Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
But the GOP will have you believe the poor, illegal aliens, muslims and blacks are the reason this country is going down the tubes. Pay no attention to the corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth who pays people to tell the middle class/blue color crowd that the real threats to their life style are beneath them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
What you say is interesting. But I wonder how you arrived at your picture of how it is.
As far as the GOP goes, I don't get from what it says that it is the "poor, illegal aliens, Muslims, and blacks" who are responsible for "this country going down the tubes." I hear arguments from the GOP, with which I agree, that the replacement of our Constitutionally limited government by a so-called "Progressive" system of government is the cause. I hear arguments from Trumpists that stupid politicians who promote stupid policies (especially economic and foreign policies) are the cause. And I hear the perpetual argument from establishment Republicans that the Democrat Party is the cause.
I do hear the same arguments from the Democrat party, but applied in reverse to the Republican party. As well, I hear from the Democrat Party, especially Bernie types, that the Republicans blame the "poor, illegal aliens, Muslims, and blacks" for being responsible for the country's downslide. Perhaps, it's from that and from Progressive media (like Salon, etc.) that you get your perspective?
"[T]he corrupt politicians, the crooked banksters or anyone with great wealth" have been hanging around in this country from its inception. Even through all the great years of expansion and creation of wealth and power which the world had rarely, if ever, seen. Maybe it would have been even better if none of our politicians and bankers had not been crooked. Maybe it would have been better if we had never allowed anyone to garner great wealth (I doubt that)--but I don't hear many, if any, with great wealth blaming poor people for destroying the country. I don't hear much from wealthy people that the country is going down the tubes. They seem to be interested in getting more money rather than bitching about poor people.
At any rate, per the topic of this thread, on the one hand, universal income, as Zuckerberg proposes it, didn't exist all those "great" years so therefor didn't contribute to nor create great wealth or the "middle class." On the other hand, there has always been some sort of universal income in the form of welfare or transfer payments. A large segment of our population is, as of now, receiving some sort of sustained government distributed income. It seems that the number of such folks has steadily increased over the past 100 years, give or take. And the increase seems to have taken a sharp turn up in the latter part of that 100 years. And the much beloved and sought after "middle class" is said to have shrunk during that increase. Do you see any connection?
Or, as is the constant Progressive refrain, not enough transfer of wealth has occurred which is necessary to reach that massive number of those in the greatly desired and admired "middle class."
Would it stop the country from "going down the tubes" if the government guaranteed everyone a universal "middle class" income? That's an interesting question, to me. And I'd like to hear if and how that would work.
Probably, some factors would be one's definition of "going down the tubes." And one's definition of class structure, of "middle class," of "social justice," and of "great."
People forget how "Progressive" Nixon really was. No doubt, the Dems didn't want folks to see that. That would have created a formidable competition against their own desire for power. But Nixon did propose a universal income scheme. It was very attractive to the more socialist minded. Many Dems supported his proposal. But he was given a lesson in history in where it had been tried in England in the mid 19th century and miserably failed. So he watered the idea down. Of course, he was impeached and resigned, so the Progressives eliminated any threat he might have imposed as an opposition candidate.
Some, Marxist oriented folks, argue that the English experiment was not, actually, a failure.
Are you saying, however, that insuring there are none in poverty, and that allowing illegal aliens, would stop the country from "going down the tubes", then how explain the original creation of wealth and power? And if we say that it takes an oppressed lower class to create wealth, then what happens to wealth if there is no such class? And without wealth, what happens to the "lifestyle" that you think we should all have?
Could it be that wealth is created by free people who are not encumbered from doing so, regardless if there is poverty, or if there are some forms of the inevitable crookedness that lurks in human nature? And that "poverty" in a free society is usually better than being in the middle classes in dictatorial societies.
Could it be that individual freedom is the greatest reason for lifting the "lifestyle" of societies, and that the suppression of freedom causes a form of "going down the tubes"?