980 (with the brief exception of the Roaring Twenties), particularly after the New Deal, something unusual happened: the gap between rich and poor actually shrank for roughly 80 years. Working people saw their wages go up and their living standards improve.

This happened because new rules and institutions — including labor unions, Wall Street regulations, anti-monopoly laws, and higher progressive income taxes — kept economic “predators” (morbidly rich individuals and corporations) from taking too much from economic “prey” (working class and poor people).

No. It happened because of a pair of events called WWI and WWII. The US became a/the major productive force in the world while labor became relatively more scarce. Global migration was not really capable of happening and there was space for people to move into without displacing others (in macro terms.)

Just like a healthy forest needs the rules of nature as expressed in the Lorka-Volterra equations to keep any one species from taking over, these progressive policies put into place by FDR created balance in the economy, and thus political harmony across the nation.

Umm, FDR was not in power the whole era he is talking about.

The specifics of those rules were comprehensive and carefully designed. The highest income tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was 90% in that era. Labor unions were protected by law and represented about one-third of all workers, meaning two-thirds of workers had the wage and benefits equivalent of a union job (union employers set local wage and benefit floors). Banks were strictly regulated and couldn’t engage in risky speculation with ordinary people’s savings.

I don't think those rules were very carefully thought out, as has been shown by the continual revision of them even during FDR's term.

Monopolies were broken up when they became too powerful; the Supreme Court blocked the merger of two shoe companies in the 1960s because the new combined company would control 5% of the shoe industry (today Nike has 19%).

Monopoly busting started before his proclaimed era. The real reason monopolies were broken up was that they threatened governmental control.

Those rules didn’t prevent people from getting rich, but they did ensure that extreme wealth accumulation was harder and that workers received a fair share of the value they created.

The results were impressive. Between 1945 and 1980, when workers produced more, they earned more. A single breadwinner could support a family, own a home, buy a new car every few years, take a vacation, send kids to college, and retire with dignity and a pension.

Social mobility was high, meaning children regularly achieved higher living standards than their parents. The wealth created by the economy was shared more fairly than ever before.

This had more to do with the rapid and significant population growth along with an even more significant demand for goods and services.

The rich still got richer, but at a slower, more sustainable pace that allowed everyone else to prosper too.

But this balance didn’t last. In 1971, future (1972) Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote a memo that changed everything. He urged American businesses to fight against unions, environmental protections, and other rules that limited their power, crush the labor movement, and put corporations and rich people in charge of the commons.

You mean to say that the monopolists rolled over and played dead before the 60's? A bit of a stupid presupposition.

This memo wasn’t just idle speculation; it became a blueprint for action. Business leaders and fossil-fuel billionaires created new think tanks, funded academic programs promoting so-called free-market ideology, and invested heavily in lobbying and political campaigns.

When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he started dismantling the rules that had kept the morbidly rich economic predators and their companies in check. He turned loose the foxes on the rabbits.

This era, which we might call the “Great Predation,” saw a dramatic reversal of the trends that defined the Great Compression. From 1980 to 2024, the wealthiest Americans extracted over $50 trillion from the working class, according to studies such as the Rand Corporation’s 2020 report on income redistribution.

I really doubt they "extracted" anything from the middle class. They were in a position that growth occurred only in new areas and these were the economic frontier where they moved in to.

As an example, what did Gates take away from anyone (in an economic sense)? He created a new product and ensured that he was the main provider of that product. He may have behaved in a monopolistic fashion, but there was no one else out there.

Productivity continued to rise, but wages stagnated, and wealth increasingly concentrated at the top. The predators were thriving, but the prey — working-class Americans — were being systematically drained.
Workers who were not educated in the new areas saw their fields of endeavor shrink in comparison to the economy as a whole.

Reagan dramatically cut taxes on the morbidly rich. He, Bush, and Trump stripped away business regulations and Republicans on the Supreme Court stopped enforcing antitrust law. Unions lost their power when companies — with the support of Republicans on the Court — were allowed to fight them more aggressively.

Regan raised revenue. My family was in the top .1% of earners in the 1800's through the 1950's. No one paid the tax rates on the top end. The laws were such that you could deduct almost anything legally. Reagan got rid of that for the vast majority of people, excepting some very few with political pull.

Even Social Security and Medicare faced pressure, though they largely survived (although Republicans have already half-privatized Medicare with the Medicare Advantage scam, and are now talking about doing the same with Social Security).
Social security and medicare having pressure are due to two things- population changes (less children per capita) and gentrification (read that you would be dead by your current age in the 1900-1950 era.) Its also not helped by the democrats continually adding to the group that is allowed to withdraw from SS without full contribution and increasing benefits.

(There's more)

===========================================

Also, think about Trump, Musk and Project 2025.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
And Trump, and project 2025,

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Well, both actual quotes, response were as stupid.

JudgeG ... just counting time 'til I am again finding balm in Gilead chilled out somewhere in the Selous.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Yes, both Palin’s and Trump’s quotes.

JudgeG ... just counting time 'til I am again finding balm in Gilead chilled out somewhere in the Selous.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:

Trump’s was a (somewhat confusing and rambling) question,......

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:

Trump’s was a (somewhat confusing and rambling) question,......

Seriously Man, in the early stages of a purported "pandemic" can we not expect a little better from our Commander in Chief than "somewhat confusing and rambling,..."?

In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln was not somewhat confusing and rambling.

JudgeG ... just counting time 'til I am again finding balm in Gilead chilled out somewhere in the Selous.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Well, both actual quotes, response were as stupid.

quote:

Deborah Birx

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I’m not bragging on Trump or Palin. I simply pointing out that if you hear a falsehood enough, it becomes true…

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I’m not bragging on Trump or Palin. I simply pointing out that if you hear a falsehood enough, it becomes true…

No --- it doesn't become true. It's still a falsehood.

It may be accepted, believed, as true either before or after said/heard.

Yes, there is a difference.

Most of the time, as I have observed, with MAGA types the belief (their Truth) comes first, then the lie or falsehood affirms. The belief fosters the lie.

OTOH, there are many examples of the flip side where a falsehood, lie, fosters belief.

Either way, a lie remains a lie, regardless of belief in it. Hence, Belief in Fiction is a MAGA curse.

There's another distinction worth mentioning, IMO. That's about the difference in being mistaken and belief, re truth and lies.

Jeffee, our sweetheart troll, loves to mention my mistake that Palin said she could see Russia. The difference in my mistake and MAGA belief is that I readily accept correction and MAGA believers do not.

JudgeG ... just counting time 'til I am again finding balm in Gilead chilled out somewhere in the Selous.