This video should be titled Hannity and Levin lick each others butts. Levin is so fascistic and just like the KKK he has his wonderbread followers who hang on all his pithy old school arguments. OCCUPY is the true revolutionary movement which is going to restore our country to greatness! and OCCUPY is way larger and actionable in protest. Move over Levin and Hannity and watch the swag of a real Boss. OCCUPY
okay who is that liberal Mark Levin. that fuck with the smug as smile on his face. the one you just want to slap off him? I hate Fox News, but its ironic when the thing i hate the most about Fox News is a Liberal bitch named Mark Levin. THIS is not that GUY...the guy i'm thinking of has a radio show in L.A....or did i get his name wrong?
No not this Mark Levin...this guy is a radio host out of the east coast correct? He's the Ben Bernake looking Mark Levin...i'm talking about another guy.
Why is there no talk on this new book released? "You Have A College Degree, Now What?" Just figured since its such a timely topic people would be talking.
The man's influence is so small it's almost impossible to measure. Levin's radio show is carried on about 150 stations nationwide (out of thousands) and his weekly listenership is estimated at about 5.5 million, which translates into about 1.1 million nightly victims.
Which means that roughly 1/3 of 1 percent of the American population endures his crazy ranting on any regular basis, assuming they're not watching professional wrestling, or another very dumb TV show, or
Levin is an idiot, an idiot with a good business plan. You know he trapped like 25% of his limited listening audience into buying his book; he cleared at least a million dollars on that scrap. I'd rather read Mien Kamph, & this dude is a jew.
You are the rule, not the exception, levin is an idiot trying to re-invent old words. He's (levin) is a fucking idiot who just made a bundle of cash of his class of idiots.
Hear him laughing, levin is laughing at the neocons. Bye-bye freak show.
Thats capitalism. Our society is as great as it is today thanks to capitalism. You demonize him for making money on his book. Its completely his right to make money and be successful. He shouldn't have to share any of that wealth with anyone just because they are in poverty. As far as his impact, he has more impact than any statist political pundit on MSNBC. The Orielly factor has more nightly viewers than all of their shows combined.Eat that olbermann.
To "do a little dance" is that one little side loses to the overwhelming force of its opponent. I did a little dance to celebrate the ruin of the old neo-con class... you know, those assholes cruising around in their 8 MPG H2's driving up the cost of gas for the rest of us.
What once made America great was her temperance towards capitalism & her compassion towards the working man; what caused the creation of the middle-class. Not some opportunistic fuck on AM radio talking his "spiel."
Whats driving up the cost of gas is the fed, which creates inflation because they print money out of thin air. There is also a difference between compassion for the working man, and FORCED redistribution of wealth.
what is your point, CrackHead? It has been known for decades that available petroleum reserves are being depleted... if you want to argue against the laws of supply & demand, be my guest.
I doubt your comment severely: its a talking point. Still, even if it were true, you fail to consider the carbon gases emitted by burning it all & the effects of global warming.
I don't understand our national obsession with burning all of the dino-fuel at such a huge cost when alternative energies are barely tapped. Or the mid-east nightmare of post WWII in the guaranty of cheap gasoline... it culminated in H2's for crying out loud.
@RightWingDown Global warming is a fraud, a hoax. Its a tool being used by the statist to gain more control of capital and American industry, while at the same to setting up a global beurocracy.
@danwk7 Bureaucracy... The vast majority of scientists think global warming is happening and that man has a role in this inclination. Their have been many studies to suggest it is so. Unless that evidence is proven wrong or other more compelling evidence is brought forward the general consensus of the rational man is that global warming is very real, details are the arguments.
@danwk7 World wide their is not a shortage of oil but generally oil is becoming more difficult to access and so alternatives are being looked for that will a) affect the world ecological balance less and b) accessibility to this or these resource(s)
uh no..Japan is not the Epitome of a Capitalist Society. Its more Egalitarian. The government in Japan has their tentacles in quiet a bit of Japanese industry. former bureaucrats work for Japanese companies. So i really dont know why you think Japan is the EPITOME of Capitalist society. Mabye in 1970 yeah...not now.
Men in Black? I love that series! Will Smith is such a good actor; particularly in Legend, Smith let's us know what it would be like if GW Bush got everything he wanted.
Bush was a fucking idiot who played right into the hands of the people he was supposed to be against. That ass-wipe Cheney is worst. I mean, look back on our politics & only the worst people getting elected. Surely Al Gore would have done better, but sure as hell, the GW team buttfucked this country & gave us the worst deal.
When the caller expressed the opinion that Barack Obama can move prisoners from Gitmo to the United States despite Congressional objections, Mr. Levin angrily shouted, I SAID WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY! WHY DO YOU HATE MY CONSTITUTION? WHY DO YOU HATE MY DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?
nobody from the GOP sees anything just a little crazy about this irrational rant??
Too many seem to have forgotten this lesson, and aren't the least bit skeptical at analysis offered by a man assuming of his opponent the most awful motivations imaginable.
This is merely one small example from a radio show that traffics in rhetoric of this very kind five days each week.
Listeners who object--politely and rationally, I hope--will be doing us all a favor.
well, what's your definition of liberty? Mine is having the most freedom available from having my life dictated by my government and being offered the most choices I can have available.
@Darth09 having the most freedom is the most important. But surely having your lives dictated by the whims of business world is just as bad as the policy decisions of a democratically elected government. Surely the key is a government with the least corruption possible.
Mark is the man! Michael Weiner is a jealous old dwaf whose ratings are falling while Marks ratings are getting bigger all the time! He is the great one!!!
The only thing getting bigger on lil rodent iLevin is his forehead and gut. I'm positive he and Hannity snoodle under the interview table. Levin is "Great" in the same way that every half-tard who can use a telephone is a "Great American" to blubber boy. Sean sucks on estrogen lollipops all day. You scoff, but one day he's going to make the announcement--a surprise rip to Thailand and he comes back as "Seana" Hannity.
McLevin and "Bitch Tits are false conservatives. Reagan would smack Levin.
"The rich get richer is the dumbest shit I ever hear"
Well said. I am sick and tired of these drones (liberals) who think that everything should be handed to them. Work for it and you might get richer too.
the rushie herbert hoover neocons is the obstruction party of NO ... the neocons are mind controlled mega ditto heads ... shooting after shooting ... psychopath meocons ... led by conservative talk radio & tv ... don't say i didn't warn you about the guy in washington ... his wife said that he believed pelosi at the age of 3 told the newspapers in 1961 to misreport obama's birth to be in honolulu instead of kenya because she knew he would be president .. who told him that ... meocon psychopaths
Ron Paul is good on some stuff. But screw the third party shit. The Republicans suck because the liberals are running the party. However, There's no way a third party will ever win. It's been done before, it has always failed. Mark Levin is the man. I know where he stands politically unlike these DumbAss "Moderates" Who can't make up their minds what they believe in. The middle is a bunch of lemmings. You'd be a moron to base a whole campaign on getting their vote like John McCain did.
I don't like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'rielly, Michelle bachman, Nut gingrich or any of these no sense making so called conservatives, But I do like this Mark Levin and just like the great Ron Paul, he does make a lot of sense indeed, even if their messages differ a bit, and they do have differen't style too.
But I'm going to try to buy Mark Levins book because he does sound very smart!!!
this book is simply amazing. i may be 13 but i am happy that someone smart stepped out and tried to talk some sense into society. it should be a law that before citizens are able to vote, that they are required to take a test on common political knowledge. i dont want to grow up and still be living with the effects of this ludacris govenment.
It is the 21st Century and there is 30% of this country who would have us constantly go backwards and repeat and the same old mistakes and recycle the same OLD ideas. And those people will spend money to read books that confirm their block headed notions. People, it is time to move forward, make the world a better place, follow Jesus' teachings and reach out to humanity instead of withdrawing ever more into your own small narrow minded and bigoted group.
The only outdated and same old mistakes I see in history are Communism, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Fascism, and Statism, oh and calling everyone who disagrees with the Liberal Agenda, a bigot and narrow minded, that's pretty outdated too.
Narrow mindedness is believing that only Government has the solutions to the problems and if we just sacrifice more our liberty, they will solve them.
You can't be a Socialist and believe in Jesus at the same time. You either believe in God or Government.
It's only dumb, when you're an Obamabot and don't see the depth of true intellect.
Socialists replace God with Government. Your hope, faith, and trust comes from the Government, not from God or yourself.
You believe that your destiny and success cannot be achieved by yourself alone, you believe that the Government can only create success. You believe that Government is more capable of handling your health care, education, retirement, and negotiating your pay better than yourself, you sheep.
I stand corrected. THAT was the dumbest post of the day. No wonder Levin, Hannity, & Limbaugh are your heroes...your regurgitation of their asinine and obtuse generalizations are nothing short of extraordinary. And extraordinarily moronic.
Wrong, you stand a jackass. If anyone makes generalizations, it is idiots like you who claim that every Conservative worships Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin. You proved yourself of being everything you just accused me of being. You're the jackass.
On top of that, everything you morons bashed Bush for and accused of his intentions, Obama is actually doing. Why isn't Obama a war monger when he's sending more troops into Afghanistan? Why don't you bash his spending like you did to Bush?
Let's take the language back first and foremost. They should not be called "Liberals" because that implies that they have something to do with Liberty which they know nothing about. They are "Statist's" and malcontents (drones) enemies of the US constitution. You won't convince them with facts or reason. The only thing we can do for now is defeat them in the next couple of election cycles. If we can not they will run this country into the ground with there incompetence.
I agree, I no longer even call them Liberals, b/c like you said, Liberal means they have something to do with Liberty and they are anything but. I call them what they are Communists, Socialists, Statists, and Sheep.
Why not actually refute any of the points he made? Socialism and Communism force "good" will onto people. Giving your money away is no Christian virtue if it is done at the point of a sword.
People who believe in God, believe in voluntary Charity, while Socialists like you, believe in charity by the force of Government, which uses taxation to confiscate wealth and redistribute it to the poor. By doing that, you're eliminating all individual intention. You would never know who is charitable and who isn't, b/c either you are all charitable or you go to prison.
Socialism eliminates individualism, and God is all about individualism. Each individual is unique, we're not all the same.
You seem to hold an interesting position: That American conservatives who uphold the egotistic individual as a god is somehow biblical? You should read Acts 4:32.
The individual is a product of God. I really don't need to hear about the Bible from a Socialist who believes in butchering the definition of marriage and aborting babies.
Point of view? You have no views. You stand for nothing. I don't need to hear lectures on the Bible from someone who practices Liberalism which is an ideology that is very very similar to Satanism. And no, I'm not saying you worship devils, but you believe in the philosophy of acting on impulse and giving in to all your temptations. If you believe that aborting a child is morally correct, you shouldn't even be quoting the Bible.
This is what is so fascinating. I have yet to really state what I believe; and yet you assume, because of your own ideological pressupositions, that I am the villain of your worldview. I have really only asked a question: Do you really think that placing the individual above all else is biblical; and then pointed out Acts 4:32 as counter evidence. But you have already constructed my philosophy for me...It truly is fascinating to watch you go ad hoc after ad hoc claim.
It is very biblical to take responsibility for yourself. It is very biblical to believe in yourself and not replace God with Government. Self-governance is what the Bible is about. What you have is this idea that we need to replace God with Government. That's what most Liberals believe. They believe that the Government is the only entity that has the power to make fundamental changes in their lives, more than themselves.
Bible says many different things, some are contrary to others.
It's also very biblical to share things in common...Look, "liberalism" is a nebulous category. It is not a doctrine. Political Liberalism, however, is a technical term, which you should look up, because it actually has nothing to do with socialism, but in fact the socialists fought against Liberalism.
Where have I said that we should replace God with Government? Or is that just the boogy man theory in your ideology that you impose on everybody without really understanding what they think?
It is biblical to share things in common, no doubt, that's not what we're disputing. The dispute is, should you be forced to share or should you share out of your own good will?
I know what Political Liberalism is and you're right, it has nothing to do with Socialism. Classic Political Liberalism is actually Conservatism, however, the word Liberalism has been hijacked over the last 30 years by Socialists and Communists, who want to use Liberalism to spread their agenda.
You didn't say we should replace God with Government, but you said, we should not place individuals as high as we do, so there's really only one alternative to that and that is collectivism. You didn't say it directly, you said it in so many words though. You're either an individualist or a collectivist, and obviously, you're not the former.
You actually painted the boogey man theory by suggesting that I want individuals to be placed above everything else, including God, I just threw it back.
Everything is Black and White. To deny that there is means you don't believe in the truth. There's a difference between True and False. Half Truths are still False. You either believe in Individualism or Collectivism, there is no 3rd way.
God is about the individual. If you're living in a society filled with degenerates, but you happen to be a good person, God judges you by who you are, not what your society is. God doesn't group you in with people, he looks at what you did.
I know you're a Leftist, b/c I've read some of your comments and you're friends with a Marxist like IWLocal8, whom I debated a long time ago, but your premise is Liberal as well.
We're not placing individual above all else, so I don't accept the premise of your loaded question.
I will tell you this, the Bible does believe you have a responsibility to help yourself and then help others as well. If you can't help yourself, how can you help others? Government doesn't replace God.
It is just as accurate for me to say that a conservative places the individual above all else as it is for a conservative to say that a liberal places government above all else. If you are going to misrepresent, expect a little dose of the same.
To believe in JUSTICE and JUST STRUCTURES is not to dismiss individual responsibility--much less to place government above all else.
The individual is who God judges, not the Collective. You're judged by what YOU do, not what your society does as a whole. As I said, you could be a good person amongst degenerates or a bad person amongst good people, you're judged by what you are, not the collective.
In order to believe in Government, you have to take away belief in God. The Communists / Socialists knew it. You have to put your hope, faith, and trust in a false prophet like Obama.
But you rave and rant without making a cohesive thought. The Bible has alot to say about "unjust systems" and social injustice--are you unaware of this? Part of the judgment placed on the STATE of Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures is their injustice to the poor. God was not judging specific individuals, but the nation of Israel for its injustice. Are you not aware of this?
Are you aware that the United States and Israel have done away with these Social Injustices? Are you aware that Liberals are recreating injustices and the only difference is they are targeting different people? Are you aware that these Muslim Countries have far more injustices than Israel? Women don't even have rights in many of them.
There is nothing just about siding with murderers over the victims that they hurt. There is no justice in trying Gitmo prisoners and granting them the same Constitutional Rights as our own citizens who committed crimes. There is no just structure in removing the death penalty for convicted killers, but aborting an unborn baby, even at 9 months of pregnancy is a right. Liberalism promotes hedonism and tyranny.
You make one logical jump to the next. Now you're talking about GITMO?
Anyway, you keep going back to "God" as if political society is solely a theological matter--which is fairly ironic for somedody who seems to loath those Muslim nations. I'm not concerned with God's judgment. I'm concerned with how society unjustly condemns some of its own citizens. The individual makes decisions within a context, and that context is always collective and social--thus the influence of tradition.
I'm talking about Gitmo to make a point in the fallacies of Liberal Logic in how you equate terrorists with domestic criminals.
As for God, I'm just beating you at this game. You tried to throw the Bible in my face and say it supports Liberalism and it doesn't as I demonstrated.
If you make decisions based on collectivism, you don't think for yourself. Tradition isn't necessarily collective thinking, it's an idea that has withstood the test of time.
You're beating me in the "God game"? Well, you win arguments just like FOX news! Just announce your own victory, and that's enough, eh?
I've never suggested that the Bible is a program for liberalism--I never even suggested liberalism is a program! I only pointed out that Bible does NOT support your point of view very strongly, and that supporting the collective, and social justice issues are profuse within Scripture.
Ask the black population within federal prisons about condemnation...
If it doesn't support my point of view very strongly, then you're basically saying that the Bible supports the point of view of Liberalism, which is your point of view. I announced my victory, b/c you don't want to debate God and the Bible anymore, which by default, makes me the winner.
The Bible supports doing what is right. Helping your fellow man with GoodWill is what it promotes, not by force of the Government.
You want me to ask murderers and thieves why they are condemned? LMAO.
"I announced my victory, b/c you don't want to debate God and the Bible anymore, which by default, makes me the winner."
The stupidity of this argument speaks for itself. I never said I didn't want to talk about the Bible anymore. I said that it doesn't have to do with what we are talking about--in other words, it's irrelevant to the subject. You claim victory for yourself because you don't have the debating skills to EARN IT.
I've been whipping a dead horse when it comes to debating you. You won't even admit you're a Liberal, you won't admit that Liberals today promote Socialism, and you're trying to claim the Bible supports Liberalism which is an uphill battle in and of itself. You guys always talk about Separation of Church and State, yet you talk about Jesus being a Socialist and the Bible promoting Collectivism.
You Libs only select parts of the Constitution and the Bible and try to make it fit your monologue
Oh, I have no problem admitting I'm a liberal. I have a problem with "liberal" meaning whatever is you decide it means and then lumping me into that category.
Am I really deciding what Liberal means? If anyone decides what words mean, it's Liberals. Liberals decided that Conservatives are White Rich Old Men who are racist, gun toting, Bible Thumping Rednecks.
See, I'm a Liberal too. I'm a Classical Liberal, which by today's definition is Libertarian / Conservative. Liberal today means Progressivism / Socialism.
I can tell by our conversations, you're not Classically Liberal.
Again "liberal" to you simply means Non-Conservative After all that's the black and white reasoning. To you a liberal is just as much a Stalinist as an activist for social justice. You have already decided, long before we even began debating, what I am, what I think, and how bad it is.
Liberalism does NOT mean socialism. You may include socialists within your view of liberalism, but it also includes capitalist Keynsians, for instance.
Well what the hell do you want me to call you, a Leftist? I mean, Communism, Socialism, Keynesians, they're all on the Political Left, and I define Liberal as anything that is on the political left. All Socialists are Liberals, but not all Liberals are Socialists. Liberal is a broad term and I'm using it as a broad term to describe your beliefs. You can call me a Rightie or Conservative all you want, you don't see me throwing a fit about it. Premise of your questions told me you're a Leftie
You lump everything that is not your ideological perspective into the category of "leftist". I've never had a problem being described as left of the far right. Again, I have a problem with how the far right then tends to categorize the left, as if it is a single program that equals communism, fascism, baby killing, totelitarianism, government control, etc. all in one lump sum. Case in point: before we even started debating, you already told me what I think. That's what I want to avoid.
I keep telling you what I don't want, which is what you inevitably keep doing: I don't want your preestablished beliefs thrusted upon me. I don't want you to assume you know what I think without me telling you. Make sense, or have I not spelled this out for you enough?
I'm not assuming anything, b/c if I assumed it, I would have been wrong. I hit the nail on the head and called you a Liberal, and I make this claim, b/c your thinking is 180 degrees from mine. I'll judge you as much as I want to, just as you can judge me. If anyone is imposing beliefs on anyone, it's the Left doing it to everyone else.
I asked a question, and all the suddon I was a baby killer, Stalinist, government before God, "liberal". I refuse that kind of "nail on the head" target. But, what else should I expect from simplistic, narrow minded BLACK AND WHITE reasoning?
Who called you a Stalinist, Baby Killer, Government Before God Liberal? I simply called you a Liberal. Liberals come in many different forms, as does Socialism. If anyone is narrow minded, it is Liberals. Liberals don't like ideas that don't involve the government in some way shape or form.
You may even have a Conservative view here and there, and I'd still call you Liberal, if you are overall, a Liberal. You can be a pro-life Liberal, a pro-national defense Liberal (Liebermann), etc.
Stealing from one man and giving it to another man is not charitable and not what the Bible promotes. The Bible promotes you giving some of your own money to the needy, and not taking someone else's treasure to be charitable. Stealing is stealing. Whether you steal to keep it for yourself or steal it and give it away, you are sinning. So there goes your whole Collectivist Welfare theory on the Bible.
Have you ever read Isaiah or Jeremiah or any of the prophets? There all about social justice. Just because you say "BIBLE" doesn't mean you've represented it.
Stealing is stealing, sure...can it not ever happen that those who have most power are actually stealing from those who do not? For somebody who loves the bible so much, you sure enjoy defending the rich. Does it ever occur to you, that the rich have more influence on government and the economy than the poor? Is that Just?
Who are these rich people that are stealing from the poor? I don't see rich people breaking into people's cars and homes in the middle of the night and stealing possessions. I don't see nor hear about rich people robbing liquor stores at gun point.
Did it ever occur to you that the rich are the ones paying the taxes and the poor, who don't pay taxes, are getting tax credits on top of it? Did it ever occur to you that the poor get free handouts from the government and the rich don't?
Ever heard of Enron scandal? Ever heard of company CEOs failing to pay out pention checks because of fraud? Of course you don't hear about this stuff much, because the media is corporate--to be exact 6 multination corporations own the media.
Another interesting fact: in the US CEO to worker pay ratio is 400:1, the most unequal in any industrial country. the top 1% owns 39% of all wealth; the bottom 80% owns 8.7% of total wealth. The rich are doing just fine in this country.
Well, if it's so easy to be a CEO, why don't you go and be a fuckin' CEO? Why doesn't everybody go out and do it then? You think the government should step in and decide who gets paid what?
If you want to live in that kind of a country, may I suggest to you, Venezuela.
The CEOs are not making billions and billions because they are hard workers! They make it because they have monopolies over industry and because workers have very little power for collective bargaining, and finally, because politicians, both Dems and Reps, are by and large economically conservative, sold to Neo-Liberalism that prizes free-trade and free-markets, and supply side economics. Government, however, does step in: It steps in order to provide CORPORATE WELFARE.
If being a CEO is not hard work, everyone would do it. Again I ask, why don't you go out and be a CEO? CEO is under pressure all the time and has to make decisions on the direction of the company. You mean to tell me that any shmuck off the street can do it and do it right, with thousands of jobs in their hands? Its easy for you to say CEOs don't work hard, are you or have you ever been a CEO? CEOs get paid, b/c the market determines that is what they are worth.
Why assume that CEO is harder work than busting your butt on the factor lines, all day? Don't be so naive. CEO billionaires are not working harder than than the mother of three, working two jobs day and night, and on welfare just to pay the bills. Yes, given the opportunity, the "shmuck off the street could do it"--problem is, they don't have the opportunity. Again, I believe in equality of opportunity, which you seem to just blithly assume.
You think a bum off the street could just come in and manage a billion dollar company? Let me ask you something, what do factory line workers and mothers of 3 know about meeting a pay roll? What do they know about business decisions? If they're so much more advanced than the CEO, why aren't they CEOs themselves or running their own fuckin' business? Not anybody gets to be a CEO. You need at least an MBA to be a CEO, or go the other route and build a company from scratch. You're a true Lib.
And please, spare me the bullshit about opportunity. What opportunity did the CEOs have that a factory worker didn't? This is America, and despite what Leftists like you believe, there are still people who climb the ladder of success and come from humble beginnings and reach their goals of being successful.
Government stepped in, you know why? B/c you're not living in a Capitalist Country anymore. If you hate Corporate Welfare, you should reject Socialism in all of its forms, individually and corporately.
Look at also what is happening to the shmucks who took the bailouts. The Government has taken over their businesses and threw the executives out. That's what you get when you make a deal with the devil. They would have been better off going under than putting their company in the hands of government.
Moreover, statistically speaking the US is the most unequal in income and wealth distribution than any other adavnced capitalist country. So don't go on and on about how good the poor have it here VS the rich. In reality--I know you hate that place--the middle class is slowly dying out to the super rich, and has been for the past 30 years.
I've heard this rhetoric about the middle class dying out and whatnot. Are the Middle Class dying out b/c the Middle Class are becoming rich or becoming poor? What the hell is Middle Class, Poor, and Rich anyways? If you got a roof over your head, clothes on your back, food on the table, and clean water, what do you give a shit what other people have?
This has actually been well documented for the past 20 some years among economists and sociologists--even GW Bush had to admit it. The middle class is not swelling into the the top 1%--that's why it's the top 1%!!!. They're being pushed further and further away from the top 1%. I gave you a few numbers, be happy to give you more; but what about them gave you the impression that the middle class is being pushed into the richest of the rich? Since '80 the bottom 80% have lost wealth and income
The top 1% is limited to the top 3 Million Earners in this country. The Middle Class is a broad term. The bottom 80% has been saturated with imported poverty and an increased number of people on welfare w/o jobs, which drags the income and wealth down. Your problem is, you don't believe in just equal opportunity, you believe in equal results, and equal results requires tons of government force to achieve. Unrealistic.
People who achieve should not subsidize the failures in this country.
"Imported poverty" does not explain why the wealthiest 1/3% has dramatically jumped in income and wealth over the past 30 years. Since '81 the 99.9th% tax bracket tripled in real income. while the bottom 80% has actually lost income or remained stagnant. It's not because of poor people that the rich are getting rapidly richer.
I do believe in equal opportunity. I just don't think we've achieved that. You seem to think all things are de facto equal, the playing field is entirely level.
Well, who's stopping the poor from being richer other than the poor themselves? Last time I checked, there wasn't slavery in the United States. The rich get richer is the dumbest shit I ever hear. Why should I be concerned if people are accumulating more wealth? That's like saying, the smart are getting smarter and the dumb are getting dumber. If people want to work harder and take more risks and become wealthier, power to them. If people want to slack off and be poor, they can do that too
Again, I've already said this, to be focused on social justice and institutional justice is not to disregard individual responsibility--where do you get this?
As far as tradition goes and individual VS Society, human beings are SOCIAL ANIMALS, not solitary ones. They get their being from social life, not from the some idea factory that comes solely out of the individual head. Fact is, One cannot be an individual without society.
You're wrong, society cannot be made without individuals. Societies are composed of individuals, not the other way around. This is where you backward ass Liberal logic fails. Individuals are the building blocks of the big house known as society. When most of your bricks aren't holding their weight and only relying on a few good bricks, the house starts to collapse. That's what Conservatives know and believe.
Social Justice today is just code word to hate White, Christian, and Rich people.
Of course society is composed of individuals, just like a machine is composed of parts--But the parts are not taken by themselves, they are in relation to the whole.
Just look at language. Individuals do not get together and decide on a language, although a language only lives through individual speech. But it is precisely the community through which individuals can speak in the first place. There is no language without the community. Individuals TOGETHER, not in isolation, form society.
There's a certain limit as to how far we go in terms of what we share. If we just shared everything, then you really don't own your home and anyone can come in whenever they want to. You don't own possessions, therefore if someone just takes it from you, it's not stealing b/c it belongs to the collective society. If someone wants to spy on you in your home, it's not spying cause it's their home too. So it's where you draw the line.
As far as your "House" analogy goes, it actually makes more sense to focus on the structure of the house--that determines its health. It is just as important to concentrate on the structure as it is the individual bricks. For the bricks are nothing without the structure of the house...hmmm, kind of like the individual, who is nothing without wider society...
Without the bricks, you don't have a house. The bricks have to do their job and support the entire house or the house collapses. Without the house, the bricks are still bricks, but without the bricks, the house isn't a house. So individuals do survive without a society, b/c if they didn't humans would have been extinct long before we ever had a society.
Tell me of an individual who lives entirely without society. Do you really deny that human beings are social animals and have not developed in conglomerations? How do you explain language?
The human race did not fall from the sky. It evolved. There is no zero point to say that here, at point X, we have humanity. But there is absolutely no evidence of solitary human beings in isolation, and neither are our biological ancestors. Humans and their evolutionary heritage are social through and through. Even as far back as Aristotle this much was understood.
Well, it's very easy to say the human race didn't fall out of the sky, but neither did society. Obviously at one point, there wasn't a huge number of human beings in the beginning of the human race, it had to build up over time. The first human beings had to rely on themselves and not a society to survive. Human beings are naturally individualistic as well as animals. They do what it takes to survive and don't wait for a society to give them something, they go out and get what they need.
You should take a history course if your truly interested in these things. Then you'll learn about movements of peoples, their conglomeration and migrations. But never did solilary Rouseauian persons roam the earth. Society began in small tribes, which banded together, migrated, conquered other tribes, grew, etc. There is no evidence of pre-societal solitary individuals running around surviving on their own. I'm telling my friend, there is no credible scholarship to support that theory.
A history course? Son, one of my majors in college is Criminal Justice. I think you need to reread history and understand that before the human race evolved into society, people did not depend on a society, they depended on only a few people, animals, and themselves.
Man fights to survive for himself, not the society.
I think you need to re-read my statements. I never said that human society began in the millions. I said it began in SMALL TRIBES--but that is still society, social, a grouping of people together with language, custom, etc. NOT solitary individuals.
Oh, a structural issue? You know what your data is telling me, it tells me that there are more people who believe they are entitled to things rather than working for it than there were in the 1980s. As I said, we are importing more and more poverty into this country which contribute to the wealth of the bottom 80% dropping and the education system that indoctrinates children into believing they are entitled to Government Goodies rather than working. You think Government should cap pay?
You really don't like facts do you? When the MAJORITY of the population is losing economic and political power to the top 1/3% you think it has to do with the laziness of the majority of Americans? How is it that the so called "imported poor" are not bringing the top 1% nay the top 1/2% down, but bringing everybodyelse down? Not that's fuzzy math!
Government wouldn't need to cap pay if workers had more economic and political bargaining power, such as the power of unions.
If you import people who don't work and mooch off the welfare system, they automatically come in as the bottom 80% and bring the collective bottom 80% down. How is that fuzzy math? They bring down any group they are lumped in with. Hell, they bring down the GDP as a whole, with or without the top 1%.
The power of the unions? Let me ask you something, how are we supposed to compete with other countries, when we pay someone $40 an hour to mop the floors?
How does an "imported poor" class bring first of all bring down 80% of Americans who are, for the most part, not poor? And Second how does an "imported poor" class INCREASE the wealth and income dramatically in the top 1% and especially the top .1%? The GDP has not gone down--this is where you are not making sense. Although it has increased through the 80s and 90s, still the bottom 80% did not benefit. Those who really benefited were and are the top 1%.
Imported poor adds more low numbers in wealth and income to the bottom 80%. If I take the average of 5 numbers, 5,3,4,5, and 6, I get an average of 4.6. Now, if I add a 1 to these numbers, I get a new average of 4. So by adding this low number, I brought down the overall average. Get it, got it, good!
The GDP hasn't gone down, you're right, but importing poverty has slowed down the GDP considerably.
Tell me something, why do I see more people who lived in Detroit, moving into the suburbs?
All this makes since if 1) you assume a massive amount of imported poor entered to bring down 80% of populations wealth (no evidence) and 2) if you theory explained how the top 1% INCREASED dramatically in wealth and income, and 3) Why this imported poor, like point #2, does not seem to effect the top 1% or 5% that much and 4) why it has centralized wealth and income so dramatically in the top 1% alone even though GDP has continually gone UP. The theory does not explain any of those four points
We have 30 Million Illegal Immigrants in America, 10% of the population, and they're not the only poor we have imported into this country, you also have to count legal immigrants too. Top 1% hasn't increased, most of them lost money in the stock market last year and still pay 40% of the taxes in this country. And the wealth and income has not been centralized in the top 1%, most of them have watched half the money they have in their portfolios disappear. Get a Reality Check.
first of all the three million illegals and other immigrants are not all poor. Second of all they are not enough to drag the entire population down. Even so, it doesn't account for the top 1% gaining wealth and income dramatically. And finally factually the top 1% has increased over the past 30 years. The most recent financial crisis is a completely different subject. It not only effected the wealthiest, but the poorest as well--most of all it effected the middle class, not the rich.
Everyone has gained wealth if you go by the numbers in the past 30 years. You have to adjust for inflation. A dollar 30 years ago was worth a helluva lot more than it is today. Having $30,000 back in the 1970s is equivalent to about $80,000 today. So, in actuality, inflation has more to do with it than anything.
The financial crisis hurt the wealthiest far more than the poor. The wealthiest people lost half their wealth and the poor ended up losing their jobs. See how it trickles down?
Everyone has not gained, my friend. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I don't know what you hear when I tell you that the majority of Americans have remained stagnant in real income over the past 30 years, adjusted for inflation. It is only the top tier, the elite of elite, who has made significant gains. This crisis, like most recessions before it, will further damage the middle class--and as the looks of it, Obama does not plan on pushing to help them out so much.
No, Obama isn't going to help them, he's going to damage them even further. Obama is going to suck more money out of the economy and put more of it into the Federal Government, which will basically force more Middle Class and Poor People to work for the Government instead of a Private Owned Business. Working for the government, their success will be limited to what the government allows them to reach.
No, he's not giving enough support for EFCA nor is he pushing strongly enough universal healthcare, and his bailouts have had very little, if anything, to help struggling workers. Obama has simply propted up the system for corporate America--that is your so called "socialist"
Hah, propped up the system for corporate America? That's a good one. I don't think I've ever heard that one before, so I give you an A for originality, as wrong as you maybe, that is original.
Universal Healthcare, or I should say, Rationed Care, that's coming in a few months, be patient.
His bailouts have been a failure. He should have let the companies go under, instead of bailing them out and then letting them go under.
As for EFCA, he's giving Unions 2 car companies, what more u want?
This video should be titled Hannity and Levin lick each others butts. Levin is so fascistic and just like the KKK he has his wonderbread followers who hang on all his pithy old school arguments. OCCUPY is the true revolutionary movement which is going to restore our country to greatness! and OCCUPY is way larger and actionable in protest. Move over Levin and Hannity and watch the swag of a real Boss. OCCUPY
MaryZPoppins 1 week ago
If Sean says there were thousands of people at the book store, that means there were 50 people. Bunch of lunatics!
steute2011 1 month ago
this is cool
starfannumberone 5 months ago
Comment removed
starfannumberone 5 months ago
this is gross
Beefstrom 5 months ago
Comment removed
21ChArGeRs23 8 months ago
This book should be thought in every college and university.
jc16774 1 year ago
These two are not Conservative people. They are Neoconservatives. There is a difference...
rmccay88 1 year ago
@rmccay88 Wrong! You must just Hate Freedom huh?
kfedfin 1 year ago
okay who is that liberal Mark Levin. that fuck with the smug as smile on his face. the one you just want to slap off him? I hate Fox News, but its ironic when the thing i hate the most about Fox News is a Liberal bitch named Mark Levin. THIS is not that GUY...the guy i'm thinking of has a radio show in L.A....or did i get his name wrong?
Rac665 1 year ago
@Rac665 Um...liberal? Good one.
FMasamune 11 months ago
@FMasamune
No not this Mark Levin...this guy is a radio host out of the east coast correct? He's the Ben Bernake looking Mark Levin...i'm talking about another guy.
Rac665 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He doesn't say one hard fact.
ParisPedant 1 year ago
2 great americans who we desperately need in times like these.
gmdude91 1 year ago
He looks so calm. So collected. Unlike Glenn Beck (-: I still like Beck, though
feeblepizza 1 year ago
Why is there no talk on this new book released? "You Have A College Degree, Now What?" Just figured since its such a timely topic people would be talking.
prehistoric28 1 year ago
Trollin trollin trollin
eyesawelation 1 year ago
These boys love their semen.
FISHLEGBOOTS 2 years ago
they are full of that, semen that is.
RightWingDown 2 years ago
yug, that is as nasty as the prospect of seeing levine on the street. One look at the bastard tells us of his seman covered self... ugh.. just nasty.
RightWingDown 2 years ago
yep, at the same time he's buying those idiots that buy this book. Same thing as sarah failin
RightWingDown 2 years ago
levin is the new anal andy; he takes it up the ass
RightWingDown 2 years ago
@RightWingDown Now thats just name callin'
ParisPedant 1 year ago
The man's influence is so small it's almost impossible to measure. Levin's radio show is carried on about 150 stations nationwide (out of thousands) and his weekly listenership is estimated at about 5.5 million, which translates into about 1.1 million nightly victims.
Which means that roughly 1/3 of 1 percent of the American population endures his crazy ranting on any regular basis, assuming they're not watching professional wrestling, or another very dumb TV show, or
perfectbark 2 years ago
sleeping or getting drunk or some other more useful pastime.
perfectbark 2 years ago
Levin is an idiot, an idiot with a good business plan. You know he trapped like 25% of his limited listening audience into buying his book; he cleared at least a million dollars on that scrap. I'd rather read Mien Kamph, & this dude is a jew.
You are the rule, not the exception, levin is an idiot trying to re-invent old words. He's (levin) is a fucking idiot who just made a bundle of cash of his class of idiots.
Hear him laughing, levin is laughing at the neocons. Bye-bye freak show.
RightWingDown 2 years ago
Thats capitalism. Our society is as great as it is today thanks to capitalism. You demonize him for making money on his book. Its completely his right to make money and be successful. He shouldn't have to share any of that wealth with anyone just because they are in poverty. As far as his impact, he has more impact than any statist political pundit on MSNBC. The Orielly factor has more nightly viewers than all of their shows combined.Eat that olbermann.
danwk7 2 years ago
Sure, Okay. GW ruined the neo-con cause, i'll just do a little dance
RightWingDown 2 years ago
wtf are you talking about.
danwk7 2 years ago
To "do a little dance" is that one little side loses to the overwhelming force of its opponent. I did a little dance to celebrate the ruin of the old neo-con class... you know, those assholes cruising around in their 8 MPG H2's driving up the cost of gas for the rest of us.
What once made America great was her temperance towards capitalism & her compassion towards the working man; what caused the creation of the middle-class. Not some opportunistic fuck on AM radio talking his "spiel."
RightWingDown 2 years ago
Whats driving up the cost of gas is the fed, which creates inflation because they print money out of thin air. There is also a difference between compassion for the working man, and FORCED redistribution of wealth.
danwk7 2 years ago
what is your point, CrackHead? It has been known for decades that available petroleum reserves are being depleted... if you want to argue against the laws of supply & demand, be my guest.
RightWingDown 2 years ago
we have enough oil in alaska alone to be 100% self sufficient for over 100 years. I wouldnt call that depleted.
danwk7 2 years ago
I doubt your comment severely: its a talking point. Still, even if it were true, you fail to consider the carbon gases emitted by burning it all & the effects of global warming.
I don't understand our national obsession with burning all of the dino-fuel at such a huge cost when alternative energies are barely tapped. Or the mid-east nightmare of post WWII in the guaranty of cheap gasoline... it culminated in H2's for crying out loud.
RightWingDown 2 years ago
@RightWingDown Global warming is a fraud, a hoax. Its a tool being used by the statist to gain more control of capital and American industry, while at the same to setting up a global beurocracy.
danwk7 2 years ago
@danwk7 Bureaucracy... The vast majority of scientists think global warming is happening and that man has a role in this inclination. Their have been many studies to suggest it is so. Unless that evidence is proven wrong or other more compelling evidence is brought forward the general consensus of the rational man is that global warming is very real, details are the arguments.
ParisPedant 1 year ago
@danwk7 World wide their is not a shortage of oil but generally oil is becoming more difficult to access and so alternatives are being looked for that will a) affect the world ecological balance less and b) accessibility to this or these resource(s)
ParisPedant 1 year ago
@danwk7 Look at Japan, it is the epitome of a capitalist economy and for the last 15 years it has died down considerably.
ParisPedant 1 year ago
@ParisPedant
uh no..Japan is not the Epitome of a Capitalist Society. Its more Egalitarian. The government in Japan has their tentacles in quiet a bit of Japanese industry. former bureaucrats work for Japanese companies. So i really dont know why you think Japan is the EPITOME of Capitalist society. Mabye in 1970 yeah...not now.
Rac665 1 year ago
@RightWingDown stfu nazi
reallysecretusername 1 year ago
@reallysecretusername That's nice, bitch. At least some of us can afford Diesel powered H1's.
RightWingDown 1 year ago
u mad bro?
lyethian 2 years ago
mad at??? something so insignificant that I forgot that I commented on it ???
perfectbark 2 years ago
do the GW dance; its called "its over"
RightWingDown 2 years ago
As of this writing, Men in Black is unreviewed on Amazondotcom, and ranked #251,713 in sales.
Of the book, an editor at Slatedotcom wrote: "no serious scholar of the court
or the Constitution,
on the ideological left or right,
is going to waste their time engaging Levin's arguments once they've read this book."
perfectbark 2 years ago
Men in Black? I love that series! Will Smith is such a good actor; particularly in Legend, Smith let's us know what it would be like if GW Bush got everything he wanted.
Bush was a fucking idiot who played right into the hands of the people he was supposed to be against. That ass-wipe Cheney is worst. I mean, look back on our politics & only the worst people getting elected. Surely Al Gore would have done better, but sure as hell, the GW team buttfucked this country & gave us the worst deal.
RightWingDown 2 years ago
When the caller expressed the opinion that Barack Obama can move prisoners from Gitmo to the United States despite Congressional objections, Mr. Levin angrily shouted, I SAID WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY! WHY DO YOU HATE MY CONSTITUTION? WHY DO YOU HATE MY DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?
nobody from the GOP sees anything just a little crazy about this irrational rant??
perfectbark 2 years ago
MARK LEVIN: Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?
CALLER: Yes.
MARK LEVIN: Well I dont know why your husband doesnt put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here.
perfectbark 2 years ago
Quote:
The average Mark Levin listener is powerfully invested in opposing President Obama's domestic agenda, and persuading fellow citizens to do the same.
Effective opposition requires a clear-eyed, unsentimental assessment of reality, not paranoid, uncharitable rants.
The right understood this very well when they talked about The Angry Left, and how its visceral hatred for George W. Bush distorted its judgment.
perfectbark 2 years ago
Too many seem to have forgotten this lesson, and aren't the least bit skeptical at analysis offered by a man assuming of his opponent the most awful motivations imaginable.
This is merely one small example from a radio show that traffics in rhetoric of this very kind five days each week.
Listeners who object--politely and rationally, I hope--will be doing us all a favor.
perfectbark 2 years ago
the Great One
right92626 2 years ago
mark is a badass
brandonkebs 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I often wonder if this fucker even knows what "liberty" means....
timmyblaze 2 years ago
do you?
Darth09 2 years ago
No. I have no idea. I'd wonder why this douchebag doesn't but all the while, I have no clue myself. WTF man...
timmyblaze 2 years ago
well, what's your definition of liberty? Mine is having the most freedom available from having my life dictated by my government and being offered the most choices I can have available.
Darth09 2 years ago 6
Comment removed
ParisPedant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darth09 having the most freedom is the most important. But surely having your lives dictated by the whims of business world is just as bad as the policy decisions of a democratically elected government. Surely the key is a government with the least corruption possible.
ParisPedant 1 year ago
Mark is the man! Michael Weiner is a jealous old dwaf whose ratings are falling while Marks ratings are getting bigger all the time! He is the great one!!!
fff1313 2 years ago
The only thing getting bigger on lil rodent iLevin is his forehead and gut. I'm positive he and Hannity snoodle under the interview table. Levin is "Great" in the same way that every half-tard who can use a telephone is a "Great American" to blubber boy. Sean sucks on estrogen lollipops all day. You scoff, but one day he's going to make the announcement--a surprise rip to Thailand and he comes back as "Seana" Hannity.
McLevin and "Bitch Tits are false conservatives. Reagan would smack Levin.
zoetropez 2 years ago
Commie virgin fag
right92626 2 years ago
Is that your real name?
zoetropez 2 years ago
dumb ass Commie beaner
right92626 2 years ago
fucking boring idiots.
RightWingDown 2 years ago
v=4MensT7VWMw
L&T ch 10 is bunk
cattleprods911 2 years ago
The United States does not have the best medical system in the world...
S0vereignty 2 years ago
"The rich get richer is the dumbest shit I ever hear"
Well said. I am sick and tired of these drones (liberals) who think that everything should be handed to them. Work for it and you might get richer too.
BarackObamaSUX 2 years ago
the rushie herbert hoover neocons is the obstruction party of NO ... the neocons are mind controlled mega ditto heads ... shooting after shooting ... psychopath meocons ... led by conservative talk radio & tv ... don't say i didn't warn you about the guy in washington ... his wife said that he believed pelosi at the age of 3 told the newspapers in 1961 to misreport obama's birth to be in honolulu instead of kenya because she knew he would be president .. who told him that ... meocon psychopaths
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 2 years ago
Why should other media contact him? There isn't an ounce of information in his book that isn't already on Rush Limbaugh and FOX news everyday.
bachandl1 2 years ago
your a jackass!!!!
hcgrace08 2 years ago
That sounds like a Mark Levine argument!
bachandl1 2 years ago
this is like harry reid "interviewing" nancy pelosi.
What a joke.
mizilus 2 years ago
Ron Paul is good on some stuff. But screw the third party shit. The Republicans suck because the liberals are running the party. However, There's no way a third party will ever win. It's been done before, it has always failed. Mark Levin is the man. I know where he stands politically unlike these DumbAss "Moderates" Who can't make up their minds what they believe in. The middle is a bunch of lemmings. You'd be a moron to base a whole campaign on getting their vote like John McCain did.
171view 2 years ago
I used to like this guy until I realized what a jerk he was. Ron Paul is the man, he is the best political mind today.
Mark Levin is way too partisan, unlike Paul who keeps it real and knows how full of shit the republicans and democrats are.
Habitually233 2 years ago
mark levin is always trashing republicans...
jet472000 2 years ago
Mark Levin is one of the greatest patriots of our time!
Stunr99 2 years ago
I don't like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'rielly, Michelle bachman, Nut gingrich or any of these no sense making so called conservatives, But I do like this Mark Levin and just like the great Ron Paul, he does make a lot of sense indeed, even if their messages differ a bit, and they do have differen't style too.
But I'm going to try to buy Mark Levins book because he does sound very smart!!!
mikiy84 2 years ago
this book is simply amazing. i may be 13 but i am happy that someone smart stepped out and tried to talk some sense into society. it should be a law that before citizens are able to vote, that they are required to take a test on common political knowledge. i dont want to grow up and still be living with the effects of this ludacris govenment.
frenchvanilacoolwhip 2 years ago 4
Ahh, I do believe that is the "Bunker" there where Mark is.
Ligeti43 2 years ago
do i have to be this insane to get my own high rating tv show or high rating book?
"I like money" - Idiocracy
GILLSOLO 2 years ago
Hannity & Levin: The leaders of brainless Americans.
coachfun1987 2 years ago
What was in Liberty and Tyranny that you disagree with?
I am curious about your informed opinion.
dio777777 2 years ago
It is the 21st Century and there is 30% of this country who would have us constantly go backwards and repeat and the same old mistakes and recycle the same OLD ideas. And those people will spend money to read books that confirm their block headed notions. People, it is time to move forward, make the world a better place, follow Jesus' teachings and reach out to humanity instead of withdrawing ever more into your own small narrow minded and bigoted group.
coachfun1987 2 years ago
The only outdated and same old mistakes I see in history are Communism, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Fascism, and Statism, oh and calling everyone who disagrees with the Liberal Agenda, a bigot and narrow minded, that's pretty outdated too.
Narrow mindedness is believing that only Government has the solutions to the problems and if we just sacrifice more our liberty, they will solve them.
You can't be a Socialist and believe in Jesus at the same time. You either believe in God or Government.
dicendimes 2 years ago
"You can't be a Socialist and believe in Jesus at the same time. You either believe in God or Government."
Congratulations. Definitely the dumbest post of the day.
coachfun1987 2 years ago
It's only dumb, when you're an Obamabot and don't see the depth of true intellect.
Socialists replace God with Government. Your hope, faith, and trust comes from the Government, not from God or yourself.
You believe that your destiny and success cannot be achieved by yourself alone, you believe that the Government can only create success. You believe that Government is more capable of handling your health care, education, retirement, and negotiating your pay better than yourself, you sheep.
dicendimes 2 years ago 3
I stand corrected. THAT was the dumbest post of the day. No wonder Levin, Hannity, & Limbaugh are your heroes...your regurgitation of their asinine and obtuse generalizations are nothing short of extraordinary. And extraordinarily moronic.
coachfun1987 2 years ago
Wrong, you stand a jackass. If anyone makes generalizations, it is idiots like you who claim that every Conservative worships Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin. You proved yourself of being everything you just accused me of being. You're the jackass.
On top of that, everything you morons bashed Bush for and accused of his intentions, Obama is actually doing. Why isn't Obama a war monger when he's sending more troops into Afghanistan? Why don't you bash his spending like you did to Bush?
dicendimes 2 years ago
Let's take the language back first and foremost. They should not be called "Liberals" because that implies that they have something to do with Liberty which they know nothing about. They are "Statist's" and malcontents (drones) enemies of the US constitution. You won't convince them with facts or reason. The only thing we can do for now is defeat them in the next couple of election cycles. If we can not they will run this country into the ground with there incompetence.
ralphstock 2 years ago
I agree, I no longer even call them Liberals, b/c like you said, Liberal means they have something to do with Liberty and they are anything but. I call them what they are Communists, Socialists, Statists, and Sheep.
dicendimes 2 years ago 2
Why not actually refute any of the points he made? Socialism and Communism force "good" will onto people. Giving your money away is no Christian virtue if it is done at the point of a sword.
mackdan7 2 years ago
People who believe in God, believe in voluntary Charity, while Socialists like you, believe in charity by the force of Government, which uses taxation to confiscate wealth and redistribute it to the poor. By doing that, you're eliminating all individual intention. You would never know who is charitable and who isn't, b/c either you are all charitable or you go to prison.
Socialism eliminates individualism, and God is all about individualism. Each individual is unique, we're not all the same.
dicendimes 2 years ago
You seem to hold an interesting position: That American conservatives who uphold the egotistic individual as a god is somehow biblical? You should read Acts 4:32.
bachandl1 2 years ago
The individual is a product of God. I really don't need to hear about the Bible from a Socialist who believes in butchering the definition of marriage and aborting babies.
dicendimes 2 years ago
So in other words, you don't need to hear other points of view...Yes, you are a Conservative!
bachandl1 2 years ago
Point of view? You have no views. You stand for nothing. I don't need to hear lectures on the Bible from someone who practices Liberalism which is an ideology that is very very similar to Satanism. And no, I'm not saying you worship devils, but you believe in the philosophy of acting on impulse and giving in to all your temptations. If you believe that aborting a child is morally correct, you shouldn't even be quoting the Bible.
dicendimes 2 years ago
This is what is so fascinating. I have yet to really state what I believe; and yet you assume, because of your own ideological pressupositions, that I am the villain of your worldview. I have really only asked a question: Do you really think that placing the individual above all else is biblical; and then pointed out Acts 4:32 as counter evidence. But you have already constructed my philosophy for me...It truly is fascinating to watch you go ad hoc after ad hoc claim.
bachandl1 2 years ago
It is very biblical to take responsibility for yourself. It is very biblical to believe in yourself and not replace God with Government. Self-governance is what the Bible is about. What you have is this idea that we need to replace God with Government. That's what most Liberals believe. They believe that the Government is the only entity that has the power to make fundamental changes in their lives, more than themselves.
Bible says many different things, some are contrary to others.
dicendimes 2 years ago
It's also very biblical to share things in common...Look, "liberalism" is a nebulous category. It is not a doctrine. Political Liberalism, however, is a technical term, which you should look up, because it actually has nothing to do with socialism, but in fact the socialists fought against Liberalism.
Where have I said that we should replace God with Government? Or is that just the boogy man theory in your ideology that you impose on everybody without really understanding what they think?
bachandl1 2 years ago
It is biblical to share things in common, no doubt, that's not what we're disputing. The dispute is, should you be forced to share or should you share out of your own good will?
I know what Political Liberalism is and you're right, it has nothing to do with Socialism. Classic Political Liberalism is actually Conservatism, however, the word Liberalism has been hijacked over the last 30 years by Socialists and Communists, who want to use Liberalism to spread their agenda.
dicendimes 2 years ago
You didn't say we should replace God with Government, but you said, we should not place individuals as high as we do, so there's really only one alternative to that and that is collectivism. You didn't say it directly, you said it in so many words though. You're either an individualist or a collectivist, and obviously, you're not the former.
You actually painted the boogey man theory by suggesting that I want individuals to be placed above everything else, including God, I just threw it back.
dicendimes 2 years ago
Comment removed
bachandl1 2 years ago
You deal in Either-OR reasoning, everything is black and white to you. How is not taking the individual as absolute equal to collectivism?
Is Acts 4:32 collectivism?
You said it yourself, "you either believe in God or government" and "God is all about the individual"--it's not my boogey man theory my friend.
bachandl1 2 years ago
Everything is Black and White. To deny that there is means you don't believe in the truth. There's a difference between True and False. Half Truths are still False. You either believe in Individualism or Collectivism, there is no 3rd way.
God is about the individual. If you're living in a society filled with degenerates, but you happen to be a good person, God judges you by who you are, not what your society is. God doesn't group you in with people, he looks at what you did.
dicendimes 2 years ago
Comment removed
dicendimes 2 years ago
Comment removed
dicendimes 2 years ago
I know you're a Leftist, b/c I've read some of your comments and you're friends with a Marxist like IWLocal8, whom I debated a long time ago, but your premise is Liberal as well.
We're not placing individual above all else, so I don't accept the premise of your loaded question.
I will tell you this, the Bible does believe you have a responsibility to help yourself and then help others as well. If you can't help yourself, how can you help others? Government doesn't replace God.
dicendimes 2 years ago
It is just as accurate for me to say that a conservative places the individual above all else as it is for a conservative to say that a liberal places government above all else. If you are going to misrepresent, expect a little dose of the same.
To believe in JUSTICE and JUST STRUCTURES is not to dismiss individual responsibility--much less to place government above all else.
bachandl1 2 years ago
The individual is who God judges, not the Collective. You're judged by what YOU do, not what your society does as a whole. As I said, you could be a good person amongst degenerates or a bad person amongst good people, you're judged by what you are, not the collective.
In order to believe in Government, you have to take away belief in God. The Communists / Socialists knew it. You have to put your hope, faith, and trust in a false prophet like Obama.
Liberals believe in favoritism.
dicendimes 2 years ago
But you rave and rant without making a cohesive thought. The Bible has alot to say about "unjust systems" and social injustice--are you unaware of this? Part of the judgment placed on the STATE of Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures is their injustice to the poor. God was not judging specific individuals, but the nation of Israel for its injustice. Are you not aware of this?
bachandl1 2 years ago
Are you aware that the United States and Israel have done away with these Social Injustices? Are you aware that Liberals are recreating injustices and the only difference is they are targeting different people? Are you aware that these Muslim Countries have far more injustices than Israel? Women don't even have rights in many of them.
dicendimes 2 years ago
There is nothing just about siding with murderers over the victims that they hurt. There is no justice in trying Gitmo prisoners and granting them the same Constitutional Rights as our own citizens who committed crimes. There is no just structure in removing the death penalty for convicted killers, but aborting an unborn baby, even at 9 months of pregnancy is a right. Liberalism promotes hedonism and tyranny.
dicendimes 2 years ago
You make one logical jump to the next. Now you're talking about GITMO?
Anyway, you keep going back to "God" as if political society is solely a theological matter--which is fairly ironic for somedody who seems to loath those Muslim nations. I'm not concerned with God's judgment. I'm concerned with how society unjustly condemns some of its own citizens. The individual makes decisions within a context, and that context is always collective and social--thus the influence of tradition.
bachandl1 2 years ago
I'm talking about Gitmo to make a point in the fallacies of Liberal Logic in how you equate terrorists with domestic criminals.
As for God, I'm just beating you at this game. You tried to throw the Bible in my face and say it supports Liberalism and it doesn't as I demonstrated.
If you make decisions based on collectivism, you don't think for yourself. Tradition isn't necessarily collective thinking, it's an idea that has withstood the test of time.
Ask Ms. California about condemnation.
dicendimes 2 years ago
You're beating me in the "God game"? Well, you win arguments just like FOX news! Just announce your own victory, and that's enough, eh?
I've never suggested that the Bible is a program for liberalism--I never even suggested liberalism is a program! I only pointed out that Bible does NOT support your point of view very strongly, and that supporting the collective, and social justice issues are profuse within Scripture.
Ask the black population within federal prisons about condemnation...
bachandl1 2 years ago
If it doesn't support my point of view very strongly, then you're basically saying that the Bible supports the point of view of Liberalism, which is your point of view. I announced my victory, b/c you don't want to debate God and the Bible anymore, which by default, makes me the winner.
The Bible supports doing what is right. Helping your fellow man with GoodWill is what it promotes, not by force of the Government.
You want me to ask murderers and thieves why they are condemned? LMAO.
dicendimes 2 years ago
"I announced my victory, b/c you don't want to debate God and the Bible anymore, which by default, makes me the winner."
The stupidity of this argument speaks for itself. I never said I didn't want to talk about the Bible anymore. I said that it doesn't have to do with what we are talking about--in other words, it's irrelevant to the subject. You claim victory for yourself because you don't have the debating skills to EARN IT.
bachandl1 2 years ago
I've been whipping a dead horse when it comes to debating you. You won't even admit you're a Liberal, you won't admit that Liberals today promote Socialism, and you're trying to claim the Bible supports Liberalism which is an uphill battle in and of itself. You guys always talk about Separation of Church and State, yet you talk about Jesus being a Socialist and the Bible promoting Collectivism.
You Libs only select parts of the Constitution and the Bible and try to make it fit your monologue
dicendimes 2 years ago
Oh, I have no problem admitting I'm a liberal. I have a problem with "liberal" meaning whatever is you decide it means and then lumping me into that category.
bachandl1 2 years ago
Am I really deciding what Liberal means? If anyone decides what words mean, it's Liberals. Liberals decided that Conservatives are White Rich Old Men who are racist, gun toting, Bible Thumping Rednecks.
See, I'm a Liberal too. I'm a Classical Liberal, which by today's definition is Libertarian / Conservative. Liberal today means Progressivism / Socialism.
I can tell by our conversations, you're not Classically Liberal.
dicendimes 2 years ago
Again "liberal" to you simply means Non-Conservative After all that's the black and white reasoning. To you a liberal is just as much a Stalinist as an activist for social justice. You have already decided, long before we even began debating, what I am, what I think, and how bad it is.
Liberalism does NOT mean socialism. You may include socialists within your view of liberalism, but it also includes capitalist Keynsians, for instance.
NO I am not a Classical Liberal or neoliberal.
bachandl1 2 years ago
Well what the hell do you want me to call you, a Leftist? I mean, Communism, Socialism, Keynesians, they're all on the Political Left, and I define Liberal as anything that is on the political left. All Socialists are Liberals, but not all Liberals are Socialists. Liberal is a broad term and I'm using it as a broad term to describe your beliefs. You can call me a Rightie or Conservative all you want, you don't see me throwing a fit about it. Premise of your questions told me you're a Leftie
dicendimes 2 years ago
You lump everything that is not your ideological perspective into the category of "leftist". I've never had a problem being described as left of the far right. Again, I have a problem with how the far right then tends to categorize the left, as if it is a single program that equals communism, fascism, baby killing, totelitarianism, government control, etc. all in one lump sum. Case in point: before we even started debating, you already told me what I think. That's what I want to avoid.
bachandl1 2 years ago
The premise of your questions told me what you think.
You obviously get offended when you're called a Leftist or a Liberal, cause otherwise, you wouldn't be throwing a fit about it.
You want me to call you a moderate or an independent? I mean, I could, but I'd only be lying about you.
dicendimes 2 years ago
I keep telling you what I don't want, which is what you inevitably keep doing: I don't want your preestablished beliefs thrusted upon me. I don't want you to assume you know what I think without me telling you. Make sense, or have I not spelled this out for you enough?
bachandl1 2 years ago
I'm not assuming anything, b/c if I assumed it, I would have been wrong. I hit the nail on the head and called you a Liberal, and I make this claim, b/c your thinking is 180 degrees from mine. I'll judge you as much as I want to, just as you can judge me. If anyone is imposing beliefs on anyone, it's the Left doing it to everyone else.
dicendimes 2 years ago
I asked a question, and all the suddon I was a baby killer, Stalinist, government before God, "liberal". I refuse that kind of "nail on the head" target. But, what else should I expect from simplistic, narrow minded BLACK AND WHITE reasoning?
bachandl1 2 years ago
Who called you a Stalinist, Baby Killer, Government Before God Liberal? I simply called you a Liberal. Liberals come in many different forms, as does Socialism. If anyone is narrow minded, it is Liberals. Liberals don't like ideas that don't involve the government in some way shape or form.
You may even have a Conservative view here and there, and I'd still call you Liberal, if you are overall, a Liberal. You can be a pro-life Liberal, a pro-national defense Liberal (Liebermann), etc.
dicendimes 2 years ago
Stealing from one man and giving it to another man is not charitable and not what the Bible promotes. The Bible promotes you giving some of your own money to the needy, and not taking someone else's treasure to be charitable. Stealing is stealing. Whether you steal to keep it for yourself or steal it and give it away, you are sinning. So there goes your whole Collectivist Welfare theory on the Bible.
dicendimes 2 years ago
Have you ever read Isaiah or Jeremiah or any of the prophets? There all about social justice. Just because you say "BIBLE" doesn't mean you've represented it.
Stealing is stealing, sure...can it not ever happen that those who have most power are actually stealing from those who do not? For somebody who loves the bible so much, you sure enjoy defending the rich. Does it ever occur to you, that the rich have more influence on government and the economy than the poor? Is that Just?
bachandl1 2 years ago
Who are these rich people that are stealing from the poor? I don't see rich people breaking into people's cars and homes in the middle of the night and stealing possessions. I don't see nor hear about rich people robbing liquor stores at gun point.
Did it ever occur to you that the rich are the ones paying the taxes and the poor, who don't pay taxes, are getting tax credits on top of it? Did it ever occur to you that the poor get free handouts from the government and the rich don't?
dicendimes 2 years ago
Ever heard of Enron scandal? Ever heard of company CEOs failing to pay out pention checks because of fraud? Of course you don't hear about this stuff much, because the media is corporate--to be exact 6 multination corporations own the media.
Another interesting fact: in the US CEO to worker pay ratio is 400:1, the most unequal in any industrial country. the top 1% owns 39% of all wealth; the bottom 80% owns 8.7% of total wealth. The rich are doing just fine in this country.
bachandl1 2 years ago
Well, if it's so easy to be a CEO, why don't you go and be a fuckin' CEO? Why doesn't everybody go out and do it then? You think the government should step in and decide who gets paid what?
If you want to live in that kind of a country, may I suggest to you, Venezuela.
dicendimes 2 years ago
The CEOs are not making billions and billions because they are hard workers! They make it because they have monopolies over industry and because workers have very little power for collective bargaining, and finally, because politicians, both Dems and Reps, are by and large economically conservative, sold to Neo-Liberalism that prizes free-trade and free-markets, and supply side economics. Government, however, does step in: It steps in order to provide CORPORATE WELFARE.
bachandl1 2 years ago
If being a CEO is not hard work, everyone would do it. Again I ask, why don't you go out and be a CEO? CEO is under pressure all the time and has to make decisions on the direction of the company. You mean to tell me that any shmuck off the street can do it and do it right, with thousands of jobs in their hands? Its easy for you to say CEOs don't work hard, are you or have you ever been a CEO? CEOs get paid, b/c the market determines that is what they are worth.
dicendimes 2 years ago
Why assume that CEO is harder work than busting your butt on the factor lines, all day? Don't be so naive. CEO billionaires are not working harder than than the mother of three, working two jobs day and night, and on welfare just to pay the bills. Yes, given the opportunity, the "shmuck off the street could do it"--problem is, they don't have the opportunity. Again, I believe in equality of opportunity, which you seem to just blithly assume.
bachandl1 2 years ago
You think a bum off the street could just come in and manage a billion dollar company? Let me ask you something, what do factory line workers and mothers of 3 know about meeting a pay roll? What do they know about business decisions? If they're so much more advanced than the CEO, why aren't they CEOs themselves or running their own fuckin' business? Not anybody gets to be a CEO. You need at least an MBA to be a CEO, or go the other route and build a company from scratch. You're a true Lib.
dicendimes 2 years ago
And please, spare me the bullshit about opportunity. What opportunity did the CEOs have that a factory worker didn't? This is America, and despite what Leftists like you believe, there are still people who climb the ladder of success and come from humble beginnings and reach their goals of being successful.
dicendimes 2 years ago
Government stepped in, you know why? B/c you're not living in a Capitalist Country anymore. If you hate Corporate Welfare, you should reject Socialism in all of its forms, individually and corporately.
dicendimes 2 years ago
Look at also what is happening to the shmucks who took the bailouts. The Government has taken over their businesses and threw the executives out. That's what you get when you make a deal with the devil. They would have been better off going under than putting their company in the hands of government.
dicendimes 2 years ago
Moreover, statistically speaking the US is the most unequal in income and wealth distribution than any other adavnced capitalist country. So don't go on and on about how good the poor have it here VS the rich. In reality--I know you hate that place--the middle class is slowly dying out to the super rich, and has been for the past 30 years.
bachandl1 2 years ago
I've heard this rhetoric about the middle class dying out and whatnot. Are the Middle Class dying out b/c the Middle Class are becoming rich or becoming poor? What the hell is Middle Class, Poor, and Rich anyways? If you got a roof over your head, clothes on your back, food on the table, and clean water, what do you give a shit what other people have?
dicendimes 2 years ago
This has actually been well documented for the past 20 some years among economists and sociologists--even GW Bush had to admit it. The middle class is not swelling into the the top 1%--that's why it's the top 1%!!!. They're being pushed further and further away from the top 1%. I gave you a few numbers, be happy to give you more; but what about them gave you the impression that the middle class is being pushed into the richest of the rich? Since '80 the bottom 80% have lost wealth and income
bachandl1 2 years ago
The top 1% is limited to the top 3 Million Earners in this country. The Middle Class is a broad term. The bottom 80% has been saturated with imported poverty and an increased number of people on welfare w/o jobs, which drags the income and wealth down. Your problem is, you don't believe in just equal opportunity, you believe in equal results, and equal results requires tons of government force to achieve. Unrealistic.
People who achieve should not subsidize the failures in this country.
dicendimes 2 years ago
"Imported poverty" does not explain why the wealthiest 1/3% has dramatically jumped in income and wealth over the past 30 years. Since '81 the 99.9th% tax bracket tripled in real income. while the bottom 80% has actually lost income or remained stagnant. It's not because of poor people that the rich are getting rapidly richer.
I do believe in equal opportunity. I just don't think we've achieved that. You seem to think all things are de facto equal, the playing field is entirely level.
bachandl1 2 years ago
Well, who's stopping the poor from being richer other than the poor themselves? Last time I checked, there wasn't slavery in the United States. The rich get richer is the dumbest shit I ever hear. Why should I be concerned if people are accumulating more wealth? That's like saying, the smart are getting smarter and the dumb are getting dumber. If people want to work harder and take more risks and become wealthier, power to them. If people want to slack off and be poor, they can do that too
dicendimes 2 years ago
Again, I've already said this, to be focused on social justice and institutional justice is not to disregard individual responsibility--where do you get this?
As far as tradition goes and individual VS Society, human beings are SOCIAL ANIMALS, not solitary ones. They get their being from social life, not from the some idea factory that comes solely out of the individual head. Fact is, One cannot be an individual without society.
bachandl1 2 years ago
You're wrong, society cannot be made without individuals. Societies are composed of individuals, not the other way around. This is where you backward ass Liberal logic fails. Individuals are the building blocks of the big house known as society. When most of your bricks aren't holding their weight and only relying on a few good bricks, the house starts to collapse. That's what Conservatives know and believe.
Social Justice today is just code word to hate White, Christian, and Rich people.
dicendimes 2 years ago
Of course society is composed of individuals, just like a machine is composed of parts--But the parts are not taken by themselves, they are in relation to the whole.
Just look at language. Individuals do not get together and decide on a language, although a language only lives through individual speech. But it is precisely the community through which individuals can speak in the first place. There is no language without the community. Individuals TOGETHER, not in isolation, form society.
bachandl1 2 years ago
There's a certain limit as to how far we go in terms of what we share. If we just shared everything, then you really don't own your home and anyone can come in whenever they want to. You don't own possessions, therefore if someone just takes it from you, it's not stealing b/c it belongs to the collective society. If someone wants to spy on you in your home, it's not spying cause it's their home too. So it's where you draw the line.
dicendimes 2 years ago
As far as your "House" analogy goes, it actually makes more sense to focus on the structure of the house--that determines its health. It is just as important to concentrate on the structure as it is the individual bricks. For the bricks are nothing without the structure of the house...hmmm, kind of like the individual, who is nothing without wider society...
bachandl1 2 years ago
Without the bricks, you don't have a house. The bricks have to do their job and support the entire house or the house collapses. Without the house, the bricks are still bricks, but without the bricks, the house isn't a house. So individuals do survive without a society, b/c if they didn't humans would have been extinct long before we ever had a society.
dicendimes 2 years ago
Tell me of an individual who lives entirely without society. Do you really deny that human beings are social animals and have not developed in conglomerations? How do you explain language?
bachandl1 2 years ago
When the human race began, did it not have live w/o a society?
dicendimes 2 years ago
The human race did not fall from the sky. It evolved. There is no zero point to say that here, at point X, we have humanity. But there is absolutely no evidence of solitary human beings in isolation, and neither are our biological ancestors. Humans and their evolutionary heritage are social through and through. Even as far back as Aristotle this much was understood.
bachandl1 2 years ago
Well, it's very easy to say the human race didn't fall out of the sky, but neither did society. Obviously at one point, there wasn't a huge number of human beings in the beginning of the human race, it had to build up over time. The first human beings had to rely on themselves and not a society to survive. Human beings are naturally individualistic as well as animals. They do what it takes to survive and don't wait for a society to give them something, they go out and get what they need.
dicendimes 2 years ago
You should take a history course if your truly interested in these things. Then you'll learn about movements of peoples, their conglomeration and migrations. But never did solilary Rouseauian persons roam the earth. Society began in small tribes, which banded together, migrated, conquered other tribes, grew, etc. There is no evidence of pre-societal solitary individuals running around surviving on their own. I'm telling my friend, there is no credible scholarship to support that theory.
bachandl1 2 years ago
A history course? Son, one of my majors in college is Criminal Justice. I think you need to reread history and understand that before the human race evolved into society, people did not depend on a society, they depended on only a few people, animals, and themselves.
Man fights to survive for himself, not the society.
dicendimes 2 years ago
I think you need to re-read my statements. I never said that human society began in the millions. I said it began in SMALL TRIBES--but that is still society, social, a grouping of people together with language, custom, etc. NOT solitary individuals.
bachandl1 2 years ago
Oh, a structural issue? You know what your data is telling me, it tells me that there are more people who believe they are entitled to things rather than working for it than there were in the 1980s. As I said, we are importing more and more poverty into this country which contribute to the wealth of the bottom 80% dropping and the education system that indoctrinates children into believing they are entitled to Government Goodies rather than working. You think Government should cap pay?
dicendimes 2 years ago
You really don't like facts do you? When the MAJORITY of the population is losing economic and political power to the top 1/3% you think it has to do with the laziness of the majority of Americans? How is it that the so called "imported poor" are not bringing the top 1% nay the top 1/2% down, but bringing everybodyelse down? Not that's fuzzy math!
Government wouldn't need to cap pay if workers had more economic and political bargaining power, such as the power of unions.
bachandl1 2 years ago
If you import people who don't work and mooch off the welfare system, they automatically come in as the bottom 80% and bring the collective bottom 80% down. How is that fuzzy math? They bring down any group they are lumped in with. Hell, they bring down the GDP as a whole, with or without the top 1%.
The power of the unions? Let me ask you something, how are we supposed to compete with other countries, when we pay someone $40 an hour to mop the floors?
dicendimes 2 years ago
How does an "imported poor" class bring first of all bring down 80% of Americans who are, for the most part, not poor? And Second how does an "imported poor" class INCREASE the wealth and income dramatically in the top 1% and especially the top .1%? The GDP has not gone down--this is where you are not making sense. Although it has increased through the 80s and 90s, still the bottom 80% did not benefit. Those who really benefited were and are the top 1%.
Look, you need some facts.
bachandl1 2 years ago
Imported poor adds more low numbers in wealth and income to the bottom 80%. If I take the average of 5 numbers, 5,3,4,5, and 6, I get an average of 4.6. Now, if I add a 1 to these numbers, I get a new average of 4. So by adding this low number, I brought down the overall average. Get it, got it, good!
The GDP hasn't gone down, you're right, but importing poverty has slowed down the GDP considerably.
Tell me something, why do I see more people who lived in Detroit, moving into the suburbs?
dicendimes 2 years ago
All this makes since if 1) you assume a massive amount of imported poor entered to bring down 80% of populations wealth (no evidence) and 2) if you theory explained how the top 1% INCREASED dramatically in wealth and income, and 3) Why this imported poor, like point #2, does not seem to effect the top 1% or 5% that much and 4) why it has centralized wealth and income so dramatically in the top 1% alone even though GDP has continually gone UP. The theory does not explain any of those four points
bachandl1 2 years ago
We have 30 Million Illegal Immigrants in America, 10% of the population, and they're not the only poor we have imported into this country, you also have to count legal immigrants too. Top 1% hasn't increased, most of them lost money in the stock market last year and still pay 40% of the taxes in this country. And the wealth and income has not been centralized in the top 1%, most of them have watched half the money they have in their portfolios disappear. Get a Reality Check.
dicendimes 2 years ago
first of all the three million illegals and other immigrants are not all poor. Second of all they are not enough to drag the entire population down. Even so, it doesn't account for the top 1% gaining wealth and income dramatically. And finally factually the top 1% has increased over the past 30 years. The most recent financial crisis is a completely different subject. It not only effected the wealthiest, but the poorest as well--most of all it effected the middle class, not the rich.
bachandl1 2 years ago
Everyone has gained wealth if you go by the numbers in the past 30 years. You have to adjust for inflation. A dollar 30 years ago was worth a helluva lot more than it is today. Having $30,000 back in the 1970s is equivalent to about $80,000 today. So, in actuality, inflation has more to do with it than anything.
The financial crisis hurt the wealthiest far more than the poor. The wealthiest people lost half their wealth and the poor ended up losing their jobs. See how it trickles down?
dicendimes 2 years ago
Everyone has not gained, my friend. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I don't know what you hear when I tell you that the majority of Americans have remained stagnant in real income over the past 30 years, adjusted for inflation. It is only the top tier, the elite of elite, who has made significant gains. This crisis, like most recessions before it, will further damage the middle class--and as the looks of it, Obama does not plan on pushing to help them out so much.
bachandl1 2 years ago
No, Obama isn't going to help them, he's going to damage them even further. Obama is going to suck more money out of the economy and put more of it into the Federal Government, which will basically force more Middle Class and Poor People to work for the Government instead of a Private Owned Business. Working for the government, their success will be limited to what the government allows them to reach.
dicendimes 2 years ago
No, he's not giving enough support for EFCA nor is he pushing strongly enough universal healthcare, and his bailouts have had very little, if anything, to help struggling workers. Obama has simply propted up the system for corporate America--that is your so called "socialist"
bachandl1 2 years ago
Hah, propped up the system for corporate America? That's a good one. I don't think I've ever heard that one before, so I give you an A for originality, as wrong as you maybe, that is original.
Universal Healthcare, or I should say, Rationed Care, that's coming in a few months, be patient.
His bailouts have been a failure. He should have let the companies go under, instead of bailing them out and then letting them go under.
As for EFCA, he's giving Unions 2 car companies, what more u want?
dicendimes 2 years ago