- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I mean, Hamilton wasn't my favorite, but I don't see why many would not like them. Everything is best in context, and in context, they were so far ahead of their time. And I doubt that Barack wouldn't see or acknowledge that.
And that is exactly why both terms are worthless. People that call themselves progressives rarely have new ideas and people that call themselves conservatives are not always for how things are or were in the past. For that matter, many progressives spend a considerable amount of time defending the status quo.
they were ahead of their time, the founders read a lot, and Madison read about government before he framed the blueprint for the Constitution months before the Constitutional convention, and he asked himself the question "why do governments fail"
because they turn tyrannical in the end.
a king becomes a dictator
rule of the few becomes an oligarchy
rule by all, becomes mob rule
our founders sought to solve this problem by incorporating all three governments into American government
monarchy aristocracy, and democracy.
which when there are three different types of government within American government, tyranny cannot take place because each has power to prevent the takeover of the other.
And I think they did the best they could to lay the foundations for equality of the people as well.
From a capitalist perspective or a socialist?
I think clearly when need to a more social democratic mode as a startl. We need to go back to economics before trickle down. I think we do need a bigger social welfare state. We need to being to raise the tax rate on the upper income levels. We need a reinvest in our infrastructure. We need to regulate banks more.
I'm sorry, but can you please say specifically why regulating the banks will solve the issue of child homelessness?
So more of the same gets kids off the streets how exactly??.. Bigger government is your answer?
I'm sorry, but can you please say specifically why regulating the banks will solve the issue of child homelessness?
Because he hates capitalism n stuff.
Lol. I am sure that is his answer, but I always love to hear what people who hate 'trickle down' would offer in its place.
The point they are trying to make is that folks living in shelters are just as homeless as one living on a steam grate or park bench.
The point that I was trying to make is that one is not homeless simply because they are unable to pay their rent by working. Whether in housing funded by insurance, gov't assistance or charity if they are not on the streets or camping in a tent or car then they are not homeless. If you have decent shelter that is simply temporary then you are not homeless.
Of course the percentage of homelessness among children is up in the U.S. compared to about eight years ago.
It's because the percentage of homelessness among their parents is up.
And why is it up?
Because of the liberal and conservative strange-bedfellow alliance to push sub-prime security mortgages on those who couldn't really afford even those.
And, they really started to push it around the turn of the century when off-shoring and out-sourcing American jobs were also being pushed.
So sub-primers, as they were called, got their house .. and they began to furnish it .. .. and, one by one at first, these warehouse workers, manufacturing workers, transportation workers, carpenters, iron workers, plumbers, and the like, they began to lose their job to people in other countries overseas.
And then the job-loss rate picked up, as companies had to compete, and wage-slaves in other countries were cheaper to hire than sub-primers in America ..
.. And soon by the hundreds .. then the thousands .. .. sub-primers lost their jobs .. and couldn't find work any more .. and defaulted on their loans when the variable rates went up.
Meanwhile, very unscrupulous Wall Street types saw the writing on the worthless securities wall, and they concocted one of the biggest frauds in U.S. financial history, creating the sub-prime securities fiasco that crashed us all into the Great Recession.
When no one could then get their weekly business loan, they laid people off, and they closed their doors .. and unemployment shot up to 25%, the accurate rate.
Millions of adults couldn't find work .. and they became homeless .. they and their children.
Today, the accurate unemployment rate is down to around 12 percent perhaps -- it's hard to tell, since so many have fallen off the radar.
But, the percentage of living-wage jobs compared to before the Great Recession is way down, many still off-shored and out-sourced to wage slaves in other countries, not to mention in-sourced wage-slave illegals.
So, yes, there are many more homeless Americans in the U.S. then their were .. many more .. and, of course, that includes their children.
What's the solution?
I'm not sure.
But, one thing's certain: it won't involve any concocted by the wings of the political spectrum -- they're the ones who got us into this increased homeless mess in the first place.
Lol. I am sure that is his answer, but I always love to hear what people who hate 'trickle down' would offer in its place.
Live in your car until next spring. Then tell me about how that is not homelessness.
if they are not on the streets or camping in a tent or car then they are not homeless.
Reading is for the mental... I mean fundamental.
I did phrase that a bit awkwardly, but I do not consider those camped out in a car to have a home.
I'm sorry, but can you please say specifically why regulating the banks will solve the issue of child homelessness?
Serious question, have you considered Canada?
Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive..a democracy is not true republic.
Not not democracy. A direct democracy does that. A representative democracy does not.democracy puts all direct power into the people...one single enity......this kind of action causes majority rule..ie tyranny.
Not really.a republic separates direct power, the people have some the states have some, which prevents tyranny.
Who do you think was the main culprit in the economic downturn in 2008? The banks.
Yup they are "regulated" now, and were "regulated" then...And they are regulated now.
Part of the reason. When the melt down happened how many people went homeless and still remain homeless?So the big banks melting down in 2008 are responsible for the child homelessness problem in California in 2014?
Yup they are "regulated" now, and were "regulated" then...
Part of the reason. When the melt down happened how many people went homeless and still remain homeless?
You do realize the banks were "regulated" before Dodd-Frank was passed correct? And Dodd-Frank has no teeth?No, Dodd-Frank was passed after 2008.
Yea.So can you cite some sources that show the California homelessness problem is a direct result of the banks melting down in 2008 please? I'd like to see this. And understand how something that happened almost 7 years ago has prohibited people from finding a home since then. Can you show that most of these homeless children are the offspring of people who lost all of their money, their jobs and their homes because of the financial services problems in 2008?
Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive..
Not not democracy. A direct democracy does that. A representative democracy does not.
There are many forms of democracy.
Not really.
You do realize the banks were "regulated" before Dodd-Frank was passed correct? And Dodd-Frank has no teeth?
Yea.
Chart of the Day: Recession-Induced Homelessness About To Skyrocket | Mother Jones
Facts and Figures: The Homeless . NOW on PBS
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?