Jump to content

Why The American Dream Could Come To An End


Recommended Posts

"Never before in the modern era has America seemed so broken, its beacon-like “American dream” which has drawn so many to its shores, so elusive.Today some 24 million Americans are out of work.Nearly 50 per cent of all citizens live in households that depend on some form of government benefit.And the country’s housing market remains a train wreck in agonizing slow motion. One in every four American homeowners are “underwater” to use the parlance of our times, owing more on their mortgages than their homes are actually worth."a lot of pretty scary stats for america in this article...http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/...-dream-is-dying

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nearly 50 per cent of all citizens live in households that depend on some form of government benefit.
Receive <> depend on.But I agree, the statists are destroying the American dream. It's time to unleash the only engine of economic growth the world has ever seen, and we are instead emulating the troubled European countries.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Never before in the modern era has America seemed so broken, its beacon-like "American dream" which has drawn so many to its shores, so elusive.Today some 24 million Americans are out of work.Nearly 50 per cent of all citizens live in households that depend on some form of government benefit.And the country's housing market remains a train wreck in agonizing slow motion. One in every four American homeowners are "underwater" to use the parlance of our times, owing more on their mortgages than their homes are actually worth."a lot of pretty scary stats for america in this article...http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/...-dream-is-dying
only because we allow it. if people were responsible for themselves...and forced to live with the results we would make better choices.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Receive <> depend on.But I agree, the statists are destroying the American dream. It's time to unleash the only engine of economic growth the world has ever seen, and we are instead emulating the troubled European countries.
I think it's time to get over the idea that perpetual growth is a positive thing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's time to get over the idea that perpetual growth is a positive thing.
Absent that, we have to institute population control and end immigration, or severely lower our standard of living. Growth should always, at a bare-ass minimum, track population.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Never before in the modern era has America seemed so broken, its beacon-like “American dream” which has drawn so many to its shores, so elusive.Today some 24 million Americans are out of work.Nearly 50 per cent of all citizens live in households that depend on some form of government benefit.And the country’s housing market remains a train wreck in agonizing slow motion. One in every four American homeowners are “underwater” to use the parlance of our times, owing more on their mortgages than their homes are actually worth."a lot of pretty scary stats for america in this article...http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/...-dream-is-dying
Please print this out, and send copies to our mexican boarder.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizens United could easily end the America we knew. Of ALL the super PAC money donated (hundreds of millions) 47% came from 22 individual people. Totally what the founders envisioned; a small cabal of billionaires controlling the bulk of the media buys for the Presidency.Or as Henry calls it the free marketplace of ideas. This is what happens when you let conservative activist judges overrule a 100 years of precedent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Citizens United could easily end the America we knew. Of ALL the super PAC money donated (hundreds of millions) 47% came from 22 individual people. Totally what the founders envisioned; a small cabal of billionaires controlling the bulk of the media buys for the Presidency.Or as Henry calls it the free marketplace of ideas. This is what happens when you let conservative activist judges overrule a 100 years of precedent.
I'm not afraid of information. People who are afraid should probably reconsider their ideas rather than try to silence the ideas of others.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not afraid of information. People who are afraid should probably reconsider their ideas rather than try to silence the ideas of others.
Yeah because the ability to control which information gets on tv doesn't play into this at all. :icon_hand:90% of the ads in FL were negative. It's not information; it's a small group of people leading prolonged smear campaigns on tv. Watching you support this madness while simultaneously wondering why Gary Johnson can't get more attention is beyond hilarious. Almost as funny as the next time you deride crony capitalism while supporting a decision that reinforces crony capitalism as much as any one thing can.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah because the ability to control which information gets on tv doesn't play into this at all. :icon_hand:90% of the ads in FL were negative. It's not information; it's a small group of people leading prolonged smear campaigns on tv. Watching you support this madness while simultaneously wondering why Gary Johnson can't get more attention is beyond hilarious. Almost as funny as the next time you deride crony capitalism while supporting a decision that reinforces crony capitalism as much as any one thing can.
Johnson supports free speech, too.If you take away individuals and groups of individuals right to speak, then who decides? The billionaire owners of the MSM. As someone who tends to agree with the MSM, I can see why that would be an improvement for you, but those of us with minority voices want a means to compete with billionaire media owners.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And instead we just added a few billionaires to the equation. You have not gained any means. And the Gary johnson's of the world have an even more of an uphill battle to climb. If you think this has somehow balanced out the MSM, you are being beyond naive. All it's done is give billionaires more power.Casting this as a free speech issue is hilarious. I'd love to see where Gary Johnson said 22 billionaires making negative ads (that just swung FL in a week) is a triumph of free speech. Getting rid of crony capitalism just got a lot harder. Any argument that it didn't is an outright lie.Not letting a small group of people run endless negative ads doesn't equal "taking away individuals right to speak" in reality town.....though I'm sure specious nonsense like that is what got Citizens United ruled in the first place. The sheer volume and percentage of negative ads is shattering records this election cycle but that's probably just a coincidence.Also, I don't agree at all with highest rated MSM news station, fox news. Oh, you were shoveling more BS and pretending conservatives don't have a voice in the media.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And instead we just added a few billionaires to the equation. You have not gained any means. And the Gary johnson's of the world have an even more of an uphill battle to climb. If you think this has somehow balanced out the MSM, you are being beyond naive. All it's done is give billionaires more power.Casting this as a free speech issue is hilarious. I'd love to see where Gary Johnson said 22 billionaires making negative ads (that just swung FL in a week) is a triumph of free speech. Getting rid of crony capitalism just got a lot harder. Any argument that it didn't is an outright lie.
Look at Ron Paul. He's not a billionaire, and the MSM hates him. Without the ability of lots of people to spend lots of money supporting his message, we STILL would not have heard of him. He is around because of the ability of people and groups to pool their money to help him get his message out. The MSM, which you seem to trust to do the job, is STILL putting out headlines like "Romney wins first, Gingrich third, Santorum fourth". No, I will not sit around and hope your pals at MSNBC finally realize the folly of their insane policy prescriptions or pay attention to someone other than official party approved candidates. I want a chance to be heard, too.Having 100 millionaires get their message out is better than having two or three billionaire media owners dictate the message.As for "negative" ads, there was a university study that measured content in negative vs positive ads, and the negative ads had many times more information per minute than the positive ads. If you think about it, you'll see it's true. A typical positive ad: "Nobody loves America like Candidate A. He loves America so much he cries just thinking about it. He will make the American dream come true." A typical negative ad: "Candidate B sponsored a bill that would allow police to kill the homeless people for no reason. He supported a bill that gave $1M to the company that employed him for the last 4 years before he took office."Yeah, I'll take the negative ads, thanks.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, I'm sure that all the statistics showing that Citizens United has accomplished the further concentration of political power in the hands of billionaires is an outlier. Going forward, it will give us all more of a voice.Want to buy a bridge? I'll give you a good deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Casting Ron Paul as a winner from Citizens United? Omfg, delusions ahoy! What a pyrrhic victory. He gets his message out ever so slightly, Romney and other candidates who are far more big money friendly get access to the kind of money that ensures Ron Paul will never realistically compete.Gingrich had all the momentum, then Romney flooded FL with super PAC money and carried the state easily. If your goal is to help centrist establishment candidates, good plan!Keep pretending I love MSNBC and am against citizens united because I'm pro-media though. It's adorable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't worry, I'm sure that all the statistics showing that Citizens United has accomplished the further concentration of political power in the hands of billionaires is an outlier. Going forward, it will give us all more of a voice.Want to buy a bridge? I'll give you a good deal.
I've seen several university reports that prove that CU has basically had no effect. There are many reasons for this, the main one being money alone doesn't buy elections. Again, since you agree with the MSM, you are probably blind to the problem. But I guarantee that the rules incumbents make to "clean up elections" will always, 100% of the time, protect incumbents and silence minority voices. If CU had gone the other way, all we'd know about the candidates is how patriotic they are and how much they love their country, way more than anyone else, and that liberals are super-duper smart and we should always vote for them. And Ron Paul would still be unknown.Free speech matters because the rest of us deserve a voice, too.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ultimate proof is really quite clear: the people with power and those who support the people with power hate the Citizen's United decision; the people who are on the outside looking in love the Citizen's United decision. From this, it should be obvious who it helps and who it hurts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah because CU's passage created Fox News? The argument that there is no big media station pumping conservative candidates and thoughts is obviously false so repeating it isn't persuasive.It's better than parroting "we deserve a voice too" after admitting that CU gives 100 millionaires a voice, not "you".It's better than pretending no one knew who Ron Paul was pre CU. (lol, seriously?)It's better than countering the fact that money just bought FL's primary for Mitt.But it's still pretty bad. Like pretending CU was a win for a candidate who will never attract big money. I hope for your sake the new Facebook billionaires are huge Ron Paul fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The ultimate proof is really quite clear: the people with power and those who support the people with power hate the Citizen's United decision; the people who are on the outside looking in love the Citizen's United decision. From this, it should be obvious who it helps and who it hurts.
Yeah all those billionaires with no power love CU. I don't think proof means what you think it means. All those poor billionaires on the outside looking in finally get a chance to have a voice. Lol. How about some non-crazy logic. CU allowed 22 people to make about 100 million plus dollars worth of ad buys. Therefore, those 22 people and the candidates they support like CU. People who don't think 22 people should get to wield that kind of power don't like CU.I'm still laughing at the assertion that Ron Paul was completely unknown in 2008. Thank god Shelden Adelsen is allowed to spend 20 million dollars on anti-Romney ads for Newt. Without that ability, no one would know who Ron Paul is!
Link to post
Share on other sites

More Ron Paul thoughts. He did not achieve some noteriety because of CU. He achieved it through persistence. He runs for the White House every time. He sends newsletters. He travels the country. He sticks to his guns. I like Ron Paul even though I disagree with him on some things strongly.His chances of being President pre-CU were still 0.0% and post-CU they are still 0.0%. People say they want drastic change but most of them are full of it. Now, Ron Paul doesn't just have to deal with a media (both conservative and liberal by the way) that actively ignores him; he also has to deal with a campaign finance environment where status quo candidates like Obama and Romney can spend him into oblivion. I just can't wrap my head around you, a strident opponent of crony capitalism (and rightfully so), supporting a judicial ruling that gives MORE advantages to kiss-ass politicians and the very rich. Acting like the people who are taking advantage of CU (the uber-rich) were "outsiders in 2008" is silly.....especially since you have argued on MANY occasions that Obama has "rewarded" his big contributors when possible. You think that Shelden Adelsen won't have Newt's ear if he pulls the upset and wins the Presidency. C'mon, man!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen several university reports that prove that CU has basically had no effect.
Newt Gingrich begs to differ.Also, CU has little to do with free speech.Imagine there's a group of people in a warehouse who are trying to have a discussion. A handful of those people have microphones that are so loud that they drown out the voices of everyone else. Are we limiting free speech by telling them they have to talk using the same voice as everyone else?
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking about career politicians, there is more negative stuff to say about them by virtue of them being politicians.And to pretend that the American voter is too stupid to think for themselves and instead will vote based on what an ad tells them...means you CAN'T have a 'thoughtful' voter anyway. Either have a test to determine if a person is qualified to vote, or accept that the voters get what they deserve.Might as well pump a couple billion dollars into the economy in the mean time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine there's a group of people in a warehouse who are trying to have a discussion. A handful of those people have microphones that are so loud that they drown out the voices of everyone else. Are we limiting free speech by telling them they have to talk using the same voice as everyone else?
Of course not, but you have to understand that the more kooky and deluded of the Libertarian lot (most of them) are so disconnected from reality that essentially all forms of regulation are viewed as some horrible infringement of a fundamental right. When the basis of your entire belief system is seeing just how far you can stretch ideology without it appearing immediately absurd, everything then becomes liable to your own imaginary scenarios, which in turn detaches everything from the real world, which in turn makes everything a theoretical proposition. After living in this ****ing lala land long enough, the Libertarian completely loses touch with reason and starts to think it's perfectly reasonable that everything to be phrased in the context of the most extreme scenario a team of Hollywood writers could dream up. The 20% where Libertarians are right (in the face of everyone else who is wrong) is totally overwhelmed by the 80% of the time when they're just ideologue retards.Ask hblask about how Libertarians approach persons who are denied insurance in his free market utopia. It's a 'complicated issue', he babbles some talking points, talks the standard book then pretends it doesn't exist. His reply to your question will be much the same.How does a tiny handful of mega-wealthy plutocrats commandeering the dialog benefit free market interests? It doesn't, but to the libertoon, the ideological basis behind the act of allowing them to do so is far more important than the drastic negative consequence of allowing them to do it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah because CU's passage created Fox News? The argument that there is no big media station pumping conservative candidates and thoughts is obviously false so repeating it isn't persuasive.It's better than parroting "we deserve a voice too" after admitting that CU gives 100 millionaires a voice, not "you".It's better than pretending no one knew who Ron Paul was pre CU. (lol, seriously?)It's better than countering the fact that money just bought FL's primary for Mitt.But it's still pretty bad. Like pretending CU was a win for a candidate who will never attract big money. I hope for your sake the new Facebook billionaires are huge Ron Paul fans.
So you think FOX News and MSNBC/CNN/CBS/etc represent all possible views? That everyone either wants the most possible government in our bedroom, or the most possible government in the boardroom?How can anyone think that hundreds of millionaires having a voice is better than two or three? That makes no sense at all.So yes, I believe that out of hundreds of voices, a few of them will agree with me and want to affect the discussion. Given two billionaires having a voice, none will agree with me, ever.You also have to remember who Citizen's United was. It wasn't some billionaire trying to buy favors. Citizens United -- the group that is the title of the case -- was a couple of relatively poor film makers who wanted to release a political documentary. If "poor people releasing political speech before an election" is not allowed, we may as well give up on this country.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...