9 ms·

The root of the US problem: it’s turning into a poor country because the vast majority of the greedy rich people hoarding trillions, that used to go to middle c

The root of the US problem: it’s turning into a poor country because the vast majority of the greedy rich people hoarding trillions, that used to go to middle class as wages and to general government funds, and their corrupt politicians enabling this vicious cycle. Social welfare and mental healthcare exist so people aren’t crawling on the street. Every living person needs a basic level of respect, care and dignity... if the can’t provide for themselves, falling through the cracks is not a solution but a source of many more, more expensive and worse, problems. So socialism for the rich and nothing for the poor isn’t sustainable and people will eventually go “French Revolution.” A stable democratic country has to balance competing tyrannies: rich vs. middle vs. poor, country vs. city and community vs. individual.

user1212 9y ago
> people will eventually go “French Revolution.” With a powerful army & technology controlled by government, this isn't an option anymore. Anybody trying to start something will be quickly and silently removed. Masses can be brought down easily by a few professional soldiers (not with rudimentary rubber batons, as in Spain this weekend) See how having an encrypted phone at border control is a felony, you can be locked up instantly, even if encryption is only to protect your work and personal family photos. What to do? Just obey and continue working to collect $$$, the only instrument which can guarantee your semi-independence?
- chewz 9y ago
  Revolutions don't follow this logic. They don't happen when oppression apparatus is weak but when it decides to turn against establishment or at least stay neutral. The spirit of the times decides. Louis XVI still had largest army in Europe of 1789, Soviet Union had enough tanks in 1989 and powerful control over media and society. US is actually similar to France in 1798 and Soviet Bloc in 1989 in many regards. Costly distant wars, pauperized middle class after very long period of growth and prosperity, sclerotic establishment in total denial that times have changes.
  - Ygg2 9y ago
    Revolutions aren't also a necessity. If most people are entertained/distracted enough, revolutions won't happen. Junkies don't rebel if they keep getting their fix.
    - reacweb 9y ago
      Panem et circenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
  - liberte82 9y ago
    I'd love to understand the fall of the Soviet Union better, it still seems so sudden and mysterious to me. Like the whole society just decided all at once that they were done. Does anyone have any good books on the subject?
    - chewz 9y ago
      Try Timothy Garton Ash - The Magic Lantern: The Revolution of '89 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, and Prague - https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Lantern-Revolution-Witnessed-Budapest-ebook/dp/B004089I5Q/ https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Lantern-Revolution-Witnessed-Bu... - The Polish Revolution https://www.amazon.com/Polish-Revolution-Timothy-Garton-Ash/ https://www.amazon.com/Polish-Revolution-Timothy-Garton-Ash/ But Ash is controversial author with strong opinions not a historian. Also Victor Sebestyen Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-1989-Fall-Soviet-Empire-ebook/dp/B002U3CB84 https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-1989-Fall-Soviet-Empire-eb...
    - nine_k 9y ago
      According to Yegor Gaidar (look him up), USSR basically ran out of resources, including food supply, around 1985. However much army do you have does not matter if you can't feed it. The problem was not only very high military spending (thanks Mr. Reagan, you won the Cold War), but also very low efficiency of industry and agriculture. Having lived in the late USSR, I can attest that the scale of waste was enormous. It was not only because of the inadequate planning, but mostly because the population did not care. Without the feedback loop which a market provides, the only reasonable action for a worker was to steal; the fact that 10x more resources are wasted as a result was totally inconsequential: getting fired was hard, and unemployment was seriously negative.
- yardie 9y ago
  This is eerily the same thinking the Bush Whitehouse was using when it sold the American public on an Afghanistan and Iraq invasion. As if somehow a few professional soldiers and advanced technology would rule. Yet here we are 15 years later in our forever war.
- rayiner 9y ago
  We just spent the better part of two decades proving that the most powerful military on earth can’t effecticely control a bunch of poor people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have guns but not much else.
  - liberte82 9y ago
    If you listen to hard-right wingers on the subject, the difficulty comes because we were "nation building" rather than simply ruling over them.
Shivetya 9y ago
We are not turning into a poor country because of "greedy rich". It has always been at the behest of politicians, they don't even need to be corrupt. The simple matter is the political class, the true one percent, have been disconnected for years from the population as a whole. It is far worse for Democrats than Republicans. Regardless of how we see Trump the simple fact remains, the Democratic party has ignored its based for years. Nothing is more telling that the open mockery that was made of the Republican party for having so many candidates in the primaries, how did that become a bad thing? At least they let their base choose. By doing so a lot of independents also lined up on their side as well. Yet what happens when the American people push back? The system does its best to clamp down or usurp the attempt. the Tea Party really did start off on its own but was eventually co-opted by national interests. Before it was there was no shortage of negative comments about it from all sides. There was also a dearth of attempts to limit campaign funds because neither party wanted a repeat where they did not control all dollars in politics. The issue facing America is that it needs more than a two party system to go forward. Prior to the current President the majority of past Presidents worked for their party first and rarely for the people. This is true of the majority of Congress, laws are passed to protect their power, their party. When laws don't do the trick they resort to dividing people through speeches, innuendo, and out right lies. Politicians derive a lot of power by dividing people and then stepping up that they can "fix it" by punishing one side or another.
golergka 9y ago
> Every living person needs a basic level of respect, care and dignity... Can you substantiate this claim?
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  eash
- NoGravitas 9y ago
  Sure[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
  - Ygg2 9y ago
    As one SF writer once said. It's easy to claim Right to Individual bathroom if there is one or more bathroom per person. Problem is what happens where these twenty or more person per bathroom.
  - golergka 9y ago
    Argument from authority?
- anoonmoose 9y ago
  I'm not a huge fan of asking someone to prove a negative, but I do feel as if in this case it is justified: Can you refute the claim? Is there evidence that people do not generally need a basic level of respect, care, and dignity? Are there people that you find to be not deserving of those basic levels?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - golergka 9y ago
    Depends on your definition of "need" and what exactly do you mean by this word. If you mean that people without those things generally feel unhappy and sometimes die - well yes, it's just a matter of fact. But if you mean that we need to forcibly remove other people's property in order to fulfill those needs - well, here is where you lose me completely. How do you figure that I, for example, "deserve" food and shelter to a bigger extent than you "deserve" what you own?
Eridrus 9y ago
As easy as it is to blame this on rich people not wanting to pay taxes, tax payers have been quite willing to spend money on the homeless. SF spent $241 million last year: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... At roughly 7k homeless people we're spending ~35k/homeless person in SF and making no headway. Which makes you wonder if throwing more money at it is the right answer. LA recently voted to approve $335 million in funding for homeless people, but even before then was struggling to spend the money they had, at least partly due to NIMBYism: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-city-homeless-budget-20170602-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-city-homeless-bu... (not the article I was trying to find, but does mention some struggles spending the money).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

user1212 9y ago

> people will eventually go “French Revolution.” With a powerful army & technology controlled by government, this isn't an option anymore. Anybody trying to start something will be quickly and silently removed. Masses can be brought down easily by a few professional soldiers (not with rudimentary rubber batons, as in Spain this weekend) See how having an encrypted phone at border control is a felony, you can be locked up instantly, even if encryption is only to protect your work and personal family photos. What to do? Just obey and continue working to collect $$$, the only instrument which can guarantee your semi-independence?

chewz 9y ago
Revolutions don't follow this logic. They don't happen when oppression apparatus is weak but when it decides to turn against establishment or at least stay neutral. The spirit of the times decides. Louis XVI still had largest army in Europe of 1789, Soviet Union had enough tanks in 1989 and powerful control over media and society. US is actually similar to France in 1798 and Soviet Bloc in 1989 in many regards. Costly distant wars, pauperized middle class after very long period of growth and prosperity, sclerotic establishment in total denial that times have changes.
- Ygg2 9y ago
  Revolutions aren't also a necessity. If most people are entertained/distracted enough, revolutions won't happen. Junkies don't rebel if they keep getting their fix.
  - reacweb 9y ago
    Panem et circenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
- liberte82 9y ago
  I'd love to understand the fall of the Soviet Union better, it still seems so sudden and mysterious to me. Like the whole society just decided all at once that they were done. Does anyone have any good books on the subject?
  - chewz 9y ago
    Try Timothy Garton Ash - The Magic Lantern: The Revolution of '89 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, and Prague - https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Lantern-Revolution-Witnessed-Budapest-ebook/dp/B004089I5Q/ https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Lantern-Revolution-Witnessed-Bu... - The Polish Revolution https://www.amazon.com/Polish-Revolution-Timothy-Garton-Ash/ https://www.amazon.com/Polish-Revolution-Timothy-Garton-Ash/ But Ash is controversial author with strong opinions not a historian. Also Victor Sebestyen Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-1989-Fall-Soviet-Empire-ebook/dp/B002U3CB84 https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-1989-Fall-Soviet-Empire-eb...
  - nine_k 9y ago
    According to Yegor Gaidar (look him up), USSR basically ran out of resources, including food supply, around 1985. However much army do you have does not matter if you can't feed it. The problem was not only very high military spending (thanks Mr. Reagan, you won the Cold War), but also very low efficiency of industry and agriculture. Having lived in the late USSR, I can attest that the scale of waste was enormous. It was not only because of the inadequate planning, but mostly because the population did not care. Without the feedback loop which a market provides, the only reasonable action for a worker was to steal; the fact that 10x more resources are wasted as a result was totally inconsequential: getting fired was hard, and unemployment was seriously negative.
yardie 9y ago
This is eerily the same thinking the Bush Whitehouse was using when it sold the American public on an Afghanistan and Iraq invasion. As if somehow a few professional soldiers and advanced technology would rule. Yet here we are 15 years later in our forever war.
rayiner 9y ago
We just spent the better part of two decades proving that the most powerful military on earth can’t effecticely control a bunch of poor people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have guns but not much else.
- liberte82 9y ago
  If you listen to hard-right wingers on the subject, the difficulty comes because we were "nation building" rather than simply ruling over them.

Shivetya 9y ago

We are not turning into a poor country because of "greedy rich". It has always been at the behest of politicians, they don't even need to be corrupt. The simple matter is the political class, the true one percent, have been disconnected for years from the population as a whole. It is far worse for Democrats than Republicans. Regardless of how we see Trump the simple fact remains, the Democratic party has ignored its based for years. Nothing is more telling that the open mockery that was made of the Republican party for having so many candidates in the primaries, how did that become a bad thing? At least they let their base choose. By doing so a lot of independents also lined up on their side as well. Yet what happens when the American people push back? The system does its best to clamp down or usurp the attempt. the Tea Party really did start off on its own but was eventually co-opted by national interests. Before it was there was no shortage of negative comments about it from all sides. There was also a dearth of attempts to limit campaign funds because neither party wanted a repeat where they did not control all dollars in politics. The issue facing America is that it needs more than a two party system to go forward. Prior to the current President the majority of past Presidents worked for their party first and rarely for the people. This is true of the majority of Congress, laws are passed to protect their power, their party. When laws don't do the trick they resort to dividing people through speeches, innuendo, and out right lies. Politicians derive a lot of power by dividing people and then stepping up that they can "fix it" by punishing one side or another.

golergka 9y ago

> Every living person needs a basic level of respect, care and dignity... Can you substantiate this claim?

evanlivingston 9y ago
eash
NoGravitas 9y ago
Sure[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
- Ygg2 9y ago
  As one SF writer once said. It's easy to claim Right to Individual bathroom if there is one or more bathroom per person. Problem is what happens where these twenty or more person per bathroom.
- golergka 9y ago
  Argument from authority?
anoonmoose 9y ago
I'm not a huge fan of asking someone to prove a negative, but I do feel as if in this case it is justified: Can you refute the claim? Is there evidence that people do not generally need a basic level of respect, care, and dignity? Are there people that you find to be not deserving of those basic levels?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- golergka 9y ago
  Depends on your definition of "need" and what exactly do you mean by this word. If you mean that people without those things generally feel unhappy and sometimes die - well yes, it's just a matter of fact. But if you mean that we need to forcibly remove other people's property in order to fulfill those needs - well, here is where you lose me completely. How do you figure that I, for example, "deserve" food and shelter to a bigger extent than you "deserve" what you own?

Eridrus 9y ago

As easy as it is to blame this on rich people not wanting to pay taxes, tax payers have been quite willing to spend money on the homeless. SF spent $241 million last year: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... At roughly 7k homeless people we're spending ~35k/homeless person in SF and making no headway. Which makes you wonder if throwing more money at it is the right answer. LA recently voted to approve $335 million in funding for homeless people, but even before then was struggling to spend the money they had, at least partly due to NIMBYism: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-city-homeless-budget-20170602-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-city-homeless-bu... (not the article I was trying to find, but does mention some struggles spending the money).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]