END OF AMERICAN ARISTOCRACY
- Thread starter Cinnabar
- Start date
Income inequality has always and will always exist. Up and until there is Marxism. Then all will be equally miserable and poor other than Government apparatchiks.
As for upward mobility; who is it that is preventing anyone in this country from doing better?
Repubs like to be subservient to the wealthy. They are shocked that we all aren't that way. God made them rich. Fortunately for rightys, the wealthy believe that too. That is why they accept bad leaders of countries. God chose them too. Putin and Kim were chose by god as much as trump was.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Commiefornia is a prime example of the perils of progressivism. Worst wealth inequality in America.
HORSE SHIT. WE EARN OUR MONEY, and DON'T NEED LEFTIDIOTS TRYING TO TELL US WHO TO GIVE IT TO....
Very good Cinnabar. Someone explaining it in simple English. Thanks.
All I can say here is that it will be hilarious to go back and watch this video if Bloomberg ends up getting the Democratic nomination.
As opposed to Democrats, who often vote for wealthy individuals that use the state to throw a few bones their way? Again, if Bloomberg gets the nomination, all the criticism of Trump being a billionaire old white guy will seem rather hypocritical.
You are quite welcome!
YEP...TIME TO KEEP THROWING THEIR ASSES OUT:
“When plunder becomes a way of life, men create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” – Frederic Bastiat
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin routinely spoke of the importance of rotation in office to prevent abuse and corruption and to avoid the creation of a permanent political class. George Washington thought of himself first and foremost as a land surveyor, farmer, and soldier. He set the ultimate precedent by voluntarily surrendering power as he instinctively felt that changes in leadership were essential to a vibrant democratic republic taking root and was particularly keen on eliminating the concepts of nobles and peasants.
Too Much Power, Too Few Consequences
There is little doubt that these intellectually astute and elegantly articulate men, along with other Founding Fathers, would be distraught at the evolution of the professional politician and what this trend has wrought. With Senate and House incumbency re-election rates today standing at 93 percent and 97 percent, respectively (enough to make the Soviet Politburo blush), and with average service tenures showing relentless expansion for much of the 20th and 21st centuries, both chambers are riddled today with members who have become part of a tight-knit, inside-the-Beltway political class with multi-decade tenures who are, for the most part, divorced from the consequences of their lawmaking and day-to-day struggles of their constituents.
In fact, according to recent census data, seven of America’s ten richest counties are located in the greater Washington, D.C., metro area, defying the years of stagnating income growth seen in the nation’s heartland. This can legitimately be viewed as a transfer payment from middle-class taxpayers to upper-class bureaucrats.
Adding insult to injury, when these denizens of Capitol Hill finally do decide that their constituents can do without them, they often jauntily skip over to K Street, with only cosmetic restrictions, and don their lobbyist caps to profit from the largesse of their former colleagues.
Revealingly, a meaningful correlation exists between years in office and the propensity to support an ever-increasing level of government spending and borrowing, culminating in total government outlays now exceeding 40 percent of GDP. In fact, the national debt recently surpassed $21 trillion, surpassing 100 percent of our economy.
Ominously, with trillion-dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see, these numbers are poised to continue their horrific glide path even higher. Thus, the concept of a debt crisis, fueled by non-discretionary spending and unfunded liabilities to the tune of over $80 trillion, cannot be casually dismissed.
Not Without Risks, but Necessary
While an arduous task, the best path forward to make the term limits concept a reality would be a Constitutional amendment emanating from a convention of the states, with ratification requiring the support of three-fourths of the states. The traditional amendment route through the U. S. Congress and then to the states would surely prove futile, as the foxes would never voluntarily agree to limit their ability to guard the henhouse. Importantly, Article 5 of the Constitution explicitly grants state legislators amendment powers, and a convention would materialize after the approval of two-thirds of state legislative bodies.
The amendment process is necessary as a result of the 1995 Supreme Court decision, U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, where the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that neither states nor Congress could limit the number of terms that members of Congress could serve. The ruling brought to a halt what had become a popular nationwide movement and invalidated the term limit provisions that 23 states had placed on their national Congressional delegations.
While a convention of the states is a high-wire act fraught with risks, we have reached a point in our history where fundamental reforms on a variety of budgetary issues are imperative for the long-term survival of our republic. Nobody should be under the illusion that term limits are a panacea. However, returning our Congress to a citizen-legislator model that our Founders embraced is a critical first step; and for good measure, they could also throw in a balanced budget amendment with a strict tax limitation provision.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/conve...merica-to-be-run-by-professional-politicians/
OUR FOUNDERS DID NOT INTEND TO HAVE A PERMANENT POLITICAL CLASS of LIFELONG POLITICIANS....
“When plunder becomes a way of life, men create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” – Frederic Bastiat
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin routinely spoke of the importance of rotation in office to prevent abuse and corruption and to avoid the creation of a permanent political class. George Washington thought of himself first and foremost as a land surveyor, farmer, and soldier. He set the ultimate precedent by voluntarily surrendering power as he instinctively felt that changes in leadership were essential to a vibrant democratic republic taking root and was particularly keen on eliminating the concepts of nobles and peasants.
Too Much Power, Too Few Consequences
There is little doubt that these intellectually astute and elegantly articulate men, along with other Founding Fathers, would be distraught at the evolution of the professional politician and what this trend has wrought. With Senate and House incumbency re-election rates today standing at 93 percent and 97 percent, respectively (enough to make the Soviet Politburo blush), and with average service tenures showing relentless expansion for much of the 20th and 21st centuries, both chambers are riddled today with members who have become part of a tight-knit, inside-the-Beltway political class with multi-decade tenures who are, for the most part, divorced from the consequences of their lawmaking and day-to-day struggles of their constituents.
In fact, according to recent census data, seven of America’s ten richest counties are located in the greater Washington, D.C., metro area, defying the years of stagnating income growth seen in the nation’s heartland. This can legitimately be viewed as a transfer payment from middle-class taxpayers to upper-class bureaucrats.
Adding insult to injury, when these denizens of Capitol Hill finally do decide that their constituents can do without them, they often jauntily skip over to K Street, with only cosmetic restrictions, and don their lobbyist caps to profit from the largesse of their former colleagues.
Revealingly, a meaningful correlation exists between years in office and the propensity to support an ever-increasing level of government spending and borrowing, culminating in total government outlays now exceeding 40 percent of GDP. In fact, the national debt recently surpassed $21 trillion, surpassing 100 percent of our economy.
Ominously, with trillion-dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see, these numbers are poised to continue their horrific glide path even higher. Thus, the concept of a debt crisis, fueled by non-discretionary spending and unfunded liabilities to the tune of over $80 trillion, cannot be casually dismissed.
Not Without Risks, but Necessary
While an arduous task, the best path forward to make the term limits concept a reality would be a Constitutional amendment emanating from a convention of the states, with ratification requiring the support of three-fourths of the states. The traditional amendment route through the U. S. Congress and then to the states would surely prove futile, as the foxes would never voluntarily agree to limit their ability to guard the henhouse. Importantly, Article 5 of the Constitution explicitly grants state legislators amendment powers, and a convention would materialize after the approval of two-thirds of state legislative bodies.
The amendment process is necessary as a result of the 1995 Supreme Court decision, U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, where the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that neither states nor Congress could limit the number of terms that members of Congress could serve. The ruling brought to a halt what had become a popular nationwide movement and invalidated the term limit provisions that 23 states had placed on their national Congressional delegations.
While a convention of the states is a high-wire act fraught with risks, we have reached a point in our history where fundamental reforms on a variety of budgetary issues are imperative for the long-term survival of our republic. Nobody should be under the illusion that term limits are a panacea. However, returning our Congress to a citizen-legislator model that our Founders embraced is a critical first step; and for good measure, they could also throw in a balanced budget amendment with a strict tax limitation provision.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/conve...merica-to-be-run-by-professional-politicians/
OUR FOUNDERS DID NOT INTEND TO HAVE A PERMANENT POLITICAL CLASS of LIFELONG POLITICIANS....
I'm trying to figure out how Bloomberg can claim to be compassionate and care for the less fortunate yet still be a billionaire while those for which he claims to care are still less fortunate.
...and the lie filled narrative on Ukraine and O'Biden seem lame.
Let's do the math. These two LEFTISTS have spent 451.3 MILLION to get elected. Can you imagine the amount of poverty they could have reduced with all that?
More proof that political power means more to the Party of the Jackass than poverty or the lives of Americans.
Bloomberg’s presidential campaign has spent $209.3 million on broadcast television time, $13.7 million on cable, $1.1 million on radio and $27.2 million on digital, according to data from Advertising Analytics, which tracks political ad spending.
Billionaire Tom Steyer Put $200 Million Into His Presidential Campaign Last Year
Poverty:
In 2017, nearly 40 million people lived below the poverty line in the United States.
Last edited:
If he was as compassionate as he pretends, he wouldn't still be a billionaire and those for which he claims compassion wouldn't still be less fortunate. For someone that pretends to be as compassionate as Bloomberg, he seems to want to hold onto those billions.
To an extent. I would argue that billionaires can still be very compassionate through charity while retaining their fortunes. Bill Gates has been very generous in his charitable giving, for example. The problem with Bloomberg is that he wants to use government to supposedly be compassionate. He seems to think it's compassionate to give other people's money to the less fortunate.