1 - 10 Next
And what happened after 1960?
I gather from this article there is only one way to interpret the Constitution and the bill of rights. The Conservative way. I didn't know Conservatives have a monopoly with the truth. And if you do not agree with the conservative view, well then you hate America and you are anti-constitution. This is what is whats wrong today. Intolerance of disagreement. It cuts both ways but here is a great example of conservative intolerance. No room for honest disagreements, you attack the group that disagrees with you.
In response to:

G'ddam the Liberals

stedes Wrote: Jun 29, 2014 8:07 AM
Freedom is not a universal concept. It is a cultural concept. Our American ideals of freedom are not universal or some universal law of inalienable rights. American hubris is to believe the American way of life is a one size fit all for everyone. In so doing, in Bush's naive few "everybody wants freedom" he assumes they want American style freedom. Freedom is defined by culture and needs. For example, we all learned in school how the pilgrims came here for religious freedom. But they defined religious not like we think of it today, but like the Muslims do in the middle east. A christian religious state with freedom to practice puritanism without any outside influences to interfere.. Down in Central America Socialism is freedom because it frees from exploitation of capitalism. Freedom is relative...
In response to:

Obstructionism Is Patriotic

stedes Wrote: Jun 27, 2014 6:31 AM
But the SCOTUS decision on recess appointments is moot since the Democratic Senate changed the filibuster rules on presidential appointments. According to politico: "Democrats say the decision Thursday to rebuke Obama’s 2012 appointments to the National Labor Relations Board has made their change to Senate rules seem remarkably prescient. That change made it easier for the Senate to confirm Obama’s nominees, transforming recess appointments — a tactic to get around the chamber’s hurdles — into something of a relic. That shift has already allowed Senate Democrats to squeeze through several nominees who might have been defeated under the old framework". Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/dems-scotus-validates-senate-rules-change-108361.html#ixzz35pmykSiD
In response to:

Overshadowing the Reality

stedes Wrote: May 30, 2014 8:26 AM
This is mostly a white male problem. People of different races, gender, ethnic backgrounds have mental illness. The question we need to ask is, why do white men with mental illness take to guns and mass shootings? This is the part of the equation no one is asking. Why is the gun culture mostly white male? This is not just a mental illness problem, it is a cultural problem.
In response to:

White Privilege

stedes Wrote: May 29, 2014 8:14 AM
"There is no 'white privilege'. There are merely advantages that white people are ahead of the curve in acquiring". - You just defined white privilege and made my point. Thank you. Being ahead of the curve is privilege. Are you rebutting me or agreeing with me? "As for a 'white name', do you imagine that black people are forced to name their children from a pre-approved list of black names only? That's simply bizarre. Moreover, once adults, people can change their names with ease" This is a bizarre reply - I think you are agreeing that having a black name is a disadvantage? Are you saying black people should have white names? "Yeah, well it turns out that Orientals do better than white people" There are several problems with this statement. First don't use "Orientals" that's racists. Use "Asians" - Second its a false comparison. Whites and blacks have a unique and special relationship. White people have enslaved blacks and have targeted blacks in discrimination in our constitution, policies and our laws. No other minority group has had such special attention. From Slavery to Jim Crow to the war on drugs and tough crime laws, blacks have been singled out and targeted. Secondly, Asians achieve success up to a point, they hit a glass ceiling when it comes to ultimate power in politics and business. "Who is this 'we' who join the Tea Party and flip out and kill people"? - Angry aggrieved white people who feel entitled to white power and culture. Who feel minorities and woman are threatening their jobs and their manhood and attacking some fictionalized view of America past that they want to go back to. The tea-party and the American gun culture is really a white ethnocentric movement who feels powerless and wants to take power back. America is changing - becoming more brown and they do not like it.
Who is to say FT got it right and Piketty got it wrong? Piketty should be challenged and forced to defend his work. But this could cut both ways, make his case stronger or weaker. This is what an academic discussion should be, rather than used for scoring political points. Have you read his rebuttal? Have you read additional research supporting his contentions? When it come to politics everyone cherrypicks. Piketty's response: http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/piketty-response-to-ft-data-concerns/ ... For instance, my US series have already been extended and improved by an important new research paper by Emmanuel Saez (Berkeley) and Gabriel Zucman (LSE). This work was done after my book was written, so unfortunately I could not use it for my book. Saez and Zucman use much more systematic data than I used in my book, especially for the recent period. Also their series are constructed using a completely different data source and methodology (namely, the capitalisation method using capital income flows and income statements by asset class). The main results are available here: http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf. As you can see by yourself, their results confirm and reinforce my own findings: the rise in top wealth shares in the US in recent decades has been even larger than what I show in my book. ... Finally, let me say that my estimates on wealth concentration do not fully take into account offshore wealth, and are likely to err on the low side.
If you read the boom (I am half way through it) it is a fascinating book and an interesting perspective on inequality. He takes a different look analyzing economic history looking into tax records of Europe and the US going back to 1900. It is a typical academic book. Extensive research and conclusion is drawn and defended. Data is analyzed and interpreted. Always open to discussion and challenge. Financial Time's critique is valid, but not discrediting. And it doesn't mean everything else in the book is wrong either. It is a good academic book worthy of reading and discussion.
You are taking the term inequality to literally. Critics of inequality are not looking for an equal society. What inequality refers to is the gap between rich and poor. How big is that gap? What is acceptable? Inequality is OK if the system is fair with equal opportunities na dthe gap isn't too large. If the economy grows 5%, everyone grows 5% rather than the top 1% growing at 4% and the rest of us grow at 1%. What Piketty talks about in his book is that the return on capital is greater than economic growth. That people with investments get a greater return than people who work and get a paycheck. Since mostly rich people invest, the wealthy keep growing at a rate greater than economic growth. Then they pass their wealth to their heirs. Further concentrating wealth. I got a 2% raise 2 years ago and I haven't gotten a raise since. But my 401K made 12% last year.
1 - 10 Next