jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (356 posts)

The Right-wing's "Trickle-Down' economic theory didn't work ... WHY?

  1. My Esoteric profile image88
    My Esotericposted 18 months ago

    The bottom line of President Reagan's Right-wing endorsed economic policy is that "if you put more money in the hands of the wealthy, it will, 1) Expand the economy, 2) Let the boat rise with the economy, and 3) Prosperity will "Trickle-down to expand the middle class.

    None of those things has happened.  1) The economy underperformed the 1960 - 1975 baseline, 2) The bottom income quintile has remained flat, and 3) Prosperity 'trickled-up' from the shrinking middle class to the expanding rich class.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      How can you tell?  Would the poor have been twice as poor without it?  Would there have been half as many jobs without the rich providing them? 

      I DO think, though, that accumulating wealth has become even more of a "game" than in the past, with that accumulation becoming more of a goal rather than actually doing anything with it.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        The data doesn't lie.  The middle class IS shrinking, the lower income quintile HAS NOT, except to a very minor degree, participated in the growth since 1980, and the economy WAS in overall much better shape between 1960 and 1975 than between 1980 and 2015.

        The "rich", per se, do not provide jobs, never have and never will.  Who does produce jobs are middle class (50 to 80 centile) entrepreneurs who create over half of the jobs, including single person proprietorships.

        Next comes the venture capitalists, a very small segment of the rich, who fund start-ups, generally be people of much more modest means, that grow into job producers.

        After that comes those institutional investors, some of whom are rich individuals, who buy stocks at IPOs or new issues of more stock in a company.

        Then you have, to the degree that the rich keep their money in liquid cash-type accounts, that contribute to investment dollars. 

        That leaves an awfully lot of rich people who have nothing at all to do with job creation.

        1. Alexanderjwright profile image78
          Alexanderjwrightposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          It's precisely right-wing policies that promote entrepreneurialship and stimulate business. Where do you think investors, venture capitalists and so on would do if US administration introduced a fat, juicy tax on them? They would flee. Point is you need policies that supports businesses as much as you can because they employ a vast majority of skilled and educated people.

          Lefty policies just don't work in my opinion: they may help the neediest in the shorter term but what eventuates after some time is just a streak of debts and deficits. In my opinion, we should push the very rich to support programs voluntarily rather than issue taxes against them. Easier said than done though

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            You would think that right wing tax cut theories would be correct in assuming a job growth bonanza but the studies show no significant affect.

            "Effects on U.S. Output and Wages
            What about the effects on the U.S. economy? The discussion sometimes focuses on job creation.
            Job creation is an important issue for the government to address during cyclical downturns.
            Standard economic theory suggests such policies should be temporary; in contrast, advocates of
            corporate rate cuts are proposing permanent cuts. In any case, temporary or permanent corporate
            rate cuts are unlikely to be very effective stimulus policies." [1] CRS Congressional Research Service

            "Lefty policies just don't work in my opinion: they may help the neediest in the shorter term but what eventuates after some time is just a streak of debts and deficits."

            Tax cuts have very little to do with long term growth. Short spurts are realized but soon dissipate.

            "Although various dynamic models can potentially produce larger results, the models with
            responses most consistent with empirical evidence suggest a revenue feedback effect of about 1%
            for the 2001-2004 Bush tax cuts.[2] CRS

            It is not a lefty rightly issue as empirical data from the Congressional Research Service documents it as having no merit.

            A robust economy is the key to economic growth. Lower prices from foreign manufacturers taking away jobs has limited the consumers strength and the residual affect is the money being concentrated at the top where little stimulus is taking place


            [1] http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41743.pdf
            [2] http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42111.pdf

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              And yet...you keep complaining that US countries are moving overseas.  How much of that is due to excessive taxation?

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                Read the links.

      2. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Past being from WW II until 1980.

    2. MizBejabbers profile image90
      MizBejabbersposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Since our factories and jobs in technology were sent to China, Mexico and India, wouldn't it make sense that if there were any trickle down, it would go to the economy and classes in those countries while our "trickle-down" classes dried up?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        makes sense to me.  and how is China doing?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          Pretty good, it seems, since the greedy American citizenry decided that cheap junk made illegally and under hellish working conditions is what they wanted.  Better to save a dollar than pay a reasonable wage to the neighbor for what he produces.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            strangely, it is hard to find data showing they are doing well. mostly, that they are still struggling.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              Oh I don't know.  The ones with good jobs seem to be doing well - between higher incomes coupled with cheap, imported, prices they do all right.

              Their neighbors, on the other hand, that do NOT have good jobs are kind of hurting.  Imports are too cheap and those with money won't buy local.

          2. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Ridiculous Statement ~

          3. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Your assumption is absurd ~ 100% of the blame lies with Greed Driven Ccorportions, not with under-paid Americans ~

            And yet republicans strive mightily each day to deliver execs even more of our wealth in the form of tax breaks etc. ~ Criminal ~

        2. Alexanderjwright profile image78
          Alexanderjwrightposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          China's got a growing middle class and certainly a growing number of rich people. Poverty is still looming but I feel this will go down if growth is maintained.

          India has also a very large base of middle class people but poverty is as high as ever.. maybe not enough money is spent on improving welfare state

    3. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      There are a lot of people here promoting a socialist/communist alternative to capitalism. The main reason being that they have never actually had to live in a Communist Hell hole.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image85
        Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        And who is actually living a Happy, Fulfilling & Productive Life in the United States of America? Aside from the wealthy of course ~ Very few my friend ~

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          most everyone!
          Sorry you don't know that. Very very sorry….

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            I doubt that either of your extreme positions are correct.  Consider that 20% of American households earn more than $100,000.  30% more earn between $51,000 and $100,000.  Then consider that true poverty begins at $35,000, which certainly qualifies for Alternative's description. 

            Between there and $51,000 is a very gray area, some of whom fall into Alternative's area, depending on where they live.  Between $51,000 and $70,000 is less gray but still some will not be doing very well, again depending on location.

            Finally, 20% earn less than $21,000, clearly poverty.  Since between 20% and 40% live in some form of poverty, so that doesn't qualify as "most everyone".  Since between 20% and 40% live very comfortably, that doesn't qualify for "very few" either.

            Given that $51,000 is only $16,000 more than the basic subsistence level then my take is they aren't living that well.  That means 50% of Americans do not live comfortably, happily, and economically stress free.  That is terrible for being the richest country in the world!

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              Its all a matter of attitude. One can be happy on thirty thou a year … trust me!

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                That's near enough GBP 20,000 we have a much higher cost of living in the UK, There would be very many in the UK who would be very happy to live on that.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              "Then consider that true poverty begins at $35,000.."

              It is statements like this that show how ridiculous the term "poverty" has become - $35,000 per year is not "abject poverty" in any manner of speaking.  A single person can live quite well on that amount while the "19 and counting" family would have a hard time on $100,000.  Even the statement that "Finally, 20% earn less than $21,000, clearly poverty." is out of line for a one person household.

              Given that a family of four should have no real problems on the $45,000 that is available to them after government charity it would seem to say that there is no poverty in the US - something we all know is false.  It is simply not possible to throw random figures out and declare that people are poverty stricken because they don't earn this much, or that much.

              1. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                Nobody is throwing "random numbers" about.  As I stated somewhere, the $35K is for a family of three with one wage earner in a MidWest town like Omaha, NE.  It comes a hub I have asking the question, "What Do You Think is the Minimum Annual Income a Working Family of Three Needs to Barely Survive With Dignity In America Today?" at http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/Pove … erica-2351

                Only 49 Hubbers have responded so far (it's a long series of polls), but the values have converged quickly.  The numbers are somewhat biased to the "liberal" side because only 10% self-identified Conservatives have responded while 48% self-identified Liberals; the rest are in the middle or something else.  Said another way, 52% of respondents don't consider themselves Liberal. 

                In order to validate the results somewhat, I ask the question two different ways.  One is what their overall opinion is (currently about $32,300) and then individually for 13 different expenditure categories (now standing about $37,000 when you sum them up).  Bottom line, $35,000 is a very reasonable estimate.

                If the family earns a little less than $35K, then they will need to start deciding which necessities to give up or reduce below a subsistence level.  Therefore, that would be the threshold where people enter the "abject" poverty category.  People earning a little more than that can start eating better or enjoying a little entertainment.  But, they are always at dire risk of falling completely to the bottom if the unexpected happens like serious illness, accident, etc.

                It's only when they reach around the $50K level before they can do things like ... save for their future.  I would bet that at $45K, at best food stamps are still available and maybe Medicaid in those States that expanded their Medicaid program. or ACA subsidy.

                It is fantasy to believe that " a family of four should have no real problems on the $45,000 that is available to them ..." will not have problems.  (I don't what you meant by the rest of that sentence.)

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  You're taking the opinions of 49 people that responded to a hub on poverty and using it to make a claim about where the income line for "true poverty" is??!!  What kind of "research" is that??

                  Let me give you another viewpoint.  From http://www.city-data.com/income/income- … daho.html, there are large portions of Boise and it's nearby bedroom communities that fall under (sometimes well under) your arbitrary figure of $35,000.  That should be about equivalent to Omaha, and it is not "true poverty".  The area has almost no homeless population, for instance - certainly a sign of true poverty.

                  No, the problem lies in the personal concept of "true poverty" and what constitutes "necessities".  Whereupon the figure of $35,000 fits, but at a level of luxuries I didn't have for much of my life.

                  As far as $45,000 - you never mentioned a family of 3, and that figure is given for what a family of 4 can expect after working + govt. charity programs.

    4. 82
      Education Answerposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Putting more money in their hands wasn't the policy.  Taking less away, in the form of taxation, was the policy.

  2. Alternative Prime profile image85
    Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago

    Not only is "Trickle Down" a Failed Republican Con Job but The "American Experiment" PERIOD has'nt worked ~

    Time to eliminate the FAILED 2 party political system and replace it with the "American Democratic Party" which will champion the causes of the MAJORITY of citizens ~ The greed driven wealthiest few no longer need representation by republican puppets, they've already plundered this country to the limit ~

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Great idea!  Except...where will all the money come from for the free loaders that want more than they produce?  We've already plundered this country (plus half the world, including China) for money to give away - where will it come from now?

      1. Alternative Prime profile image85
        Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Freeloader? A Republican BS term they try to use to define all Americans who are not filthy rich ~ Reality? American Workers & Senior Citizens are paid a tiny fraction of their true intrinsic worth ~ Just remember, Greed Driven Corporations collect billions in annual revenues & profits while the worker earns pennies ~ Time for that to change ~

        1. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          Now that I will agree with

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          That's fine and quite true...as long as it is you and not the free market that gets to define the "true intrinsic worth" of someone's labor.  Personally, I will believe the market place rather than you or some bureaucrat sitting at a desk.

          But I trust that you understand that greed is not one-sided - that the greed of the worker producing minimum wage value, but demanding more, should be ignored and they should remain paid what they are actually worth, without simply declaring it to be more than what they get without regard to actual value?

          1. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            More fox republican nonsensical BS ~ Yeah, the "Free Market Place" is fine when the "Market" freely flows in a greedy corporate execs favor ~  When it dosen't, just place an arbitrary price tag on the product ~

            It's clearly apparent you've been a tad blind when it comes to the oil & gas "Markets" lately ~ Talk about a massive con job, not to mention what most would consider illegal & unethical business activities ~

            I've been calling for congressional hearings regarding ALL oil cos. ~ Let  the execs explain while under oath why there was, and still is a massive divergence in commodity prices ~

            1. MizBejabbers profile image90
              MizBejabbersposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              Not really, I agree with Wilderness. When the uneducated hamburger slinger makes $15.00 per hour, it devalues the salaries of the rest of us who worked hard to pay for our degrees with time and money. I have a masters but I don't make a six figure salary after 27 years at my job. It's just the bureaucrats, engineers, and doctors who do. My field doesn't pay six figures. Anybody can make a hamburger or a shake. I did that when I was a freshman in college.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                This is absurd, $15.00 per hour will leave a person very close to if not in poverty ~

                Firstly, it does not de-value anything, the regressive republicans are hostile toward a reasonable hourly wage increase because it would give the minions below them more power and control over theirlives which to them would be unacceptable ~

                Secondly, god save us if a repubican were president, ALL student loan programs would be terminated period ~  Students understand this completely ~ They would need to go to the "Mutt Romney" program ~ "Just go borrow the money from your parents if you would like an extended education" ~ Insane ~

                Thirdly if you are only making a mere $15.00 per hour or in this vicinity after an extended education, there's probably something wrong with your individual marketability ~

                1. Credence2 profile image84
                  Credence2posted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  AP, the key is depending on where you live $15.00/hr is a lot of money. It is not so much in Huntington Beach or Lower Manhattan but by the standards of the average national individual wage, that's over $30,000 a year for flipping burgers. I hear that is what GM and the auto manufacturers start their workers out with...and the fast food industry can't claim to the same wages as a factory worker.  We need to raise the minimum to at least 10.00 nationwide, but I think that $15.00 is a bit much.

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    You are confusing minimum wage with livable wage. The two have similarities but are from opposite ends of the spectrum. By law the minimum wage is not federally mandated to match anything. It is a sum decided by congress based on their own criteria. A livable wage is based mostly on local governments agreements with industry and civil service and such.

                    To calculate how inflation and data affects the wages check out the link below.

                    http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

                  2. Alternative Prime profile image85
                    Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    I respectfully disagree Credence 2, ~

                    $15.00 per hour regardless of job dutuies or living venue should be a starting point from which to launch further wage increases in the near future ~ Los Angelesi is on cutting edge and a nationwide effort should commence ~

                    rhamson ~ I'm well aware of the differences between "Minimum" & "Livable" wage ~ The latter just an excuse for gredy repubicans to  try to Cap Americans at an income in which they feel is appropriate, and everyone understands that level is well below poverty ~

                    Republicans almost organized a mass "Jump" from a 10 story building after the minimum wage was increased to just above $7.00 ~ This is at poverty levels regardless of where you live ~

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Trickle down economics works and so does as capitalism. What doesn't work is allowing bailouts, backroom deals and bonuses from Washington to Wall street.
      What doesn't work in a democratic republic is not following the Golden Rule and The Constitution.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        I can agree with your last sentence, Kathryn, but not the first.  The reason is, it is a mathematical impossibility.  The dynamics of that kind of economic system mixed with human nature can have only two results, if there is no intervention by government.  One is the virtual elimination of the middle class and return to the two-tiered system prevalent from the 1700s to 1929,  The other is a destruction of capitalism as an economic model and a return to the oligarc economy of old in America and current in Russia.

      2. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Trickle down economics never worked. Reagan who coined the term increased taxes 11 times and tripled the national debt trying to jumpstart the process. In his case the government had to create a need which was mostly defense spending.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          why did it not work in your opinion and observation and what is the solution to the problem and what is the problem?

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Since the early eighties the transfer of wealth has continously gone to the top. Look it up. The American worker is producing more than ever with their wages are stagnating as those above get even wealthier. Is the economy robust even though the stock market is in record breaking territory everyday? This is a paper economy fueled by the Fed selling paper as money. The trickle down theory has been a bust from the beginning.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              please prove this. "The American worker is producing more than ever with their wages are stagnating as those above get even wealthier."

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                I am on my cell phone and cannot paste links in this format. I will gladly provide you with links tomorrow. Thanks for your patience.

              2. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                Read this. It is precisely what I am talking about.

                http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunda … gnate.html

              3. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                But it is true enough - the American laborer, using tools provided by capital investment, is able to produce more than ever before.  Of course, if those tools (and the capital to build and purchase them) were not available we'd have pretty dismal production rates...

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              People became needy and substandard because certain politicians and a certain political party taught them to be dependent on the gov't. Thats why trickle down didn't work.
              It works and the prosperity we have had is proof.
              obviously.

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                How did people become needy? Did they just wake up one day and poof their job was gone? Did their income just shrink? No, through legislation bought by big business the jobs were evacuated to much cheaper sources and nothing was given in its place. No jobs mean no money. That is how you become needy.

                "If trickle-down economics worked, then lower tax rates during the Reagan Revolution should have increased the lowest income levels. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred. Income inequality has worsened. Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6% for the bottom fifth of income earners. That sounds great, until you see what happened for the top fifth -- an 80% increase in income. The top 1% saw their income triple. Instead trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up!" [1]

                For some odd reason you think it makes an overall difference of which political party is in charge. Just listen to the latest rhetoric coming out of their mouths in this presidential race. They are both calling for income equality, immigration reform, voting reform. All meant to confuse and make you vote within their system. God forbid an independent gaining any ground.

                "When I was a lobbyist, frankly, I was against [term limits] because once you purchase an office you don't want to have to repurchase that same office down the line." Jack Abramoff

                Notice he made no distinction about which party he was buying an office from. [2] If you wish to believe our country is still in capable hands then you have buried your head in the sand. The only capability they have is to get the almighty dollar as they greedily help themselves.

                Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is the only answer to our problem. How long will we let them take from us?



                [1] http://useconomy.about.com/od/Politics/ … t-Work.htm
                [2] http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin … -lobbying-

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  I'm sorry, Rhamson, but business does not need special laws to import toys from overseas.  OR set up factories there.

                  No, laws weren't needed; just the greed of the American consumer wanting ever more for less.  There is neither need or reason to blame corporations for supplying what people want.

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    "I'm sorry, Rhamson, but business does not need special laws to import toys from overseas.  OR set up factories there."

                    I am not sure what this is in reference to but I find it funny that you should bring up toys being imported as an example. Foreign toy manufacturers have in the past painted their toys with lead based paints. This was not caught until some children were showing signs of lead poisoning. Dog food was poisoned with melamine causing the deaths of pets here in the US. Chinese drywall was used in some southern states that caused sickness and is still being fought as to whether or not they will pay to have it replaced. If these things happened in the US with US companies they would be sued and in most cases bankrupted. In China they just start up under a new name and continue business as usual with new names. You say there are no laws needed but what is that based on?

                  2. My Esoteric profile image88
                    My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    While in theory I actually agree with you Wildnerness, in practice what both of you say is both true and false.

                    There is no doubt in my mind of the truth of W's statement that "http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/Drug-Testing-Welfare-Recipients-Fair-or-Not", and if this is what the consumer wants, business is happy to supply.  Here there is no role for gon't other than safety.

                    But, laws were passed to make it less expensive to outsource and effectively encourage businesses to outsource.  In our national interest, those laws need to be reversed (but lobbying has been effective in stopping it so far) so that outsourcing becomes more expensive.

                    Having said that, there is a fine balance here, for if the laws are made too coercive, either business leaves America entirely or their costs go up so much that they become non-competitive and Americans buy from cheaper foreign sources.

                    At the very least, however, I think the tax benefits for outsourcing should be eliminated.

              2. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                While I disagree with rhamson on the cause and term limits, his points are well taken.

                You both will need to look for a different reason for people being needy for the question neither of your assertions can answer is "If either your positions is true, how does it explain the enormous poverty problem that existed prior to 1929?"  Prior to then there was 1) no outsourcing or 2) gov't support.for the poor.

              3. Alternative Prime profile image85
                Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                Kathryn ~ That is the most Absurdly Ridiculous statement I've read in quite some time ~

      3. Alternative Prime profile image85
        Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Sorry Kathryn but you're wrong ~ "Trickle Down" & "Capitolism" are both utter Failures ~ A drastically new direction is on the horizon ~

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          Why do you say they are utter failures and why do you say so?

          1. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Very simple ~ The mass of American & Global Wealth is densely concentrated in the pockets and bank accounts (Many Offshore) of a tiny fraction of greedy individuals and or entities such as the Mitt Romneys, Jed Bush', et al  ~

            This by any measure is the very definition of not only FAILURE, but an unconscionable atrocity and even criminal intent ~

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              who is "and all?"
              Capitalism is not the cause.  The cause of some who illegally acquire wealth is due to illegal bailouts, back room deals and bonuses from Washington to Wall Street. The so called problem of "dense concentration"  is not a problem of capitalism, a system of free market enterprise which benefits all in a free society. Illegal dense concentration is a problem of breaking boundaries which The Constitution provides, but some have ignored. I am sure Mitt Romney acquired his wealth illegally.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                Kathryn, your desperate attempts to try to justify "Wealth Concentration"  in America are futile ~

                It's impossible to defend "Capitolism" & "Free Markets" as successful when there is such anasset imbalance ~

                Just remember, Republicans strive mightily to makle the filthy rich even richer at the expense of the vast majority of Americans ~ That's a fact ~

                1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                  Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  Correction ~ "an asset  imbalance"

                2. My Esoteric profile image88
                  My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  I'm going to take Kathyrn's side on this, although she may not want me to.  I agree, capitalism, per se, isn't the problem; as an economic system its the best thing since sliced bread.  What IS the problem is that for capitalism to work most effectively, it must be regulated by the federal government in order to block those kinds of people you describe, Alternative, from destroying the system; as they are doing now.  It worked in the 60s, it can work again.

                  BTW, the tax structure which is a major player in both income and wealth inequality, but especially in wealth inequality.  America is getting pretty close to being an inheritance based society, the way it was before the Great Depression of 1929.

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                    Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    "Capitolism" & "Free Markets" never worked in the past and will never work in the future ~

                    It was a 250 year old experiment that failed miserably, there are no solutions ~ The entire concept must be scrapped ASAP and replaced with more stringent and balanced wealth distribution mechanisms ~

      4. MizBejabbers profile image90
        MizBejabbersposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Kathryn, I abhor those bailouts, too, but without those bailouts the recession of 2008-09 would have been child's play to what really would have happened. Our whole economic system was in danger of collapsing.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          - we ARE gonna have to face the music.
          perhaps then would have been a better time….
          I mean what is ON THE HORIZON?

          1. MizBejabbers profile image90
            MizBejabbersposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Unfortunately, you are probably right. But I'd just as soon enjoy it as long as I can. For some it may have been a better time, but at least I can have my poverty in a paid-for house, which wouldn't have happened six years ago. However, what is "on the horizon" is still scary.

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          Much worse is in store for us because of no correction allowed in the last recession. The banks have become even bigger based on a phony dollar value pumped up by the Fed.

    3. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      At one time the "majority" of American citizens had no problem with slavery, is that what you want?  After slavery, the "majority" of Americans want separation of the races; is that what you have in mind?

  3. Alternative Prime profile image85
    Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago

    Bottom Line?

    If you are filthy rich and do not have a conscience, you have no business voting democratic, you should run with great haste to hold hands with the republican "Trickle Down" crowd ~

    Everyone else, and I'm speaking to the Real Americans, should simply ignore the Fox BS Rhetoric and inspect the republican voting records in congress ~ I'm confident a swift democratic vote would be the common sense outcome ~

  4. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 18 months ago

    GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS

                               mom and pop


    GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS

  5. aware profile image70
    awareposted 18 months ago

    Charge  the doctor 500 for  the happy  meal.

    1. Alternative Prime profile image85
      Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      You, John Holden, and just about everyone else here are doing a pretty good job of accentuating the massive Failures of Capitolism all on your own, without my help ~

      Just another "Free Market" Failure ~ The primary reason why the vast majority of individuals enter the medical field is because he/she/it thinks he/she/it can make a literal killing on the income end, they don't necessarily enter for humanitarian reasons ~ That's a Fact ~

      Therefore, if a docter was guaranteed a "Burger Flippers" hourly wage and not the potential to snag a dozen BMWs annually , I guess that would be one way to seperate the humanitarians from the greedy money grabbers right? ~

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Um, my name is not Aware!

        However, if you mean that i am doing a good job of accentuating the failures of capitalism then thanks for the compliment. That has been my aim all along.

  6. Alternative Prime profile image85
    Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago

    It is critical that the Medical Profession be Nationalized & Federally Subsidized ASAP ~

    Forget insane republican "Trickle Down" schemes and re-direct those funds toward a program that truly matters ~

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Why?  Because you won't earn enough to pay your medical bills?  That doesn't seem much of a reason to require that I pay them for you...

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Do you insure your home? If you do why do you expect others to pay for any damage?

        1. Alternative Prime profile image85
          Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          My Lord ~ You do realize that I and  "OTHERS" do pay for YOUR insurance claims right? ~

          But I'm happy you brought insurance companies into the mix ~ They might be more corrupt than oil cos ~

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          Simply paying for something is not insurance.  Do you expect someone else to buy your clothes for you?  Your computer?  Repair your car when the engine gives up?

          Insurance, on the other hand, is a voluntary pooling of resources to share the costs when something goes wrong.  Key word being "voluntary".

          1. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Wilderness~ First of all, John mentioned "Insurance" & "Damage" in the very same sentence which indicates a claim would be filed for the "Damages" if indeed he would like to be re-imbursed, and of course we all pay for his claims directly from a general pool funds ~

            Secondly, if your home is mortgaged or has a deed of trust attached, a financial situation which accounts for the majority of homes in America, the homeowners insurance is "Required" or "Involuntary" not "Voluntary" ~ The lender requires the lendee to own a policy ~

            There are many other "Required" or "Mandatory" insurances as well, many of which are necessary societal protections and precautions ~

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Universal medical insurance (The NHS) seems to work pretty well in the UK despite what all the folk not making profits out of it tell you.

      2. Alternative Prime profile image85
        Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Insane ~ it's usually called the "United States of America" for good reason ~ Your comment does not deserve a response ~ But here I go ~

        If you don't living in a union, do what no-brains Rick Perry's Texas & Alaska are trying to do, simply leave ~ As a matter of fact, I'm researching ways to get at least those two states Thrown Out of the Uunion ~

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          Not sure what "If you don't living in a union," means, but if you want a communistic state you might consider moving yourself.  The rest of us like it the way it is - responsible for ourselves - rather than paying for someone else.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Why should I move? It’s the insane republican party that’s out of touch ~ I already understand the fact that Taxes, Federal & State Governments, comprehensive Regulations, Oversight, IRS, Strict Firearm Laws, and Helping our Fellow Citizen are all integral components of a functional United States of America ~

            I understand this, support this, and will do all I can to promote these necessities while stripping Greed Driven Corporations of their Massive Wealth & Power Grab ~

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              From what you've posted you have an intense desire to control/be controlled.  That's contrary to the spirit of US culture, but integral to communism/socialism.  You'd probably be much happier in that type of culture rather than one founded on freedom of the individual.

          2. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            You would rather condemn tens of thousands of people to death than give them medical care? Just because you don't want to pay for them?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              I wonder how Wilderness would feel if all those people unable to buy medical attention received medical attention from Cuban doctors.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                That would be great!  Let the countries (Cuba, much of Europe, Russia, etc.) that choose a culture of control and demand give it up.  Can we send all our sick people to the UK for treatment?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  You mean come and steal off the British tax payers!

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    But...but...isn't that what socialism is all about?  Taking from one to give to another so that all are equal?  The poor Americans don't have health care (or at least have to pay for it to get any) - surely you wouldn't want them to die would you?

                    At least that's what janesix is saying - if you won't provide it that means you want people to die.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              What I would be willing to pay has nothing to do with stealing from millions to pay for those that won't do it themselves.  This is something that the liberals will never understand, but seems quite obvious to those that put a high value on freedom.  Forced, unlimited charity is an anathema to those that love being free and we long ago crossed any reasonable line in that department in this country.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                Great way to avoid the question.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  OK - yes, I would prefer that a handful (not the tens of thousands you claim) die rather than give up the freedom Americans enjoy.  Americans have paid, with their lives, through the history of this country to maintain that concept, and I find it a valid price. 

                  How much will you give up to provide unlimited health care for those that can't or won't do it themselves?  Your way of life, or just a couple of dollars?  Because a couple of dollars won't do the job - it will require your entire culture.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    It's 45,000 die a year, not a handful.

                  2. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    Why would it require my "entire culture"? I don't even know what that means. All we would have to do is reduce military spending, which is a bloated monster.

                  3. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    (Almost) unlimited healthcare costs about half as much in the UK as the second rate US system costs (as a percentage of GDP).

              2. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                I'm curious, what percent of the American institutionalized population over 16 that " won't do it themselves" do you think there is?

                Do you know what percent of each public assistance dollars go to:
                1. Kids?
                2. Disabled?
                3. Veterans?
                4. Elderly?
                5. Short-term unemployed?
                6. Long-term (through no fault of their own) unemployed?
                7. Long-term (purposefully) unemployed?
                5. Healthy adults who won't work.?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  The reports are that 47% of the population gets public assistance.  I don't think that counts kids, just adults.  As far as I know, no checks are sent to kids.  Or food stamps, section 8 payments, etc.  Free school lunches maybe, although the parents' lack of income is actually responsible.  That and the politicians wanting to look good.

                  Elderly get SS, not public assistance per se.
                  Anyone unemployed long term is that way because they won't take work.
                  I'd guess that a quarter of the "disabled" are actually disabled enough that they cannot work.  Of the dozen or so I know that get disability payments, ALL can perform productive work.
                  Most vets seem to get disability of some kind (all that I know, anyway) and then have full time jobs as well.  That certainly doesn't mean that none are actually disabled, just that a very small percentage are actually disabled beyond earning a living.

                  But I'm curious, too - of the 47% of the adult population getting government charity, how many do YOU think cannot support themselves?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    FYI. In the UK more benefits are paid to people in work than out of work.
                    That as to be very wrong-a sad indictment of capitalism.

              3. Alternative Prime profile image85
                Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                Typical ignorant republican ~ Wilderness, if you don't understand basic policy how can you possibly participate with any conviction?

                You remind me of that Tea Party Genius a while back ~ While she was in the middle of some anti-government anarchistic rant, she blurted out, and I paraphrase ~ "And tell the federal government to keep their hands off my social security checks" ~ Not realizing that the United States Treasury issues her check ~

                Wilderness, oil companies receive federal government "Subsidies"   to the tune of billions ~ I would suggest you do a little research if you need more info on the subject ~

                Believe me, if more republicans actually conducted a little research instead of blindly following the O'riellys & Hannitys they wouldn't be republicans for long ~

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  thank you!  I appreciate being called an "ignorant republican".  With 8 years of college training, the claim is rather doubtful, and I am not registered as a republican, either.

                  Sounds like the liberals, not realizing that the money they spend is from the citizens they are supposed to govern, that every dime they demand is hurting somebody.  Of course, like our wondrous president stated, he knows better than the owner that worked for that money what to do with it. 

                  You made the claim of billions to oil companies - I assume you have done the research to verify such a claim before you made it.  So, how are those billions delivered (cash, check or money order) and to whom?  IF you have done the research, surely you can provide some links?

                  1. ahorseback profile image46
                    ahorsebackposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    Ignorant republicans huh ?  Wow !

                    Lesson one from ignorant republican , Social security IS yours , the company pays half into the  IRS . and the worker pays half!  So in essence ,yes it is "hers".

                    As to Hannity's and O'reilly's being followed , someone has to balance out the very , very  liberal mainstream media !

                    Oil  company subsidies ? Wanna see subsidies  , take a look at college's , universities , media companies , farmers ,  pharmaceutical companies ,   everyone and anyone gets them  ,   Sounds like one of those liberal  rants for  Income Re-distribution to me !  " He's got more than me , I want his "

                    Careful about that name calling !

                  2. My Esoteric profile image88
                    My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    "that every dime they demand is hurting somebody. ..." should have  been finished with "and every dime they spend helps somebody in some fashion, eg. Defense, FAA, SNAP just to name a few.

                    Citizens have duty to pay for the things they want as expressed through the Representatives they vote into State and Federal offices.  People who benefit most from living in this country and are able to take unfair political and social advantage from the wealth they have accumulated should pay the most for the privilege.

                    There is no way you can defend someone like Mitt Romney, whose wealth is amplified because most of his  income is taxed at only the capital gains rate because of a quirk in the tax law, having a better chance at influencing his congressman than I do.  Every person should have equal access to personal meetings with their representatives.  If someone has better access by virtue of their station in life, then they need to pay for that extra benefit.

      3. Alternative Prime profile image85
        Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        More fox BS rhetoric ~

        Wilderness ~, Adequate Healthcare is a Constitutional & Birth Right ~ Immediate Coverage should begin on day 1 of delivery ~

        We are talking about an individuals Fundamental right to Live ~

        And once again, we live in the "United" States of America, not Somalia which is where most republicans should relocate ~ To my knowledge, there are very few if any gun laws there ~

  7. Alternative Prime profile image85
    Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago

    Wow ~ My spelling is atrocious today ~ Must be my great anticipation for the UEFA Championship Game today ~

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago

    I wonder if I am going to be taxed to death, myself.

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      If you didn't live in luxury, compared to most of the rest of the world, and most of the entire history of civilization, I might feel a little sorry for you.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        ...ah the life of a fish.
        underwater, near the octopus's garden…
        http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you … 3ABB63CE8B

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      You'd be the first person in history to suffer death by taxes.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        I dunno, John - more than once I've felt like an incipient heart attack was coming on when doing my taxes... smile

        1. Alternative Prime profile image85
          Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          Then you really should consider moving to another country Wilderness ~ I mean really, how do you expect a unified, cohesive nation to function without Tax Collection? ~

          I guess it's nice "Election Time" rhetoric republicans like to spout when running for office but in reality, it's a necessary collection ~ Mosr republican presidents have campaigned with this BS but then end up actually raising taxes once in office ~

          "Trickle Down"? Is that your solution? Give all our money to the Jed Bushes of the world? I'm sure he'll make sure the rest of us get our share sometime in the future right?

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        I bet you are wrong.

    3. Alternative Prime profile image85
      Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Kathryn ~ Although taxes for the wealthy and greed driven corporations should be much higher, you'll never be "Taxes to Death"  unless you fall into this category ~

      However, if congressional hearings do not commence soon, there is a very high probability that you might be "Oiled & Gased" to deaht by Jed Bushes buddies in the industry ~ You are getting gouged profusely at the pump right now, and have been for decades ~  It's criminal ~

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        We need to NOT VOTE FOR anyone connected to the Globalists.
        BTW Does that sound too conspiratorial
        or is it a justified stance?


        Wondering.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          It would probably be easier to answer if you would define what a "globalist" is.  Someone that thinks we live on a globe, with hundreds of other countries that we interact with?

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            We will need to find some flat-Earth creationists to vote for.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              'shudder'  A fate worse than death.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                Yes that would be awful;. Sorry I mentioned it!

  9. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
    Kathleen Cochranposted 18 months ago

    Anyone really interested in the American Economy should read twice Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman's new book, "That Used To Be Us".  He writes that we were doing pretty well until Reaganomics threw us a curve.  Bush I and Clinton did a pretty good job of getting us back to 500 ball..  Then Bush II struck out. 

    Unfortunately his suggestion for how we can get back to who we were is a possibility that is never going to happen in today's political environment.  But it's a good read that explains a lot.

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago

    How can one be happy with less?
    *Take a job you like and try to keep the weekends free.
    *Have a healthy diet and don't buy a lot … any... junk food. Keep your grocery bills low and buy whole foods such as vegetables and more vegetables and fruits.
    *Focus on the abundance within: love, kids, family, nature, good books, friends, etc. These things are not expensive.
    *Mortgage payments will be low if your house is not oversized. My house was easy to clean and repair, so our family had more time for fun and recreational activities. My kids flew the coop at an appropriate age because it was small.
    *Stay out of debt by NOT borrowing.
    *Don't pay for private school. 
    *Pay cash for as much as you can.
    *Realize you live in a great country where people are generally hard working, conscientious and friendly.
    -and remember, every day is a day to gaze up at the mountains
    and not stare down at the gutters.

    1. MizBejabbers profile image90
      MizBejabbersposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Kathryn, my husband and I did all that. Married 30 years and he has been on disability all but five years of our marriage because he can't work. I'm a state employee and when my agency merged with a larger one and I got a sizeable increase in salary, we stayed in the same house and only bought a new auto when the old one barely limped into the dealership. We have something to show for our frugality, but we are having to help support a son with a potentially fatal disease. Congratulations to you for flying high. Too many of us are trapped in having to support our elderly parents or disabled children.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago

    If you can't afford to buy a house, thats okay! I would not buy a house in today's market in So Cal!
    Houses around me just jumped up to 700 thousand! They were recently only 400 to 500 thousand. That is a problem. I do feel sorry for gen Xers and younger who would like to buy a home to raise their families. Many are raising kids in apartments now.
    They can still make the best of it. I know parents/kids are getting together and having barbecues in their apt. complexes, going on outings with friends, birthday parties galore…
    In short, they are enjoying life today despite, (or maybe even because of) apt. living.

    1. Alternative Prime profile image85
      Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      So-Cal has everything a person could possibly dream of ~ Hence, the reason for a premium tag to live here ~

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Everything a person could dream of?  How about some snow?  Or open spaces without a gadzillion people tromping everywhere?  What about clean air?  Or roads that actually be traveled at more than a stop-and-go pace?

        About all So. Cal. has to offer is tons of people and a nice climate.  And celebrities to ogle if you're into that kind of thing.

        1. Alternative Prime profile image85
          Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          And....Beautiful Beaches.... Beauitful Girls.....Every Job & Bussiness Opportunity U could Imagine.....The List goes and on ~

          Once again Widerness, your research is seriousy flawed ~ I can get snow just about any time i'd like....A beautiful mountain range is just 45 minutes  right up the freeway....The entire state is flanked to the east by the Sierra Nevadas....So I control when I enjoy the snow.....Air quality has been trending to the possitive for decades...

          There are very good resons why California is indeed the most populous state within the "Union" ~ Approximately 40 million Americans call this golden state home my friend  ~

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            all good points, Alternative Prime… what is your alternative, by the way?
            I mean so far you have been very critical... what are you critical of, what is the problem as you see it and what is the solution?

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Oh, I understand that a great many people like Cali, even the left wing politics (they even move to Idaho trying to get away from the nonsense there and then try to turn MY state into the same liberal haven they're leaving).

            What it has to offer, to me, just isn't worth the cost.  At least in the popular areas - now northern California, around Eureka, is wonderful.  I'm not much for the tremendous press of people the rest of the coastal area has (although the pretty girls are a big draw! smile )

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          yeah… like three. (celebrities)
          and did we mention high taxes?

          1. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Sorry Kathryn,

            Wrong & Wrong Again ~ Nice try though

            1. Alternative Prime profile image85
              Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              Want nose bleed taxes, move to Texas, then you'll understand what truly HIGH taxes are ~

              2-4% property taxes alone ~ Insanity ~ In many counties it's double the So-Cal rate ~

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              what do you not agree with?
              Hollywood is like a ghost town and we do have really high taxes… are you sure you live here?
              but here you go:

              http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-ve … 013-4?op=1
              I guess you win.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                We have Prop 13 & 58 which Caps Property Taxes for senior citizens, sales tax is a reasonable 7% ~ These are two primary sources of income for both the county and state ~

                Not sure what state you're domiciled in Kathryn, but all things considered, we pay a very reasonable overall tax here in So-Cal ~

                If you pay 4% property tax on a 250,000 house in Texas, that's roughly $10,000 annually just in TAXES ~ Approx $900 per month, more than the actual mortgage ~ Insane

              2. Alternative Prime profile image85
                Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                Hollywood is just fine with a robust motion picture industry which is thriving ~ I was just in town ~

                1. Credence2 profile image84
                  Credence2posted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  I lived in the "inland Empire' in the late seventies, and had a bang up time during the heart of the Disco Era. Now I crave a little quiet, it is all a little overcrowded and expensive for my tastes. That song by Randy Newman "I love LA" had me written all over it. Today, I prefer a little more space between me and my neighbor.

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                    Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    “Inland Empire”, I’m assuming you’re referring to the San Bernardino & Riverside Regions ~

                    It has enjoyed a nice little growth spurt in the last couple decades, almost as robust as the Orange County area, and sure, if you need a little space I can understand your interest in a change in venue ~  You always get what you pay for though ~

                    I’m a concrete kinda guy myself and could never even conceive of living in a remote or secluded venue, I need everything in front of my face within shoutin’ distance ~ Restaurants, Pharmacies, Convenience Stores, Movie Theatres, Grocery Stores, Hospitals, Doctors, Attorneys, Entertainment, Professional Sports Stadiums, Timely Information, Reliable Media Connections, I just need it all at my touch  and that’s exactly what I have right here in So-Cal ~

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  Yes, Hollywood is trying. I just wish they'd put some money into the city of Hollywood and spruce it up.

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                    Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    C'mon Kathryn, you would be very sexy if U weren't so dizzy ~

                    Just like every other major city, there are a few questionably outdated areas dowtown , but it's doing just fine, North Hollywood is up-scale heaven ~

                    Hollywood was and is a major success story, always adapting to the evolving entertainment market ~ It will continue to do so going forward even with the advent of Netflix and others ~

                    And just like the Mob will always claim a stake in Vegas, Film Sudios will always get a piece of the "Big" & "Little" Screens ~

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago

    I thought everybody understood what a Globalist is!
    Its those rich guys who influence the world based on their great financial powers! They used to be called the New World Order.

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      The Illuminati?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Okay. thats another name for them.
        http://www.globalistagenda.org/who.htm

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          They have a Satanist agenda, you know. It's been going on for decades, if not centuries. Or millenia, if you realize it started in Egypt.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      So don't vote for any rich guy or gal.

      Pretty much leaves out anyone in the running doesn't it?  Shall we elect Homer Simpson instead?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Maybe Edward O'Neill  (Al Bundy/Jay Pritchett)
        Birth Place: Youngstown, Ohio, United States
        Birthday: April 12, 1946, Aries
        Profession: Actor
        Maybe he's not rich enough. Let's write him in. There is a revolution for you. He'll be fine as long as there is a camera on him.  lol

      2. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Can we just get a decent choice. To many times we have to choose the lesser of two evils.

  13. Alternative Prime profile image85
    Alternative Primeposted 18 months ago

    Nice, I dig the area ~ A little warmer than here but a nice arid, therapeutic climate ~  Soothes the body, it’s a very sexy place ~

    That’s exactly where U wanna be if an arms length from everything is a desire ~ I can definitely see the attraction, been through the region many times, I’m actually looking for a property in the San Jacinto, Yucaipa area ~ I like spending time hugging the desert perimeters ~

    I agree, Los Angeles is definately the Real Deal, good, legitimate reasons why California is the most populous state in the union ~ Almost 40 million at last consensus ~

    I'm just happy Arnold Shwartzwhatever is long gone as governor ~ What a disterous tenure ~ Jerry Brown did in a few years what he FAILED to accomplish in 8 ~ We are now a model state again thanks to Gov. Brown ~

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 18 months ago in reply to this

      We live in Florida now, in the central east coast area of the state, I get what I got in California and Hawaii,  no frost in January! But it is damp and muggy with mosquitos everwhere which I am not use to. The cost of living is very reasonable, with no state taxes. Granted, it is a bit ham handed compared with the sophisticos of the Los Angeles area, ubiquitous BBQ stands and Nascar and such,  but there are always going to be trade offs. What would you bear in exchange for something of greater value?

      Good to see Jerry Brown back at the helm. The Governator was the celebrity for all of us outside of California for quite a while.

  14. Lucky Onoriode profile image60
    Lucky Onoriodeposted 18 months ago

    You are right My Esoteric

  15. MolliAnne profile image77
    MolliAnneposted 18 months ago

    What a persuasively indirect and healthy debate.. my father used to tell me.. if your "all in" to one political party.. you don't have an opinion... and he said this as his beloved daughter joined the young dem association in her 1st year of college... he said this as a staunch republican.. and two years later... I came back to his right wing tendencies.. we have been faithful Rush listeners even if we didnt agree with everything he had to say.. it didn't stop him from speaking. Have you seen the internet posts of all the people in this country that were arrested wearing Obama tshirts? Well.. if sharing my fox-news-lovin opinion that... this great country we live in, being the biggest business in the world and our need is for it to be run like one.. gets me arrested... I sure as heck hope I'm wearing a Reagan tshirt. Reagan was not afraid. He did what he did for the right economic stimulus . He raised taxes.. and he created jobs...  the Fed controls our economy... it's a big facade.. they tighten and loosen credit.. buy and sell bonds... determine the cost of money, control the interest rates and more.. they make these decisions on a feel/felt basis and look to history as a determining factor because the cycle is reliant.  Capitalism is necessary. I forget who said it.. but an American economist once said that capitalism was necessary for political freedom.. and i believe it. Reagan ran this country like a business.. hindsight is always 20/20... it's easy to look back and make a criticism.. let's deal with the hear and now. You can have all the great causes... legitimate causes... but you can't fix a thing without money... without a strong economy.. it's lip service. That is a top-down truism. Fix the money.. and you can make different choices.. better choices.. Promote small business.. bring back the American dream. Create jobs and raise taxes.. that's me... just sayin'

  16. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 18 months ago

    Sometimes I am amazed at the downright immaturity of staunch  party lovers  ,  the right have their way and the left have theirs . To belong to either one we must be ever loyal to the particular cause .  Reason  ?  Forget about it .    We don't need reason ,   we need fanaticism  .   

    Reagan was the best thing that came along  to America , you are  right , he ran America like a business !   And even more than that he absolutely loved his country !   And yet , the left just HAS to hate Reagan  , why ?Because  It's just the right thing to do .

    I make a prediction - Nothing will ever change in American politics as long as we continue to view the world through rose colored ,two  party glasses !    Congress will continue ,business as usual  , the White House will remain a bridge to incredible life long financial and power opportunities .  Unless we the voters  drop our  twin partisan boundaries -------There will always be TWO parties -in voter  mentality .

    1. MolliAnne profile image77
      MolliAnneposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      And I'm  keeping my eye on you too!  All four of them.

  17. DzyMsLizzy profile image90
    DzyMsLizzyposted 18 months ago

    That stuff "trickling down?" 

    It isn't wealth--it's piss!

    1. ahorseback profile image46
      ahorsebackposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      It sure is for the last six + years  , yet we won't talk about that will we ,  that would require we be racists .

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        This is not about Obama or Georgy Porgy or Clinton for that matter. The system has been infiltrated by greed and corruption. The corruption has had over two hundred years of lawyers serving themselves to subvert the Constitution as they see fit for their benefit. Obama sold out to Wall Street, Bush sold out to big oil and the list goes on and on. The checks and balances was up to the electorate who are only too happy to reside in their own little bubble without doing a thing or possessing a responsible thought as to what is going on around them. Blaming one guy or choosing one party over the other only perpetuates the conundrum.

  18. MolliAnne profile image77
    MolliAnneposted 18 months ago

    I don't think O'bashing makes me a racist... The fact is, he is the leader of our country. A leader must act, not react. I, for one, have times where I need to remind myself to embrace certain change that comes along in life.  These times, I consider my struggles, the difficult change. Change is coming, it's here, and the longer I wait to accept it, the further it gets ahead of me. The times I am able to see beyond it, are my greatest successes. The leader of our country should be a step ahead of change. He can't just embrace it, he must anticipate and get ahead of it.  Obama is the king of lip service. All his talk about change has left him reacting to it, instead of initiating it. I don't think that makes me the least bit racist.  I don't think every black person is inept, and I am white. I don't think every leftist is wrong, and I lean to the right. Politics is defined as both an art and a science  It is a science because it defines the rules and doctrines we live by, and is an art in the form of persuasion. "We the people, for the people..." I don't want anyone telling me what to think or believe. That is our freedom. Without opposition, there is no cause. Fill a room where everyone thinks alike and you have a cult. Opposing political parties ensure reasonable conflict and debate, to set limits in power. Redefining the parties would surely serve us better than eliminating them.

    1. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Well said, but consider the following two propositions:

      1.  While you may not be racist and are just criticizing PBOs policies and actions it is a statistical reality many on the Right are.  The general PBO bashing is distinctly different in tone and content from the Clinton bashing and Bush bashing that occurred in spades during their administrations.  A study just shows the vast majority of overtly PBO racist tweets occur from red states.

      2. I must disagree with you regarding your comments on PBO's change accomplishments.  I have a very lengthy hub on what PBO has accomplished, and it is a lot.  The issue is the definition of "change".  If you are one who thinks an action taken by PBO which you disapprove of and therefor is not "change", then I can see why you think he has done little.  On the other hand, if you are one who removes their likes or dislikes from the equation, my list shows PBO has accomplished a lot; but not as much as those who think agree with everything he did was "change" because they agree with it.

      For example, whether you agree with it or not, the following are a few real and major "changes" that he accomplished in the face of the greatest headwinds from the opposition than any President in the 1900s:

      1. The stimulus and completing Bush's TARP
      2. Elimination of the military's anti-gay policies
      3. ACA
      4. Opening diplomatic relations with Cuba
      5. Implementing, as much as he is allowed, the bipartisan Senate immigration bill
      6. Finally accepting and promoting the rights of gays to be normal citizens of the United States with the same rights and privileges as any other non-gay American
      7. Promoted a much needed (in my opinion) renewable energy program
      8.End torture as a permissible policy of the United States
      9. Required economic justification for tax increases
      10.Reimplemented some (but not enough in my opinion) regulations that were tossed by the way side that were designed to protect Americans from abuse by banks and creditors as well as allowing the Great Recession to happen to the extent that it did.

      Now, if you disagree with all of these and don't count them as change, then yes, PBO simply sat on his thumb for 6 years.  If, however, you overlook your likes or dislikes, then he has been quite busy making changes.

      1. MolliAnne profile image77
        MolliAnneposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Read my reply, please. And thank you for your many years of service.

  19. MolliAnne profile image77
    MolliAnneposted 18 months ago

    Also well said.
    I am from Maryland (have been in Virginia for less than 2 years.) As for my status as a Fox-news-lover (or even viewer,) I used to raise my hand and say I'm the one!
    I think anyone who uses a racist tone in voicing anything is self-deprecating behavior, as they have taken away their own power in their message.  Let's go beyond accepting that exists and initiate a change not use it. The President of the United States stands in the most controversial position in the world. "Black" is a description (that even has ill-fated controversy surrounding it) that singles him out from all who have come before him.  It is an achievement for our country. He initiated his first change upon being elected. I will also let you know that I am "all-in" when it comes to gay marriage. A supporter. I want my freedoms, and the same freedoms for every individual in my community. I believe in the division of church and state.
    I will direct my response to your acknowledgement of "facing the greatest headwinds opposition since the 1900s.." (And even throw in an accolade... Obama has taken initiative in addressing the student loan crisis. We should not see headlines such as "Is Higher Education Worth the Cost?"  I think he will continue to promote his INITIATIVE for a sound resolution prior to the end of his term.)
    I never intended to imply that he has sat on his thumb for six years.  I was expressing that as the leader of our nation he should be a step ahead of change... anticipating it, and getting in front of it. That he is running the biggest business in the world... and that can't be done effectively, in terms of leadership, unless you act instead of react. Reacting will still effect change, as you have fervently listed with fact-based opinions. The greatest headwind opposition factor that you pointed out, is a perfect example of my point.
    I never implied that he hasn't made accomplishments.
    In the prior post ahorseback noted that any criticism of Obama labeled us as racists. I am confident that I can point out that he is black and provide a negative perspective of his actions (I prefer to use "reactions" here) in the same sentence and there is no racism felt or intended.
    While I appreciate your heartfelt fact-based rebuttal, I also was addressing the two-party, rose colored glasses comment, suggesting reform over elimination. Two sides to every story? Nah, three. Mine, yours, and the truth. Lol. I'm going to keep my eye on you My Esoteric. And if you get out of line.. I'm going to sick my 92 yr old grandmother on you.  We call her "Mops" (affectionately, derived from Mops and Pops) but she also goes by "pick-a-side-and-I'll-take-the-other"...  Remember to listen.. and 5he accomplishments are greater. Lol

    1. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Your welcome, I was very happy to serve.

      Thanks for the thoughtful reply, one which I have little disagreement with.  As to the two-party system, I don't think it will ever go away and I am not sure I want it to.  America is still fighting the same fight Hamilton/Adams (the lady needs to go on the $20 bill, not the $10, btw) and Jefferson/Madison fought so many years ago; even the issues are the same.

      If a third, or fourth party is ever to evolve, it must be done from the ground up, at the city, district, and state level overseen by an organizing national headquarters.  So far, contemporary efforts have been top down and will never work.  Even if one did get elected President, working with Congress is almost DOA because he or she doesn't have a constituency in either Party.

      At one time, from 1950 through 1994, I would argue we had a seven party system; three each for the Rs and Ds plus a few independents thrown in for good measure.  Then from 1995 - 2000, it was a six party (liberal Republicans were put on the sideline), then after 2001 it is four party system, the conservative Rs, the moderate Ds, the liberal Ds, and some independents.  Given the problems Boehner is having managing his heard of cats, you might say the conservatives split in two, the far Right and the far, far Right.  Today, moderate and liberal Rs have no voice and almost no presence while conservative Ds have no real presence either having either switched Parties, or more commonly replaced by conservative Rs.

      I think it is the "rules of the game" that is the real problem.  So long as gerrymandering is allowed to exist as well as closed primaries, then nothing is going to change.  Change those to rules and you would see a sea change in the political make-up of Congress.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        The problem with our politics is not the number of parties we decide to have but the money that is supplied to support them. Even within the parties money is used to influence and garner support. As long as the greed corrupts the political process, money will inevitably win.

        1. Alternative Prime profile image85
          Alternative Primeposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          If all political parties were willing to represent the MAJORITY of Americans, then of course the number thereof could be deemed irrelevant ~

          However, the regressive republican party has a long documented history of "Hostility & Contempt" toward the MARORITY of Americans while catering to the filthy rich and corporations. This is a serious problem ~

          Federally Subsidizing Elections is one of the only solutions to the "Dirty Money" issue ~

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            The corruption is rampant in both parties. Why wasn't Wall Street hammered after the meltdown? Obama was financed heavily by them is why. Not to say the GOP doesn't have a heavy investment by big oil is any better.

            Trying to pick any redeeming value of either party out of the rotten apple barrel is impossible. I do agree with publicly financed campaigns but go two steps farther. Term limits and lobby reform must accompany it as well.

            1. Alternative Prime profile image85
              Alternative Primeposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Not even close to accurate ~ Just remember, forget the fox snooze talking points and understand the facts ~ Republicans Represent the Wealthy, Democrats Represent everyone else ~

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                I think you'll find that Republicans represent the wealthy, Democrats represent the not quite as wealthy and everybody else goes unrepresented.

                1. My Esoteric profile image88
                  My Esotericposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  That statement, John is very hard to reconcile with the policy proposals from each Party.  By and large, most  policy proposals from the Right benefit the wealthy and very wealthy disproportionately than the middle and lower economic classes; they have the false hope the trickle-down works, and there is simply no proof, now that it has been attempted by Reagan and Bush 42.

                  On the other hand, the Right loudly claims that all of the policies of the Left benefit the lower and middle income classes disproportionately more than the upper class.

                2. Alternative Prime profile image85
                  Alternative Primeposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  inaccurate statement John Holden ~

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Why?

              2. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Just go to the donor list of the prospective candidates and the ones that won to see what I am talking about. Both parties are equally corrupt and by denying it you play right into the delusion of thinking they care what is best for you or me. We are led astray with phony flashpoint issues that help to keep the focus off of the politician. Until you see it you will be caught up in the farce.

                1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                  Alternative Primeposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  For a much more accurate snapshot depicting what truely matters, just look at the Core Issues to discover which party actually fights for Americans and which party fights for the extremely wealthy ~

                  The answer is the regressive GOP will fight to the bitter end to steal from the working class, senior citizens, and income challenged only to enrich the wealthy ~ And that's a fact ~

                2. My Esoteric profile image88
                  My Esotericposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  I wish neither Party received their money in a much different way, but since one does, the other must, even if it didn't want to.  To do otherwise means extinction.  Sometimes pragmatism must take the place of principle.

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    And apathy has taken the place of pragmatism with many. When I talk with many about the issues and policies our government pursues I am always amazed at how little most people know or even care about it. I don't know how many have come up with the reasoning of it doesn't affect them yet in the next breath they will complain about the wars or taxes and the best one is the economy as if the problems with them appear out of mid air with no warning. What a lazy lethargic mass of lemmings we have become.

  20. news3 profile image54
    news3posted 17 months ago

    like that

  21. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 17 months ago

    And for dems , The incredible amount of waste and redundancy  in education ,Obama's  health care , bigger government ?    BOTH parties are at fault and they know it , problem is the gridlocking of  Two party mentality in voters  !

    1. Alternative Prime profile image85
      Alternative Primeposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Absolutely false ~ The republicans are to blame not both parties ~ Nice try with the old worn out GOP "Talking Points" ~

      I like my government, it's the only adhesive which binds together a "United" states ~ Sure, it's not perfect but it's much better than the republican "Anarchistic" tendencies ~

      If you don't like government then move to a place where you'll be happier  and a little more content instead of consistently attempting to undermine or sabatage our union of rational states ~

      Once we remove those who wish to be out from under the EVIL Fed, states like Texas, Alaska et al, then maybe we can begin to really accelerate with the new "Wealth Disbursement" ~

    2. Alternative Prime profile image85
      Alternative Primeposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      ahorseback ~ Obviously you are unaware of the most profoundly important provisions within the Obamacare Healthcare Law ~

      Are you "Off the Grid"? That would explain the lack of understanding ~ I'm not so sure individuals who live in rural or "Ultra-Rural" regions have the capability or necessary infrastructure to receive updated or accurate information ~

      Believe me, there are critically important components within Obamacare that benefit ALL Americans ~

  22. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 17 months ago

    AS long as YOU keep seeing all our problems in America  through the eye's of  Republican or Democrat ...............Nothing will ever change .   Nothing !

    1. Alternative Prime profile image85
      Alternative Primeposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Hopefully, we as unified nation can unilaterally DISSOLVE the Insane Regressive Republican party and all peripheral sympathetic states, thereby allowing the Democraic Party to finally work unimpeded for the MAJORITY of Americans ~

 
working