April242014
justinacuff:

"Trickle-down" is a joke. 

justinacuff:

"Trickle-down" is a joke. 

(via eviltessmacher)

11AM

Red State Stories - The Pauper

liberalpropagandagroup:

It’s now been 25 years, 3 months, and 3 days since Ronald Reagan left office. Unfortunately for us, society is still feeling the effects of his reign of terror. The gradual erosion of Glass-Steagall effected by those following his brand of fiscal conservatism has cost this country untold trillions, and the impact of the republican war on the people (what they like to refer to as “strict social order”) has resulted in the incarceration of an ever growing and unprecedentedly large portion of the population. And all you need to do to see it is walk down the street. That is particularly easy to do where I currently live. The worst hit by the disaster that is conservatism are of course the areas deluded enough to vote for it. 

I was walking in town one day when I met - well, I should say observed - the pauper to which my title refers. He was sitting in an over-sized planter and pointed at people while muttering to himself. Apparently, I was the only human being walking around that found this odd at all. So, I went to say hello. He didn’t seem to be cognizant enough to realize that I was trying to speak with him. I still wanted to know what was going on and decided the next best way to understand would be to take a seat at a nearby bench and see if I could glean any information while “checking my phone.” His muttering was the story of each person he had pointed at. One had stolen his identity in 1986, one was a rapist, and another was simply a “smartass.” The situation may sound entertaining, but ultimately I was here observing a human being who obviously needed mental help but that was totally unaware of his surroundings, other than of course the stories of those passing by. I didn’t quite know what to do. I’d never removed a homeless person from a planter before, and probably wasn’t qualified to deal with the situation. So I went into the store right behind him to see if anyone had offered to help him contact the local shelter. They had to no avail. He was a regular of that flower pot.

So how does this all tie into Reagan and the misinformed approach to economics known as “fiscal conservatism?” Yes, the destruction of banking regulations has cost the economy. That most certainly plays a part. And of course, the incarceration of our citizens for non-violent crimes contributes to the problem. We know that. Republican policies cost the economy. But the link is more direct than that. The United States once had a fairly expansive and public mental health system. But it was a flawed system. Abuse was rampant, and those in the industry generally agreed that far too many people were not only being abused but being institutionalized against their will. The mental health profession and the general population alike knew that the system was deeply flawed. So reform started. At first, the focus was moved from state institutions to local community centers (all federally and locally funded) that treated people. It was a promising new beginning for those suffering mental illness. But then, the fiscal conservatives caught on and eventually they took away the funding. Reagan lead the charge and destroyed the mental health system as it was. Thousands of mentally ill people were released from institutions and denied care. At the same time, he made it much easier to imprison someone. Homelessness skyrocketed and the social contract was rewritten. After all, in a conservative’s mind, there is no place for responsibility. Most mental health professionals will tell you that these policy decisions were a mistake and they are correct. This man would be receiving professional, compassionate care instead of sitting in a flower pot had the country gone blue in 1980. But it didn’t. It went red. Because of that, there’s not much we can do to help this man or the thousands of others like him. That unfortunate truth is something that this country should be ashamed of.

But, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t hope. The ACA has dramatically improved access to mental health professionals and smart, blue policies are being proposed every day to address the issue. Every time you vote blue, you bring us one step closer to a more perfect union. Just remember that your vote counts.

-Eli

April222014
oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

[*snip*]
The USA already uses a market system. Do you know what your global ranking is for health care? 37th. Your health care system is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. So no, using markets for a basic necessity like health care has not been ‘proven’ more effective, certainly not when you have people dying because their insurance won’t pay for their cancer treatments because it’s a ‘pre-existing condition’
Also, giving people free education, food and health care, AKA meeting their basic necessities of life is VERY good for the economy. Or would you like me to point out that in countries they do this, like Canada and Japan are economically much better off and weather economic recessions much better than the USA does or is?
The best way to promote an environment where society can improve is by focusing on the HUMAN BEINGS and making sure PEOPLE do not suffer. The USA has 57.7 million people suffering from a mood disorder. Does THAT sound like a great improvement to society?
And when your ‘economic growth’ is at the cost of human lives, the planet, human suffering, people starving to death… is that realy the society you think is great? How can you call your nation great if you’re willing to encourage the suffering of the poor? If you think CHILDREN should suffer and starve for a few million dollars? I mean if you spent less than a third of what you did on the war in Iraq the USA could have eradicated poverty so tell me, how is it you can support war funding for the ‘economy’ that costs $757.8 billion but not support feeding actual human beings for $500 million?
Please explain what is so great about the USA’s society when you’re willing to sacrifice the health and well being of literally millions of people for a few extra dollars in revenue because I’m definitely not seeing it.
-Lemon

Beginning with one of your tags, I’m not a Christian, so no I don’t need any sort of Jesus. My views aren’t motivated by religion.
Second, if markets cannot efficiently allocate health care, then markets do not work and they cannot allocate anything, and we should nationalize and collectivize our society. In reality our health care system is a dysfunctional one because of poor public policy rather than market forces. There is a lot of literature on the subject you should become familiar with.
Now you’ve made two wrong implications. One, that liberal government giveaways are better for the economy than conservative policies. That’s an easy one. The Reagan economy was the best performing post-war economy. There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies.
The second implication is that economic progress comes at a human cost, and we should prefer government dependency as a solution to problems to avoid such costs. For one, economic growth positively impacts human beings. It’s not the other way around. Human beings depend on a good economy for their future.
Second, public policy is the result of various opposing forces, taking place in the context of numerous limitations, including practical, social, political, and Constitutional. This means that the ability of public policy to actually solve problems is limited. Markets aren’t subjected to any such limitations.
More importantly, a life of government dependency for an able-bodied person is incompatible with a meaningful, virtuous, and productive life. The focus of government in this context should be the promotion of a sort of living that is compatible with those values.
Fundamentally practically trumps good intentions for a reason.

The tags weren’t serious, I was making a joke, so, that aside…
"There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies."
Funny you should say that. Reagan tripled the national debt, national debt was $900 billion when he came to office, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.
He spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters which are now known as the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
He cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% -AKA the people with more than enough money to pay taxes- and raised them for the middle and lower classes -the people least able to pay them for seven of the eight years he was in office for a total of eleven tax raises for the people least able to handle these raises.
When he came to office, unemployment was at 7.5%, when he left office it was at 11%.
Please explain how higher deficits, unemployment rates and raising taxes for the people least able to survive and manage those increases was ‘economic growth’? I threw in the fact that he’s the reason Al Qeada exists because he spent billions making Osama Bin Laden instead of, idk, feeding people in his country.
Please site a source for human beings requiring a good economy to be happy, hale and healthy? I believe humans were actually quite well off in North America before there was an economy. Afterwards, not so much, but you may wish to speak to Native American’s for more info on that.
Now finally, I haven’t said anything about ‘government dependancy’. And why do you assume all homeless people are abled? Homeless people are very likely to be suffering from mental illness or addiction, which gets in the way of getting off the street. And if they can’t afford treatment you insist on charging them for the cycle can never be broken. I’m not advocating for people to just be fed by the government, I’m advocating for helping to break the cycle of poverty all together. Which is very doable with actually surprisingly little money.
Money invested in people who can’t even afford to eat because of Reagan’s shitty policies (Sorry but he’s the one who decided trickle-down economics would work and frankly that’s a proven failure), will help. And yes, government regulation is absolutely necessary in a market setting. It’s government regulation that means seven year olds aren’t in sweat shops in working conditions so poor that their life expectancy is to 25. It’s government regulations that mandate pay must be more than just five cents an hour.
-Lemon

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

[*snip*]

The USA already uses a market system. Do you know what your global ranking is for health care? 37th. Your health care system is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. So no, using markets for a basic necessity like health care has not been ‘proven’ more effective, certainly not when you have people dying because their insurance won’t pay for their cancer treatments because it’s a ‘pre-existing condition’

Also, giving people free education, food and health care, AKA meeting their basic necessities of life is VERY good for the economy. Or would you like me to point out that in countries they do this, like Canada and Japan are economically much better off and weather economic recessions much better than the USA does or is?

The best way to promote an environment where society can improve is by focusing on the HUMAN BEINGS and making sure PEOPLE do not suffer. The USA has 57.7 million people suffering from a mood disorder. Does THAT sound like a great improvement to society?

And when your ‘economic growth’ is at the cost of human lives, the planet, human suffering, people starving to death… is that realy the society you think is great? How can you call your nation great if you’re willing to encourage the suffering of the poor? If you think CHILDREN should suffer and starve for a few million dollars? I mean if you spent less than a third of what you did on the war in Iraq the USA could have eradicated poverty so tell me, how is it you can support war funding for the ‘economy’ that costs $757.8 billion but not support feeding actual human beings for $500 million?

Please explain what is so great about the USA’s society when you’re willing to sacrifice the health and well being of literally millions of people for a few extra dollars in revenue because I’m definitely not seeing it.

-Lemon

Beginning with one of your tags, I’m not a Christian, so no I don’t need any sort of Jesus. My views aren’t motivated by religion.

Second, if markets cannot efficiently allocate health care, then markets do not work and they cannot allocate anything, and we should nationalize and collectivize our society. In reality our health care system is a dysfunctional one because of poor public policy rather than market forces. There is a lot of literature on the subject you should become familiar with.

Now you’ve made two wrong implications. One, that liberal government giveaways are better for the economy than conservative policies. That’s an easy one. The Reagan economy was the best performing post-war economy. There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies.

The second implication is that economic progress comes at a human cost, and we should prefer government dependency as a solution to problems to avoid such costs. For one, economic growth positively impacts human beings. It’s not the other way around. Human beings depend on a good economy for their future.

Second, public policy is the result of various opposing forces, taking place in the context of numerous limitations, including practical, social, political, and Constitutional. This means that the ability of public policy to actually solve problems is limited. Markets aren’t subjected to any such limitations.

More importantly, a life of government dependency for an able-bodied person is incompatible with a meaningful, virtuous, and productive life. The focus of government in this context should be the promotion of a sort of living that is compatible with those values.

Fundamentally practically trumps good intentions for a reason.

The tags weren’t serious, I was making a joke, so, that aside…

"There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies."

Funny you should say that. Reagan tripled the national debt, national debt was $900 billion when he came to office, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.

He spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters which are now known as the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

He cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% -AKA the people with more than enough money to pay taxes- and raised them for the middle and lower classes -the people least able to pay them for seven of the eight years he was in office for a total of eleven tax raises for the people least able to handle these raises.

When he came to office, unemployment was at 7.5%, when he left office it was at 11%.

Please explain how higher deficits, unemployment rates and raising taxes for the people least able to survive and manage those increases was ‘economic growth’? I threw in the fact that he’s the reason Al Qeada exists because he spent billions making Osama Bin Laden instead of, idk, feeding people in his country.

Please site a source for human beings requiring a good economy to be happy, hale and healthy? I believe humans were actually quite well off in North America before there was an economy. Afterwards, not so much, but you may wish to speak to Native American’s for more info on that.

Now finally, I haven’t said anything about ‘government dependancy’. And why do you assume all homeless people are abled? Homeless people are very likely to be suffering from mental illness or addiction, which gets in the way of getting off the street. And if they can’t afford treatment you insist on charging them for the cycle can never be broken. I’m not advocating for people to just be fed by the government, I’m advocating for helping to break the cycle of poverty all together. Which is very doable with actually surprisingly little money.

Money invested in people who can’t even afford to eat because of Reagan’s shitty policies (Sorry but he’s the one who decided trickle-down economics would work and frankly that’s a proven failure), will help. And yes, government regulation is absolutely necessary in a market setting. It’s government regulation that means seven year olds aren’t in sweat shops in working conditions so poor that their life expectancy is to 25. It’s government regulations that mandate pay must be more than just five cents an hour.

-Lemon

(Source: prolife-ruinslives)

April212014
“You remember 1980, don’t you? When Ronald Reagan won by telling everyone that the government wasn’t the solution, the government was the problem? Yeah, that worked out for us.” Hullabaloo (via azspot)

(via azspot)

April102014
iammyfather:

Yes the Unemployment rate was 7.5 % when I took office.  I introduced Reagonomics and Trickle down, the rate jumped to 10.5%, and even with my back pedaling and unlimited check book (Debt ceiling) I had to raise taxes.  But all I will be remembered for is the first year.

iammyfather:

Yes the Unemployment rate was 7.5 % when I took office.  I introduced Reagonomics and Trickle down, the rate jumped to 10.5%, and even with my back pedaling and unlimited check book (Debt ceiling) I had to raise taxes.  But all I will be remembered for is the first year.

(via mommapolitico)

April52014
April22014
liberalsarecool:


The first chart is a simple one, and it concerns the United States alone. It tracks the share of over-all income taken by the top ten per cent of households from 1910 to 2010. Broadly speaking, it’s centered on a U shape. Inequality climbed steeply in the Roaring Twenties, and then fell sharply in the decade and a half following the Great Crash of October, 1929. From the mid-forties to the mid-seventies, it stayed pretty stable, and then it took off, eventually topping the 1928 level in 2007. (The chart shows the share of the top decile falling back a bit after the financial crisis of 2007 to 2008. New figures for 2012 from Saez, which came out too late to be included in Piketty’s book, show the line hitting another new high, of more than fifty per cent.)

Reagan was elected in 1980. Look how things suddenly changed under Republican rule for the middle class. That is real, undeniable class warfare.

liberalsarecool:

The first chart is a simple one, and it concerns the United States alone. It tracks the share of over-all income taken by the top ten per cent of households from 1910 to 2010. Broadly speaking, it’s centered on a U shape. Inequality climbed steeply in the Roaring Twenties, and then fell sharply in the decade and a half following the Great Crash of October, 1929. From the mid-forties to the mid-seventies, it stayed pretty stable, and then it took off, eventually topping the 1928 level in 2007. (The chart shows the share of the top decile falling back a bit after the financial crisis of 2007 to 2008. New figures for 2012 from Saez, which came out too late to be included in Piketty’s book, show the line hitting another new high, of more than fifty per cent.)

Reagan was elected in 1980. Look how things suddenly changed under Republican rule for the middle class. That is real, undeniable class warfare.

(via butchrosser)

March302014
liberalsarecool:

Supply-side economics, ushered in by Reagan and the trickle down villains of the Right Wing, creates billionaires at the expense of running a country for the other 300 million residents. 
It’s time to end the supply-side failure and start governing for the entire country, fixing the infrastructure, providing a strong safety net, taking care of the seniors, taking care of the veterans, and create demand in our economy by focusing on the middle classes. #demand_side_economics

liberalsarecool:

Supply-side economics, ushered in by Reagan and the trickle down villains of the Right Wing, creates billionaires at the expense of running a country for the other 300 million residents. 

It’s time to end the supply-side failure and start governing for the entire country, fixing the infrastructure, providing a strong safety net, taking care of the seniors, taking care of the veterans, and create demand in our economy by focusing on the middle classes. #demand_side_economics

(Source: socialismartnature)

March292014
liberalsarecool:

The same failed Right Wing rhetoric for 80 years. Historical perspective proves how ignorant and malicious it is to be Republican.

liberalsarecool:

The same failed Right Wing rhetoric for 80 years. Historical perspective proves how ignorant and malicious it is to be Republican.

(Source: thirdway.org, via eviltessmacher)

March262014
cartoonpolitics:

Forget zombies and werewolves .. this is *really* scary ..

cartoonpolitics:

Forget zombies and werewolves .. this is *really* scary ..

(Source: editorialcartoonists.com, via cartoonpolitics)

← Older entries Page 1 of 26