Quote from Buchanan's new book

[101A]

I don't want to make a predetermined judgement about this; from the synopsis I saw on Drudge much of Buchanan's new book "Suicide of a Superpower - Will America Survive to 2025?" - I would disagree with much of PB's assertions and conclusions (most specifically regarding race) - however, this one quote struck me as a truism (as inflammatory as it is written).


“We have accepted today the existence in perpetuity of a permanent underclass of scores of millions who cannot cope and must be carried by society -- fed, clothed, housed, tutored, medicated at taxpayer’s expense their entire lives. We have a dependent nation the size of Spain in our independent America. We have a new division in our country, those who pay a double or triple fare, and those who ride forever free.”

First of all, is it true - are there 40 million people (the population of Spain) in this country who are born, live and die - always on government assistance? If there are, whose fault is it? Is it necessarily a bad thing? And, if it is, how do you fix the problem?

[ElNono]

Is he talking about people under the poverty line? Not so sure what people specifically he's referencing, tbh

[101A]

Is he talking about people under the poverty line? Not so sure what people specifically he's referencing, tbh

I believe he's talking about people born on Welfare, live on Welfare/Medicaid (never have jobs, never pay taxes), and then die.

[boutons_deux]

Assuming Buchannan's fantasy is not a fantasy, what is his solution?

Just another punitive, vindictive. vengeful right winger, he criminalizes the poor (while simlultaneously cutting stuff like Pell grants and public education that help the poor move up). Also, he's trying to sell books to like minded as opposed to acutally giving a shit about America.

He doesn't have any solutions, nor do I.

And America isn't the only society where the bottom 20% get stuck in the bottom 20%.

Upward economic/social mobility has decreased in America since the VRWC got its shit rolling with St Ronnie.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Some are born with a silver spoon too.

[clambake]

where's the section about all the welfare the mega-wealthy just received?

[ElNono]

I believe he's talking about people born on Welfare, live on Welfare/Medicaid (never have jobs, never pay taxes), and then die.

And where would one source that? I mean, 40 million people is over 1 in 10 americans. On welfare throughout? Call me skeptic.

Anecdotal, but I personally don't know one single person like that. I know people that used to work then had a disability, etc.

[101A]

And where would one source that? I mean, 40 million people is over 1 in 10 americans. On welfare throughout? Call me skeptic.

Anecdotal, but I personally don't know one single person like that. I know people that used to work then had a disability, etc.

Good question; "their entire lives" is quite possibly an inflamatory exaggeration; would like to know the source (assuming there is one), however.

[MannyIsGod]

Boutons brings up a good point. Assuming its true (which honestly is a huge assumption) what is the course of action? Just leave them behind?

[101A]

Boutons brings up a good point. Assuming its true (which honestly is a huge assumption) what is the course of action? Just leave them behind?

Was that his point? Hard to determine through all the insults.

Anyway, there's the rub, right?

How does a country have a lower class that has reasonable opportunity for mobility out of it? If children are products of their environment, and mom and dad are deadbeats, how do you stand a chance of helping THAT child learn to not be a deadbeat? Is it at all possible to not have poor?

[Yonivore]

Would this not also explain the vast "income inequality" everyone keeps harping on?

Until Obama took office, median income was up. It's since dropped some but, still, it's better than most countries. Just because we have a 1% club that attracts exponentially more income than the other 99% doesn't mean the other 99% isn't doing pretty damn well...except of course for the small percentage that "Occupy Wall Street" because they can't plan and whatever percentage of Buchanan's 40% that are born, live, and die on public assistance.

[ElNono]

Until Obama took office, median income was up.

Back this up?


Just because we have a 1% club that attracts exponentially more income than the other 99% doesn't mean the other 99% isn't doing pretty damn well

Are you serious?

[Winehole23]

Perhaps Yoni meant median income went down post 2008. That is true to my knowledge.

[101A]

"Up" as in "higher than now" as opposed to "had been rising"?

Maybe.

Yoni can you clarify (and preferably, link)?

[Winehole23]

Are you serious?He probably is. It can be hard to put pins in the relentless fog he emits.

[Yonivore]

Income falls 3.2% during Obama’s term (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/13/personal-income-falls-32-during-obamas-15-months/?page=all)


Real personal income for Americans - excluding government payouts such as Social Security - has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For comparison, real personal income during the first 15 months in office for President George W. Bush, who inherited a milder recession from his predecessor, dropped 0.4 percent. Income excluding government payouts increased 12.7 percent during Mr. Bush’s eight years in office.
Put a pin in it, Winehole; the fog has lifted.

[boutons_deux]

pussy eater blames Barry for the economic effects and depression that started before Barry even announced to run.

[CosmicCowboy]

Boutons brings up a good point. Assuming its true (which honestly is a huge assumption) what is the course of action? Just leave them behind?

Death panels?

[Drachen]

pussy eater blames Barry for the economic effects and depression that started before Barry even announced to run.

Is this an insult?

[Yonivore]

Is this an insult?
It's a reference to my name.

[ElNono]

Put a pin in it, Winehole; the fog has lifted.

NBER: "Personal income less transfers peaked in December 2007" and has "generally declined since June" 2008. In December 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) announced (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2008%2F12%2F01% 2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Frecession%2Findex.htm) that the recession began in December 2007. At that time, NBER stated (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nber.org%2Fdec2008.pdf%23pa ge%3D2), "Our measure of real personal income less transfers peaked in December 2007, displayed a zig-zag pattern from then until June 2008 at levels slightly below the December 2007 peak, and has generally declined since June." NBER noted that "[t]o adjust personal income less transfer payments from nominal to real terms (that is, to remove the effects of price changes), the committee uses the deflator for gross domestic product."

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/BEA%20personal%20income%20excluding%20transfers%20 chart.jpg

Spin that shit, yoni

[DMX7]

Some are born with a silver spoon too.

Those silver spooned angel-darlings are called job creators, and we'd be punishing their success with an estate tax.

YA2OvA1wcO0

[Yonivore]

Spin that shit, yoni
Take it up with the Washington Times.

The comment was incidental to the point that, even though we have the biggest "income inequality" in the world, we also have some of the wealthiest people on the low end of that disparity.

Who cares about "income inequality" when the vast majority of Americans, except for OWS losers and life members of the welfare class, are doing just fine.

[ElNono]

Take it up with the Washington Times.

The comment was incidental to the point that, even though we have the biggest "income inequality" in the world, we also have some of the wealthiest people on the low end of that disparity.

Who cares about "income inequality" when the vast majority of Americans, except for OWS losers and life members of the welfare class, are doing just fine.

So you were lying. Okay.

[Yonivore]

If the 99% had an average annual income of $1,000,000.00, we'd still have the biggest "income inequality" in the world.

[ElNono]

You brought up the "income inequality" angle, then painted it with some canard...

Are you still talking to yourself?

[Wild Cobra]

NBER: "Personal income less transfers peaked in December 2007" and has "generally declined since June" 2008. In December 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) announced (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2008%2F12%2F01% 2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Frecession%2Findex.htm) that the recession began in December 2007. At that time, NBER stated (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nber.org%2Fdec2008.pdf%23pa ge%3D2), "Our measure of real personal income less transfers peaked in December 2007, displayed a zig-zag pattern from then until June 2008 at levels slightly below the December 2007 peak, and has generally declined since June." NBER noted that "[t]o adjust personal income less transfer payments from nominal to real terms (that is, to remove the effects of price changes), the committee uses the deflator for gross domestic product."

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/BEA%20personal%20income%20excluding%20transfers%20 chart.jpg

Spin that shit, yoni
I will say what I have all along.

The democrats took both houses in 2006. Their rhetoric about taxing the wealthy and regulating industry is all it took to bring us down. Measures need not be passed, but just the threat of passing.

Words and congressional threats have a huge effect on the economy.

[ElNono]

I will say what I have all along. :blah :blah :blah :blah

Maybe there's a non-partisan, and quite simple explanation: We got into a recession. A pretty big recession.

Not everything has to be red vs blue, tbh. Especially when the causes are fairly simple to spot.

[Yonivore]

I will say what I have all along.

The democrats took both houses in 2006. Their rhetoric about taxing the wealthy and regulating industry is all it took to bring us down. Measures need not be passed, but just the threat of passing.

Words and congressional threats have a huge effect on the economy.
Well, raiding guitar factories and running the rigs out of the Gulf of Mexico didn't help either.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, raiding guitar factories and running the rigs out of the Gulf of Mexico didn't help either.
True, but didn't that all happen during the Obama administration's enforcing pet policies, rather than the 110th congress in Bush's last term scaring the bejesus out of the wealthy?

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe there's a non-partisan, and quite simple explanation: We got into a recession. A pretty big recession.

Not everything has to be red vs blue, tbh. Especially when the causes are fairly simple to spot.
I wish things were non partisan. The facts remain, they are partisan. The facts remain that democrats are always catering to the poor and promising the poor they will hurt the rich.

Class warfare is clearly the MO of the democrats.

[ElNono]

wealthy scared? :lmao

[ElNono]

I wish things were non partisan. The facts remain, they aren't.

I gather you mean "they are" (partisan). Otherwise, we agree :lol

[Wild Cobra]

I gather you mean "they are" (partisan). Otherwise, we agree :lol
I stand corrected, and will edit that post.

[ElNono]

Unless you're suggesting that parties create recessions just to fuck with the other party, what you say makes no sense. And if your claim is indeed that, then I'd like you to back that up.

[Wild Cobra]

Unless you're suggesting that parties create recessions just to fuck with the other party, what you say makes no sense. And if your claim is indeed that, then I'd like you to back that up.
Wow...

Think about how the rhetoric has psychological effects. Some things should be readily apparent. Sure, it doesn't affect 100% or 0%. Still, there will be some number between 0% and 100% that it does. Quantifying that uncertainty would be difficult, but I will maintain that it is one key factor as to why we are in such a crisis today.

[ElNono]

Wow...

Think about how the rhetoric has psychological effects. Some things should be readily apparent. Sure, it doesn't affect 100% or 0%. Still, there will be some number between 0% and 100% that it does. Quantifying that uncertainty would be difficult, but I will maintain that it is one key factor as to why we are in such a crisis today.

IOW, you can't back it up. Noted.

[Wild Cobra]

IOW, you can't back it up. Noted.
I know I could find examples, but I'm not going to take the time. Rather, let me as a simple yes or no question.

Do you think that somewhere above 0%, but less than 100%, of corporate decisions, will be affected by such talk of future legislation ideas, and talk alone?

[ElNono]

I know I could find examples, but I'm not going to take the time.

Of course you won't.



Rather, let me as a simple yes or no question.
Do you think that somewhere above 0%, but less than 100%, of corporate decisions, will be affected by such talk of future legislation ideas, and talk alone?

"personal income" isn't a legislation idea, is a real, measurable economic figure. But thanks for the strawman.

[Yonivore]

Partisan politics affect the economy when parties pursue ideologies that are economically unsound.

[ElNono]

Partisan politics affect the economy when parties pursue ideologies that are economically unsound.

That's exactly the opposite of what was presented here. Here, we were presented with an economic indicator, one that was unfavorable both when Bush Jr was president and now, and then chalked it up to partisan politics of Barry.

Thanks again for showing what a shill you are, yoni.

[Wild Cobra]

"personal income" isn't a legislation idea, is a real, measurable economic figure. But thanks for the strawman.
I wasn't talking about personal income, but the job providers that has an effect of personal income.

Why are you liberals so short sighted? You want immediate bandage solutions, instead of fixing the root problems.

It took us decades to get where we are. There is no overnight, or single solution to restore America.

[Wild Cobra]

Again...

Do you think that somewhere above 0%, but less than 100%, of corporate decisions, will be affected by such talk of future legislation ideas, and talk alone?

[ElNono]

I wasn't talking about personal income

That's what we were talking about. Not sure why or where you went off a tangent.

[ElNono]

Again...

Do you think that somewhere above 0%, but less than 100%, of corporate decisions, will be affected by such talk of future legislation ideas, and talk alone?

I think some percentage let themselves get affected. I think it's the vast minority, seeing there's much better indicators that are not based on fable.

Again, a strawman to what we're discussing. But there, you have your answer.

[Wild Cobra]

I think some percentage let themselves get affected. I think it's the vast minority, seeing there's much better indicators that are not based on fable.

Again, a strawman to what we're discussing. But there, you have your answer.
So you agree it will have some effect.

[ElNono]

So you agree it will have some effect.

Some, sure. Especially on those that follow partisan politics, instead of sound economic decisions.

[Wild Cobra]

Some, sure. Especially on those that follow partisan politics, instead of sound economic decisions.
Well, we disagree on that finer point.

Once democrats were the majority after the 2006 election, their ideas of policy were bound to start taking shape. Now think of what some of these top 1% people would be thinking. Corporations and businessmen plan for the future. They would look and see the more likely climate being unfriendly to them, and put off new growth and hiring more employees. With higher taxes and regulations being talked about in congress, especially the likes of Cap and Trade... Would you invest in future corporate ventures in such uncertainty?

[ElNono]

Well, we disagree on that finer point.

Reality disagrees with you. Nothing passes without Bush signing off on it. Furthermore, Bush had a lot of things he proposed passed by that Congress, including the TARP.

If the country would be so disillusioned with the Democrats, as you propose, Barry wouldn't have been President, nor the Democrats would've held the Senate.

Again, when talking about economics, there's simply much better indicators. We clearly got into a recession somewhere in 2007, and the economy is still screwed. Obviously, a deadlocked Congress isn't going to help.

[Wild Cobra]

Reality disagrees with you. Nothing passes without Bush signing off on it. Furthermore, Bush had a lot of things he proposed passed by that Congress, including the TARP.

i suggest you open up a dictionary and look up the word "future."


If the country would be so disillusioned with the Democrats, as you propose, Barry wouldn't have been President, nor the Democrats would've held the Senate.

I didn't know the voting population in general reacted the way as corporate stock holders.

link please.


Again, when talking about economics, there's simply much better indicators. We clearly got into a recession somewhere in 2007, and the economy is still screwed. Obviously, a deadlocked Congress isn't going to help.

Yep, it all started about 8 months after the 2006 elections.

[ElNono]

i suggest you open up a dictionary and look up the word "future."

People already knew Barry was going to win? Do tell.


I didn't know the voting population in general reacted the way as corporate stock holders.

link please.

Links for what? Barry winning the elections and Dems holding the senate?

And Barry has been everything the top 1% have dreamed of. Voted for TARP, kept the tax cuts, kept the dividends tax low. Kept the wars going and those military contracts up and going.


Yep, it all started about 8 months after the 2006 elections.

Boiled down, nothing passes without Bush Jr signing off on it.

Just admit you know jackshit about economy and we'll be done here.

[Wild Cobra]

El...

It's pointless at times, you take a single minded view and ignore other possibilities. It's the "what ifs." Nobody knew then Obama would be president, but "what if" the 110th congress gets it's way?

Do you plan your future when planned agendas are a "what if?"

Let me ask you something. If you found a nice affordable house you simply loved in the suburbs you wanted to buy, and had the resources to do so, what might keep you from doing so? What if the county or city was talking about rezoning to industrial across the street? Not knowing if it would happen, but just knowing there is talk about it, would you still buy the house?

We all like a measure of certainty in our future. Corporations do too. Liberal talk of making their future look bleak, makes for a downturn in the economy. just that simple.

[admiralsnackbar]

El...

It's pointless at times, you take a single minded view and ignore other possibilities. It's the "what ifs." Nobody knew then Obama would be president, but "what if" the 110th congress gets it's way?

Do you plan your future when planned agendas are a "what if?"

Let me ask you something. If you found a nice affordable house you simply loved in the suburbs you wanted to buy, and had the resources to do so, what might keep you from doing so? What if the county or city was talking about rezoning to industrial across the street? Not knowing if it would happen, but just knowing there is talk about it, would you still buy the house?

We all like a measure of certainty in our future. Corporations do too. Liberal talk of making their future look bleak, makes for a downturn in the economy. just that simple.

And yet Bush and Clinton gave corporations everything they could ask for regardless of what the effects might be on the world's greatest consumer base, and that turned out like shit... so everything we're discussing must be simple.

Right?

[Wild Cobra]

And yet Bush and Clinton gave corporations everything they could ask for regardless of what the effects might be on the world's greatest consumer base, and that turned out like shit... so everything we're discussing must be simple.

Right?
Wrong. No way they gave them everything they asked for. Being so dead wrong now, and most other times, how can I even consider any of your words? Do you have any idea how often I flat out ignore people like you and Fuzzy? At least people like ElNono know how to make sense.

[ElNono]

El...

It's pointless at times, you take a single minded view and ignore other possibilities.

I'm talking with a simple minded individual. People that rely on hunches vs more conventional methods (statistics, company balance numbers, economic climate, etc) for their investments are parted ways with their money relatively quickly.

Your contention that people gamble on their money due to some futuristic hunch is retarded on it's face. Heck, with the inflation being what it is, sitting on money is pretty fucking unwise.

And lol @ calling anybody simple minded view when you offered just a single reason based on something you can't even back up.

[admiralsnackbar]

Wrong. No way they gave them everything they asked for. Being so dead wrong now, and most other times, how can I even consider any of your words? Do you have any idea how often I flat out ignore people like you and Fuzzy? At least people like ElNono know how to make sense.

Right.

I don't doubt I'm often wrong, but I'm not the one who has a reputation for being too big a wimp/lazy-ass to EVER do the research to back up my points or EVER concede being mistaken.

Shit -- with all due respect, I have trouble believing you've ever even been in charge of as much money/many people as I have. So prove me wrong, Captain of Industry. I'm not in this for your respect, I'm in this to show you for the unresoning half-ass that you are. But if you're so wise, I'll gladly eat my hat.