Posted on 11/19/2012 12:15:06 PM PST by mojito
....The ability to put our government's finances in order for the long run is obviously part of getting back on our national game. We simply cannot afford four more years of fiscal stalemate. But how we achieve balance matters.
If there is one pledge Obama made over and over, it is that he will tend to the rise of economic inequality, a drop in the living standards of many working Americans, the loss of well-paying jobs -- especially in manufacturing -- and curtailed access to higher education.
Across ideological lines, Americans stuck in this downward spiral experience decline not as an abstract issue but as a reality in their own lives. They ask why it is that the country seemed to do a better job of spreading opportunity around 40 years ago than it does now.
Speeding the general economic recovery will solve some of these problems, but Obama needs an unapologetically large and unified program of economic uplift, including policies on taxes, education, training and regional development. He should also look to how new approaches to innovation, unionization, immigration, trade, research and science can contribute to both growth and justice.
Obama has already talked about elements of such a program but he needs to go bigger, pull the pieces together and make the New Prosperity the central objective of his second term.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I'm not sure how he works his unique brand of magic, but Dionne is one of those simpering puppy-dog-faced liberal pundits that manages to make Paul Krugmann sound like a responsible and clear-thinking adult.
Do you realize how hard that is to do?
“he will tend to the rise of economic inequality”
In order to equalize economic conditions of people,
you MUST, UNAVOIDABLY, punish the successful and reward the slothful.
Our side is simply too polite to call them on this sound bit.
/johnny
I think Michael Savage called this “Trickle-Up Poverty”.
Obama made many pledges the first term and it went down hill every day.
Obama + pledge = Debt/unemployment
Huh. I still think government handouts are bribes for votes. Those receiving the handouts certainly turnout in force to support the ones giving the handouts.
And the offense that 'takers' take at being called a 'taker' is amazingly dishonest as well. If you 'take' more out of a system than to contribute to that system, you must be a net 'taker' by definition, right? Consider it as an engineering term, a statement of fact, rather than a derogatory appellation.
So they apparently believe they are entitled to 'take', and we are obligated to contribute, but it is poor form point out the irrevocable fact that they are taking from us because it makes them 'feel' bad?
Barry gave lil EJ more than just a tingle.
Trickle up poverty is a great name.
We need to broadcast that far and wide.
“Deserved recipient of redistributive social justice” has such a nice ring to it.
Building up self-esteem is so important, don’t you agree?
You can’t identify a child molester by it’s looks, but if you could, I’d say that is a photo of one.
Trying to benefit some or one group at the expense of others or another group is pressure group warfare and special interest group warfare which is the sign of a mixed economy in economics, eclecticism in politics, and pragmatism and altruism in philosophy.A free society, respecting the individual rights of all,a rational culture, and promoting the institutions of laissez-faire capitalism is the way to benefit the common good.
Speaking of delusions...
High paying manufacturing jobs?
Only if robots join labor unions.
The number of high paying blue collar jobs will never grow larger than the number today, and the number may in fact shrink.
By 2025 there will be commercially viable robots and machines that can perform most low skill factory jobs, and they will also make high skill jobs much faster and much more efficient.
On the factory floor, the digital revolution is still in its adolescence.
Last year I toured an Amazon.com grocery warehouse.
More than 5,000 stocked items, as I recall, everything in different sizes, shapes, weight, and fragility.
They had a fleet of little robots picking orders and delivering them straight to human packers.
Many bulk, sturdy items are delivered straight to the trucks for loading by humans.
Next robot in development for Amazon?
Truck loaders.
No question, the robots are slower than humans.
But they work 24/7 without breaks, and as the cost comes down, Amazon will just “hire” more of them.
“he will tend to the rise of economic inequality”
In order to equalize economic conditions of people,
you MUST, UNAVOIDABLY, punish the successful and reward the slothful.
Our side is simply too polite to call them on this sound bit.
YMMV
“curtailed access to higher education”
Right. Curtailed access. That’s enough, now. I’m done. If someone can write that and not be tarred and feathered, what’s the point?
What Obama and his minions never mention is that there is an upper-upper class which somehow manages to avoid most of the taxes that are aimed at "the rich"; the taxes aimed at the rich instead end up hitting those who would invest the largest portion of the wealth they earn in pursuits which would generate more wealth. This in turn helps those in the upper-upper class maintain their privileged position, rather than risk losing it to the wealth generators those who would otherwise overtake them.
For "successful" substitute "industrious". Those who are trying to be successful, but aren't, are probably not slothful but rather are among the industrious people whom the leftists seek to punish.
If I were a democrat debate coach, I’d give you an “A” for good democrat argument redirection technique.
I didn’t refer to the unsuccessful as slothful and lazy.
I referred to the slothful and lazy as slothful and lazy.
A good democrat, of course, would convolute the argument to divert away from the truth of the statement that
equalizing economic conditions inherently involves the unavoidable punishment of good choices and the rewarding of poor choices.
Hahaha, thank you MrB! :hug:
I didn’t refer to the unsuccessful as slothful and lazy.
I referred to the slothful and lazy as slothful and lazy.
If you say so, but it sure did seem heavily implied that if you weren't successful it was because you were slothful and lazy.
A good democrat, of course, would convolute the argument to divert away from the truth of the statement that
equalizing economic conditions inherently involves the unavoidable punishment of good choices and the rewarding of poor choices.
Please define what you mean by "equalizing economic conditions" because I have an idea of what you might mean but before I respond I want to make sure I was reading you correctly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
