Huffington Post Accidentally Admits Rich Pay More than 'Fair Share'

Moderate Right · Apr 26, 2017

Nickyjo said:
Liberal policies don't work: the 40-hour week, child labor laws, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, worker safety laws, smog and fuel standards, clearing up acid rain, anti-discrimination in employment, fair housing laws, seat belts, mileage standards, the right to organize unions, pesticide regulations, clean water acts, mine safety regulations... None of these worked?

True, some liberal republicans supported these, back when there were liberal republicans, but by and large, these were enthusiastically supported by the dread liberal bogeymen, and opposed by many conservatives.

But maybe I have it wrong and we are not talking about the same stuff... what liberal policies do you refer to?

It is your liberal opinion that liberal policies work. Since man built fire and invented the wheel, the rich have gotten richer and the poorer have gotten poorer. Under Obama the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Liberal policies don't work but liberals feel better about it because they feel good that they tried, even though they failed. How about trying something that actually works instead of doubling down on failure after failure? This thread wasn't about the environment and it wasn't about 50 years ago.

Nickyjo · Apr 26, 2017

Moderate Right said:
It is your liberal opinion that liberal policies work. Since man built fire and invented the wheel, the rich have gotten richer and the poorer have gotten poorer. Under Obama the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Liberal policies don't work but liberals feel better about it because they feel good that they tried, even though they failed. How about trying something that actually works instead of doubling down on failure after failure? This thread wasn't about the environment and it wasn't about 50 years ago.

Sure the rich have gotten richer, but the poor have had their problems eased and the middle class conditions has become prosperous. You seem to be trying to hide from the past as you posit that liberal programs don't work and 50 years ago doesn't count. In my view they have, but renewing or improving them has been made more difficult by conservative opposition. Research GOP votes on SS, Medicare, and Obamacare. As the years went by the votes disappeared from conservatives til none voted for the ACA. Yet these programs are still popular and with Americans. Obamacare, increasing in popularity, would have done better if it allowed people to buy into Medicare, but that was not possible due to conservative opposition.

You can't ignore this history. The fact that programs of years gone by helped things is what prompts us foolish liberals to come up with ideas for our times. The record of how unemployment went down after FDR started spending on programs, and how it spiked in 1938 after he stopped spending motivated LBJ 30 years later. His programs decreased the poverty rate in the 60s. Years later, Obama tried the same under the stimulus program. Trump now brags he will soon imitate his predecessor with his own stimulus, aka infrastructure, tho no doubt with a bias towards increasing corporate wealth.

Federal housing assistance post WWII created enormous middle class wealth (tho often blacks were excluded from those benefits.) Discrimination was eliminated more recently. More recent programs help people get housing now. On a personal level, when I was unemployed and declared uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition, a limited government program got me insurance and saved me from bankruptcy or worse. This wasn't 50 years ago, but 15. Now I have Medicare, rumored to be a government program, and unlike how Reagan predicted, I don't have to tell my kid what it was like "in America when men were free."

Yes, all this stuff happened 50 or more years ago, and should be updated/changed for today's time. But they most often came from liberals and were opposed by conservatives. The pattern continues. I now travel more easily in my area due to improvements coming from the Obama stimulus program of less than 10 years ago. More people are insured thanks to Obamacare and its accompanying expansion Medicaid, an update of a 50-year old program.

Even the more conservative GOP has drunk the liberal Kool-aid... They wanted to do nothing and got Obama care. Now, tho there is no new plan as yet, they have to say repeal and replace, instead of just repeal. Welcome to the party. We promise not to call it a liberal program.

But in fairness, maybe I am not thinking about what's on your mind and we are talking past one another, not unheard of these days. I used to have a prof of undetermined politics, who if he heard you say something like "liberal programs don't work," would say in a flat voice, "Name three." So, respectfully, name them.

Moderate Right · Apr 26, 2017

Nickyjo said:
Sure the rich have gotten richer, but the poor have had their problems eased and the middle class conditions has become prosperous. You seem to be trying to hide from the past as you posit that liberal programs don't work and 50 years ago doesn't count. In my view they have, but renewing or improving them has been made more difficult by conservative opposition. Research GOP votes on SS, Medicare, and Obamacare. As the years went by the votes disappeared from conservatives til none voted for the ACA. Yet these programs are still popular and with Americans. Obamacare, increasing in popularity, would have done better if it allowed people to buy into Medicare, but that was not possible due to conservative opposition.

You can't ignore this history. The fact that programs of years gone by helped things is what prompts us foolish liberals to come up with ideas for our times. The record of how unemployment went down after FDR started spending on programs, and how it spiked in 1938 after he stopped spending motivated LBJ 30 years later. His programs decreased the poverty rate in the 60s. Years later, Obama tried the same under the stimulus program. Trump now brags he will soon imitate his predecessor with his own stimulus, aka infrastructure, tho no doubt with a bias towards increasing corporate wealth.

Federal housing assistance post WWII created enormous middle class wealth (tho often blacks were excluded from those benefits.) Discrimination was eliminated more recently. More recent programs help people get housing now. On a personal level, when I was unemployed and declared uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition, a limited government program got me insurance and saved me from bankruptcy or worse. This wasn't 50 years ago, but 15. Now I have Medicare, rumored to be a government program, and unlike how Reagan predicted, I don't have to tell my kid what it was like "in America when men were free."

Yes, all this stuff happened 50 or more years ago, and should be updated/changed for today's time. But they most often came from liberals and were opposed by conservatives. The pattern continues. I now travel more easily in my area due to improvements coming from the Obama stimulus program of less than 10 years ago. More people are insured thanks to Obamacare and its accompanying expansion Medicaid, an update of a 50-year old program.

Even the more conservative GOP has drunk the liberal Kool-aid... They wanted to do nothing and got Obama care. Now, tho there is no new plan as yet, they have to say repeal and replace, instead of just repeal. Welcome to the party. We promise not to call it a liberal program.

But in fairness, maybe I am not thinking about what's on your mind and we are talking past one another, not unheard of these days. I used to have a prof of undetermined politics, who if he heard you say something like "liberal programs don't work," would say in a flat voice, "Name three." So, respectfully, name them.

Sorry but I stopped reading after " the middle class conditions has become prosperous". Both sides agree that the middle class is disappearing.

Mach · Apr 26, 2017

Moderate Right said:
It is your liberal opinion that liberal policies work. Since man built fire and invented the wheel, the rich have gotten richer and the poorer have gotten poorer. Under Obama the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Liberal policies don't work but liberals feel better about it because they feel good that they tried, even though they failed. How about trying something that actually works instead of doubling down on failure after failure? This thread wasn't about the environment and it wasn't about 50 years ago.

Ah, no. Data on numerous peer nations shows that a variety of policies and structures yield a variety of income distributions. The U.S. has one of the highest wealth disparities. It can be changed through policy, and in looking at how other nations do it, and how its theoretically done, its not really that experimental either, it looks pretty straightforward.

We had less government in business and it failed, repeatedly, in near catastrophic ways (bank crashes, monopolies, working conditions, etc.), such that each issue unfortunately had to be fix with laws, because people simply couldn't police themselves. Well, many can, but the bad actors, as with all of life, ruin it for everyone else. So we adjust and are better off for it.

Republicans will kick and scream but eventually we'll have higher taxes on the rich, and maybe in general, and we'll have a far better healthcare system, cheaper, better access to education, and better access to employment and employment benefits. We'll still have billionaires and rich business owners, they will just be a little less rich. Meanwhile, the nation as a whole will be dramatically better off.

Nickyjo · Apr 26, 2017

Moderate Right said:
Sorry but I stopped reading after " the middle class conditions has become prosperous". Both sides agree that the middle class is disappearing.

You are right; forgive my terrible sentence. What I meant was that the middle class became (past tense) prosperous thanks to programs instituted post-WWII, specifically those programs intended to help vets and encourage homeownership. Those things, enhanced by encouragement of unions pre Taft-Hartley, made the middle class great. I have few clues in how to deal flat lining or decline of middle class wages. I believe that, given increases in productivity, wages should have gone up. But they haven't and don't really know what liberal (gasp) solutions are out there, give that the return of unions strong enough to deal with globalization isn't in the cards.

But please let us know which programs have failed, and how liberals have doubled down on our foolishness. Ball is in your court.

Moderate Right · Apr 26, 2017

Mach said:
Ah, no. Data on numerous peer nations shows that a variety of policies and structures yield a variety of income distributions. The U.S. has one of the highest wealth disparities. It can be changed through policy, and in looking at how other nations do it, and how its theoretically done, its not really that experimental either, it looks pretty straightforward.

We had less government in business and it failed, repeatedly, in near catastrophic ways (bank crashes, monopolies, working conditions, etc.), such that each issue unfortunately had to be fix with laws, because people simply couldn't police themselves. Well, many can, but the bad actors, as with all of life, ruin it for everyone else. So we adjust and are better off for it.

Republicans will kick and scream but eventually we'll have higher taxes on the rich, and maybe in general, and we'll have a far better healthcare system, cheaper, better access to education, and better access to employment and employment benefits. We'll still have billionaires and rich business owners, they will just be a little less rich. Meanwhile, the nation as a whole will be dramatically better off.

Europe is going downhill fast. What other nation do you want to emulate?

Moderate Right · Apr 26, 2017

Nickyjo said:
You are right; forgive my terrible sentence. What I meant was that the middle class became (past tense) prosperous thanks to programs instituted post-WWII, specifically those programs intended to help vets and encourage homeownership. Those things, enhanced by encouragement of unions pre Taft-Hartley, made the middle class great. I have few clues in how to deal flat lining or decline of middle class wages. I believe that, given increases in productivity, wages should have gone up. But they haven't and don't really know what liberal (gasp) solutions are out there, give that the return of unions strong enough to deal with globalization isn't in the cards.

But please let us know which programs have failed, and how liberals have doubled down on our foolishness. Ball is in your court.

The middle class is flat lining due to liberal policies. Unions getting too greedy encouraged companies to move overseas and accelerate investment in automation, environmental regulations, etc. also kill jobs that the middle class do. The liberal core principle is to take from the rich and give to the poor. Well, where is the middle class? When you take from the rich the rich are still rich and when you give the rich's money to the poor it raises the poor up so that they are one in the same with what used to be the middle class. So, we have the rich and the other class and no middle class. Increasing minimum wage also raises the poor up while many in the middle get no raises. In order to have a middle class you need to have a rich class and a poor class. Obamacare has also hastened the end of the middle class because the rich can afford health insurance and the poor get subsidies and the middle class is saddled with exponentially rising premiums while getting no subsidies. When the minimum wage is raised up the rich increase their prices and end up having the same amount they had before while the poorest make more and the middle class not only don't get more money but have to pay higher prices everywhere.

Nickyjo · Apr 27, 2017

Moderate Right said:
The middle class is flat lining due to liberal policies. Unions getting too greedy encouraged companies to move overseas and accelerate investment in automation, environmental regulations, etc. also kill jobs that the middle class do. The liberal core principle is to take from the rich and give to the poor. Well, where is the middle class? When you take from the rich the rich are still rich and when you give the rich's money to the poor it raises the poor up so that they are one in the same with what used to be the middle class. So, we have the rich and the other class and no middle class. Increasing minimum wage also raises the poor up while many in the middle get no raises. In order to have a middle class you need to have a rich class and a poor class. Obamacare has also hastened the end of the middle class because the rich can afford health insurance and the poor get subsidies and the middle class is saddled with exponentially rising premiums while getting no subsidies. When the minimum wage is raised up the rich increase their prices and end up having the same amount they had before while the poorest make more and the middle class not only don't get more money but have to pay higher prices everywhere.

Still don't see what "policies" you are talking about, except perhaps for the minimum wage. Would you get rid of that? And I challenge your notion that we need to have a poor class. European policies since WWII, much more liberal, created prosperity for a middle class with far less poverty than in the USA or none to speak of. And how do we take from the rich and give to the poor, except for the poor that might enter the military? Social security and Medicare/Medicaid do indeed take from the rich (as well as the rest) and give to everyone, including me in the middle class, largely erasing the risk of poverty in old age. Aside from SS, Medicare/Medicaid and the military, there are very few government programs. And your comment on unions is biased. Management decided it could make more money in right to work states (conservative policy, not the free market at work) and overseas by moving to places where the conservative government policies actively crush unions (again, anti-free market.)

So what do we eliminate and how would it make things better?

Moderate Right · Apr 27, 2017

Nickyjo said:
Still don't see what "policies" you are talking about, except perhaps for the minimum wage. Would you get rid of that? And I challenge your notion that we need to have a poor class. European policies since WWII, much more liberal, created prosperity for a middle class with far less poverty than in the USA or none to speak of. And how do we take from the rich and give to the poor, except for the poor that might enter the military? Social security and Medicare/Medicaid do indeed take from the rich (as well as the rest) and give to everyone, including me in the middle class, largely erasing the risk of poverty in old age. Aside from SS, Medicare/Medicaid and the military, there are very few government programs. And your comment on unions is biased. Management decided it could make more money in right to work states (conservative policy, not the free market at work) and overseas by moving to places where the conservative government policies actively crush unions (again, anti-free market.)

So what do we eliminate and how would it make things better?

Management moved because labor unions forced their hand by being too greedy. The minimum wage is right where it is supposed to be. Since it was enacted in 1938, adjusted for inflation, it is exactly right where it is supposed to be. The market determines wages and very few make the minimum wage because the market has set the minimum wage higher than the actual minimum wage. We need to have policies in place that help lift the poor up out of poverty instead of just giving them money with no expectations in return, creating dependency like a drug addict who needs more and more never ending fixes. We should actually help people such as the disabled more than we do now so they don't live in poverty while not rewarding those with no incentive to make their lives better. The lazy should be poor and have miserable lives. Liberals want to reward the lazy and give them no incentive to work when they can work. We need to help and encourage people to move on up from McDonalds rather than forcing McDonalds to pay them more money. McDonalds is not for those who want to earn a living wage.