Hope for Youth?

paullud · Nov 14, 2013

WanderngFool said:
I'm sure that's true but here's where you can't have it both ways. You can't accuse the left of being socialists and in the next breath accuse them of being capitalists run amok. Sure, some of them are, but it isn't what they stand for. As an outsider viewing both groups I'd have to say that conservatives worship money and liberals like it a whole lot.

His point is that things won't change because all politicians, even Socialists like Clinton are bought and paid for by corporations, not that she was making money.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

davekc · Nov 14, 2013

WanderngFool said:
I'm sure that's true but here's where you can't have it both ways. You can't accuse the left of being socialists and in the next breath accuse them of being capitalists run amok. Sure, some of them are, but it isn't what they stand for. As an outsider viewing both groups I'd have to say that conservatives worship money and liberals like it a whole lot.

No not really. They are both pretty much the same. Both parties wh2re themselves out to the highest bidder.

WanderngFool · Nov 14, 2013

paullud said:
His point is that things won't change because all politicians, even Socialists like Clinton are bought and paid for by corporations, not that she was making money.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

I think I get what his point is. Things will change though. I only wish I knew in which direction. Trickle down economics is now viewed as a complete failure by most people and the country is ready for a change.

davekc · Nov 14, 2013

I wouldn't expect much change unless you see a third party emerge.

Turtle · Nov 14, 2013

davekc said:
That I would agree with. That part will not likely change as long as politicians rely on that money to get elected.

I think that the Congress, by allowing these loopholes and tax breaks to allow companies to move manufacturing and services offshore to other countries, is literally an action which helps a foreign government or multiple governments seriously injure the parent nation (us), and is nothing more than giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

There's a word for that.

WanderngFool · Nov 14, 2013

davekc said:
I wouldn't expect much change unless you see a third party emerge.

Maybe the Republican party will be the party of change. Who knows. It's very possible given the fact that the Tea Party has proven to be, shall we say, a bit of a disappointment. Mainstream Republicans are starting to make their voices heard. Business too has had just about enough. Push-back can lead to strraanngge things.

paullud · Nov 14, 2013

WanderngFool said:
Maybe the Republican party will be the party of change. Who knows. It's very possible given the fact that the Tea Party has proven to be, shall we say, a bit of a disappointment. Mainstream Republicans are starting to make their voices heard. Business too has had just about enough. Push-back can lead to strraanngge things.

There is still a lot of Tea Party support and they have candidates in office so it is far from a disappointment. As the next elections come around you will likely see them out in force again. The Republican party is slowly dying, literally, and as they lose control the party has a chance to completely reshape themselves on more of a libertarian platform. This may have the effect of getting a third party in control much quicker than starting from the ground up.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

WanderngFool · Nov 14, 2013

paullud said:
There is still a lot of Tea Party support and they have candidates in office so it is far from a disappointment. As the next elections come around you will likely see them out in force again. The Republican party is slowly dying, literally, and as they lose control the party has a chance to completely reshape themselves on more of a libertarian platform. This may have the effect of getting a third party in control much quicker than starting from the ground up.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

The future of the Tea Party will be Glenn Beck style pay $10/month to some guy on radio/tv/internet for him to say what you want to hear. The whole premise was wrong to begin with. The founding fathers were at least as much liberal as conservative. In fact, the conservatives of the day were the same as the conservatives of today - old money. In 1776 the old money was in England and so it's logical (and historically accurate) to assume that for the most part the Founding Fathers were liberals.

But that's not to say that conservatism doesn't have a vital role. The problem with the Tea Party is that it was based on the lie I just mentioned along with the Religious Freedom lie. The colonists sought freedom of religion and also freedom from religion. They wanted a secular state and that's what the founding fathers created.

paullud · Nov 14, 2013

WanderngFool said:
The future of the Tea Party will be Glenn Beck style pay $10/month to some guy on radio/tv/internet for him to say what you want to hear. The whole premise was wrong to begin with. The founding fathers were at least as much liberal as conservative. In fact, the conservatives of the day were the same as the conservatives of today - old money. In 1776 the old money was in England and so it's logical (and historically accurate) to assume that for the most part the Founding Fathers were liberals.

But that's not to say that conservatism doesn't have a vital role. The problem with the Tea Party is that it was based on the lie I just mentioned along with the Religious Freedom lie. The colonists sought freedom of religion and also freedom from religion. They wanted a secular state and that's what the founding fathers created.

Wrong on pretty much everything you just stated.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

davekc · Nov 14, 2013

If you want someone to win you need someone with Ron Paul's ideas and can deliver them to them camera. He fell short on the second half but the message is one that will work.

cheri1122 · Nov 15, 2013

davekc said:
I think that is what many liberals can't get there head around. They think they are successful because of tax breaks and yet fail to mention or understand that most started at the bottom and worked their way up.

Actually, that's backwards: the tax breaks come after the wealth, esp if they hire the best firms to shelter their income.
And most of the wealthy didn't start at the bottom: they were born into affluence, and took advantage of the best schools, networking, and socializing with the powerful people. [We're talking businesspeople, not other wealthy people.]

The only difference is they made the most of their opportunities and didn't make critical life mistakes.

For those born into affluence, all kinds of mistakes can be overcome, overlooked, or just made to go away. Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy an awful lot of whitewash.

There is always failure. Just part of life. Most business people have tanked a business or two along the way and had to start over. Same when people lose a job or anything else.
Just a matter for most as to whether "they want to".

Yes, there is always failure, and scammers, and slackers. But the current vogue of putting most unemployed people into one of those categories is worrisome. IMO, they aren't, and if they continue to struggle to maintain a basic standard of living, it's going to get ugly. Or actually, uglier, because we're already seeing the rates of obesity and diabetes climbing, and both are a byproduct of low incomes. As is teenage pregnancies, and if the conservatives keep making it harder to get real sex education, birth control, and abortion, those rates will be going up again too.
Poverty sucks for everyone, not just for poor people.

skyraider · Nov 16, 2013

You might remember some of the faces in this video, but Travis says it best in a song....

Travis Tritt Lord have Mercy on the Working Man - YouTube

WanderngFool · Nov 18, 2013

More signs of the gilded age, 2013 edition:

Is Walmart's request of associates to help provide Thanksgiving dinner for co-workers proof of low wages? | cleveland.com

Turtle · Nov 18, 2013

The rule is, any headline that asks a question which can be answered with "no," then "no" is usually the right answer.

xiggi · Nov 18, 2013

cheri1122 said:
Yes, there is always failure, and scammers, and slackers. But the current vogue of putting most unemployed people into one of those categories is worrisome. IMO, they aren't, and if they continue to struggle to maintain a basic standard of living, it's going to get ugly. Or actually, uglier, because we're already seeing the rates of obesity and diabetes climbing, and both are a byproduct of low incomes. As is teenage pregnancies, and if the conservatives keep making it harder to get real sex education, birth control, and abortion, those rates will be going up again too.
Poverty sucks for everyone, not just for poor people.

Before sex education, birth control and legal abortion those rates were much lower than they ever were since. Not unlike schools the more money they through at them the worse they get.

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

WanderngFool · Nov 18, 2013

Turtle said:
The rule is, any headline that asks a question which can be answered with "no," then "no" is usually the right answer.

It is sad to see though.

Here we are 33 years into the latest American 'grand financial experiment' and it's 'big business run amok'. 33 years into the last one we had 'unions run amok', and bell bottom pants.

Somewhere down the middle of the road would suit me just fine.