Does not matter if it was written with a treasonous spirit in mind, or an emotion filled or unethical, or unconstitutional spirit in mind.
If that was against the law, about 3/4 of the government and the parasites and cockroaches in bed with them would be in jail.
If they were judged on ethics and morality, Washington would be bathing in blood!
Shush, your going to expose the plot for all to see!
But your correct where you have major donors across America that vote for both sides of the equation, and the same men, as, for example, Goldman Sachs, voting for Obama and McCain.
I pointed this out once to this die hard stoke broker I met online, that said he was doing quite well as a matter of fact.
His reasoning came down to Darwinism.
If people are dumb enough to vote in people that are against their best interests, and to lap up the marketing BS, that America is riddled with, then, they deserve everything they get, and all is for the taking.
People like that need a bullet in the brain pan. Their day is coming.
(Merely a traditional rural admonition from a swineherd to amorous adolescents; no fair inferring any solicitation of violence against officers of the law! ;))
I keep remembering my favorite South Park episode that has to do with 9/11 and how it was a plot. Bush was in it and he called the American people “Sheeple”. Maybe he’s right, we certainly have been herded. But by whom? I see the flock, but who’s the one holding the crook? Better question would be how to get the crook away from them and back in our hands. It’s time to stop doing what we’re told, I feel.
The era of workers being well-off is receding behind us. From here it’s only going to get worse for America; and when we’re tapped out, it’ll become worse for India, China and the rest of the world. As such, I feel there should be a revolution. But a revolution in America is not enough. A global revolution is not even enough. It is quite far from enough.
The problem is that society is addicted to social Darwinism - exploiting the working class, working them to death for the cheapest wages possible, while discarding those who get “broken”, and ultimately, blaming the poor for their misfortunes. This is already happening. We’re headed into a global Dark Age where the billionaires will own everything and everyone else will be in extreme poverty.
Of course, you don’t believe that. Primarily you don’t believe it because TVs and iPods will be cheaper as time goes on. However, we’ve passed Peak Oil; meaning that energy prices will be going up from here on, because corporations will do everything in their power to keep solar power too expensive to replace fossil fuels. Dental care will be unobtainable for the working class (well, it already is now), along with health care (which is rapidly being priced out of the range of the working class), and rising food prices in America will evolve into shortages. (We are right now in clear and present danger of another Dust Bowl.) You’ll have an entire nation full of workers that have no medical insurance and no pensions, and wild swings in the stock market because masses of people will be making daily hardship 401K withdrawals to pay for transportation, medical bills, and to make basic ends meet. This is already all happening, to a lesser degree than what will come in the future.
Social Security will find a way to disappear along with Medicare, and the benefits of growth will be restricted to the rich. Oh wait, that’s already the case. Sillyme!
Obviously you are going to say I am crazy - but before you reach for your keyboard to write that, consider Mexico. That’s the future of the world.
So we need more than a revolution. We need a total global economic collapse.
A total collapse is tantamount to a global societal fatal overdose of social Darwinism, from which the survivors will emerge with a hangover so brutal that they will desperately want not to go through that again. Many will be inspired to re-think Capitalism in favor of a new system. Perhaps it’ll result in a system that eschews the idea of profits over people. Perhaps people will realize that unrestricted free trade is like putting a buncha kids on an island with no laws… and that the world cannot function like that.
Yes, I know I went over a LOT of heads with this…
“The more nearly equal a country’s income distribution, the closer its Lorenz curve to the 45 degree line and the lower its Gini index, e.g., a Scandinavian country with an index of 25. The more unequal a country’s income distribution, the farther its Lorenz curve from the 45 degree line and the higher its Gini index, e.g., a Sub-Saharan country with an index of 50. If income were distributed with perfect equality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the 45 degree line and the index would be zero; if income were distributed with perfect inequality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the horizontal axis and the right vertical axis and the index would be 100.”
The Gini index of the United States is 45.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html?countryName=United States&countryCode=us®ionCode=na&rank=40#us
Eh, that link is broken. Try putting it through tinyurl. The information (or preview thereof) looks extremely interesting, though.
It is The CIA World Factbook. If I click on the part that is underlined, I get there. Here it is again:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html?countryName=United States&countryCode=us®ionCode=na&rank=40#us
A certain amount of income inequality is probably necessary to inspire economic growth and technical innovation. No one I know of is advocating that everyone earn identical pay checks. Nevertheless, the third world has always been an area of great economic inequality, and it has not been known for economic growth and technical innovation.
For there to be technical innovation, talented people have to be able to discover and develop their talents. This is difficult if they are born into destitution.
Income mobility in the U.S. may be lower than many would like, labeling it as an economically immobile place seems wholly unfair.
I recall a recent study by The Brookings Institution that concluded parent-child incomes in the U.S. had a correlation of roughly 0.5. This means a parent’s income level, on average, predicts around 25% of their children’s future income level (correlation of 0.5 = r-squared of 0.25). Given that the IQ of a parent and child are positively correlated (don’t know specific figures, sorry), this implies that at a minimum, 75% of a child’s future income level is independent of the parent’s income level (actual number should be higher given IQ heritability). Not perfect, but certainly not immobile either.
The problem we are discussing here is not lace of income mobility, but economic inequality.
or maybe 3rd world countries in question had few talented people in the first place, rich or poor. Study the history of China and Japan and you will find periods of endogenous rapid economic growth and technical innovation. But plenty of “3rd world” countries out there, that were not European settler states like Brazil, proved barely capable of importing European technologies and practices, let alone maintaining them.
Meanwhile 19th century England and early 20th century Japan had plenty of people in destitution. This did not stop them.
Sorry for any confusion - I only posted half of what I’d intended to by mistake. My last post excluded my opinion that income inequality provides a less pronounced incentive for unrest or revolution than does something like income immobility. It’s one thing to see folks who are better off than yourself - it’s another to view the entire game as being rigged against you.
Currently China, Japan, and the UK have more equatable distributions of income than the United States.
maybe, but what does that have to do with talentless 3rd world countries? All of the above countries have always had plenty of talent. In the specific case of China industrial development was somewhat impeded by political instability in early 20th century, but even then there was a good deal of it, especially in coastal cities of the south-east and in Manchuria. Oh, and in politically stable Japanese occupied Taiwan 
In any event, at this point in time to discuss income inequality as a driving or impeding factor in economic growth or technical innovation is like discussing the significance of a minor skin rash of a guy who is in ER with almost completely blocked air passageways. The fundamental problem is government economic mismanagement and corporate economic mismanagement on all levels, not the life outcomes for talented people or rich-poor gap or any such minor issues.
Which is more likely to provoke revolution? Serious question.
Revolutions often happen when talented people find upward mobility blocked by an hereditary elite, and when they are able to appeal to an impoverished majority.
The last quarter of the nineteenth century, the 1920s, and the 1980s were periods of growing inequality in the United States. However, most people gained something economically. Most Americans have lost ground during the twenty-first century, but corporations are more profitable than ever.
I am not sure if that is politically sustainable. So far, however, there has been a move to the right.
As I have argued here before, I believe that the populist right of the present day is generationally time-limited – i.e., its demographic/political/cultural importance will decline as the GI generation passes away. (At least, with regard to cultural/social/religious issues; the next generation, even of conservatives, will just not feel the same way about certain things as their parents did.) The socioeconomic conditions you describe, however, might not be so time-limited – and might catch fire in the rising generations. But, at worst, that puts revolution decades away! 
or maybe the economic and political SHTF will happen before that, while all the currently existing generations are in place. The Department of Homeland Security seems a lot less sanguine about American political stability in the medium term than BrainGlutton - so I wonder who is better acquainted with the reality of the situation.
If the rich are getting rich faster than the poor are getting better, it is no real problem/
That is not what is happening.
Sep 11 2009
On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country’s condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton’s two terms, often substantially.