Well, I tried to interpret your meaning, but since that isn't what you meant, I'm at a loss as to what you do mean. Can you elaborate?fluffmonster wrote:No, of course not and don't attribute claims to people that they never made. That's like asking someone out of the blue why they beat their wife. Nobody said people should be millionaires or that it should be a government objective to make them so.
No, I believe there are a whole lot of factors, but in the end it's what you make of what you have that determines where you end up. Nothing more.You are the one overlooking the "whole lot of factors". Not everything that leads to success or even middle-class comfort is just given to people at birth. There's education and values and health. If you never get the skills, if you can't stay healthy, or even if you have to spend all your time caring for a family member who is ill, you are denied the Dream. What you are doing is taking for granted a lot which many people cannot.
No, no. I'm responding to this statement:That only supplements my argument and undermines yours, but you're missing it because you have failed to put these facts in an appropriate context. The number of people in poverty has grown more in absolute terms. But a big increase in millionaires...seems pretty consistent with widening inequality to me...more for the top, f*sk the bottom.
The new millionaire record set in 2004, and the unprecedented development of the last 15 years, directly contradict your statement. From the early 1990's to 2006, Republicans held the majority in Congress, first under a Democratic President and then under a Republican President. In that time, we have experienced a technology boom, a stock market boom, a housing boom. Entire towns exist now that didn't exist before. The number of millionaires has increased by 21%, and that's not just the rich getting richer, that's new people becoming rich. How does this represent declining social mobility and a declining economy?The truth is that under republicans the last 60 years, social mobility is reduced, not increased; social inequality goes up; and economic growth goes down perhaps as much as a full percentage point depending on how you look at it. For the vast majority of us, where you end up in life is most directly dependent on how your parents ended up.
Since the credit crisis in the financial markets last year, the economy has clearly taken a downturn. But that's not a consequence of bad policy or even Republican policy for that matter. Republicans lost majority in 2006.
For that you need to look at the demographics of millionaires.Doesn't say anything about small businesses or entrepreneurial success, there or anywhere else inthe piece.
But this is pure baloney fluff. We're not talking about what it takes to succeed in Somalia. We're talking about what it takes to succeed in America. Nor am I saying that hard work without opportunity will be fruitful. I'm saying that America offers opportunity in spades and those who seek those opportunities and work hard at them will find success. If you don't believe that, then what more is required?You take it on faith that you only have to work hard to have the high life, and anybody who sits at the bottom only does so because they're too lazy. This doesn't even begin to consider the fact that it is never solely the efforts of anyone that contributes to their wealth...people only get that way at all in the context of the society that supports it. I'd like to see all those people try to be millionaires in Somalia no matter how awesome they supposedly are.
Rather than telling me it's true, why don't you support your argument with some actual evidence?You also misinterpret the 60-year timeframe I used...it is a plain fact that there has been more growth and less inequality under democratic administrations than under republican administrations. No one ever claimed that growth was negative under either as you imply was said by retorting that we're not worse off. Very sloppy logic.
By base, I presume you mean an education? Ok, well let's take a look at the US Department of Education budget history and see what that tells us:Nobody claims everyone has a right to be a millionaire. Nobody is even claiming that we need to stop people from being millionaires. What we do need to do is invest in our future in ways that the market won't, and give the less fortunate just enough of a base to succeed or fail on their own. That has to be paid for, and the naked fact is that the rich can best afford to pay for it.
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget ... istory.pdf
In 1980, the education budget was ~14M. This year, the education budget is ~62M, which is more than twice the budget under Bill Clinton - a Democrat - FWIW. Now I don't know what your idea of a sufficient base is - I think we were already there before the budget mushroomed under Bush, but let's put that aside for now - but if our education funding has increased dramatically, and lack of education is a primary cause of the social decline you speak of, why have things not improved [among the most needy] in your opinion?
If you believe that we need to be paying more than 62M for education (I won't ask you to prove it, but we'll assume that it is), how much more do we (or the rich) need to pay and what do you expect to get back in return?
Is there anything else that needs to be done?
In conclusion, I'll agree with you on one thing: Republican policy has been atrocious in terms of spending. They have not been mindful stewards of our hard earned money. Now Mulu thinks government shouldn't be run like business, but I think that's precisely how it needs to be run.
p.s. Mulu, the smears on Obama have never been brought up in a thread in ALFA (that I've participated in at least). OGR brought the issue of smears into this conversation, so I've responded to it.
