What is Digg?197 Comments
- stretch611, on 09/06/2008, -7/+82A well written piece with a real shocker: It was written by a conservative that actually seems to understand reality.
FTA: "Conservatives need to stop denying reality. The stagnation of the incomes of middle-class Americans is a fact. And only by acknowledging facts can we respond effectively to the genuine difficulties of voters in the middle." - inactive, on 09/08/2008, -9/+65***** YOU MRBABYMAN!!!!
- MediaWeasel, on 09/06/2008, -11/+65There's nothing wrong with becoming successful and making a high income - hopefully you'll pay the requiredtaxes and not cheat. What IS wrong in America is the squeeze that most Americans are facing with no way of getting out of it. When bills are rising and pay is being cut or people are losing their jobs, there is no way you can claw your way out of it.
Democratic policies are not about giving free handouts to anyone who wants them. They're about helping people help themselves out of their difficult circumstances. Encouraging people to make the best of themselves - be involved in their communities, access good education, build a world class work force that puts America back on the world stage again. Creating new jobs in ailing or dead industrial areas, replacing jobs that are going overseas for much lower wages. Building a thriving, healthy, educated America.
By concentrating only on oneself and one's own financial ambitions to the exclusion of what's good for America, is what has led to this fractured society that has lost its way. - Zonos2, on 09/08/2008, -8/+46Buried for MrBabyMan!
- stretch611, on 09/06/2008, -2/+39Did you even read the article?
It discusses how the middle class (and lower class) has not had real income growth while expenses such as healthcare have risen, eating away at real income.
FTA: "What the middle class needs most is not lower income taxes but a slowdown in the soaring inflation of health-care costs. If health-insurance costs had risen 50 percent rather than 100 percent over the Bush years, middle-income voters would have enjoyed a pay raise instead of enduring wage stagnation." - slugicide, on 09/07/2008, -4/+36I love that he spends so much time describing how income inequality in the States is increasing, painting such a dire picture, exhorting his fellow Republicans to wake up and address the issue. For what reason? For the poor? No. To keep his party from losing power. You stay classy, Frum.
- bradharrelson, on 09/08/2008, -7/+35BURIED FOR MRBABYMAN
- georgemason01, on 09/08/2008, -10/+37Buried.
http://digg.com/comedy/82_diggs_in_3_minutes - bluevillage, on 09/06/2008, -1/+25Not only a conservative but an ARCH conservative who's as partisan as they come. I was amazed to see Frum addressing this.
- MetalGear7, on 09/08/2008, -12/+30Mrbabyman sucks dick
- Devotia, on 09/06/2008, -1/+19Joe, there's a difference between income and real income.
The inflation rate between 1998 and 2008 is something to the effect of 30%. Which means even if your income increased 30% over that decade (Say 50,000 to 65,000) you've effectively made nothing. Couple that with the fact that any investments suffer that same way, and a lot of those people who moved into a higher tax bracket are effectively making less because of it. - cday, on 09/07/2008, -4/+22@sloppyjoes7,
I'm thinkin' that real life's gonna be a TERRIBLE shock to you when you grow up.
Good luck with growin' that income...be sure to check back and let us know how that "upper-class" stuff works out for ya, 'kay? Oh, and better not have any kids, or get divorced, or get sick, or work for any companies that down-size or go bankrupt. - Berkana, on 09/07/2008, -1/+18The Republicans HAVE been redistributing wealth; they've privatized functions that used to be done on the cheap by government entities, which are now often done by massively rich private sector corporations with no accountability (Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, Titan, CACI, etc.) and they've socialized losses, using tax payers to bail out the failed loans of greedy banks eager to indebt as many people as possible. That's wealth redistribution of the worst kind: from the masses to the rich. I'm not advocating wealth redistribution of any kind; rather, we should be creating and securing opportunity for all, but don't you dare deceive yourself thinking that wealth redistribution hasn't been happening under the Bush administration. Nearly half of the $12 billion we spend per month in Iraq goes to profiteering private contractors doing what the Army used to do at a fraction of the cost.
- babar77, on 09/07/2008, -5/+22Libertarians should take note of this.
The populous will never except the excuse "it's just a market correction" if it involves a gross inequality of wealth. History has shown this time and time again. - inactive, on 09/07/2008, -3/+18Told ya.
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -18/+31People only vote republican for 3 reasons
1.Money
2.Religion
3.Never thought about it......(I'm serious here) - Calcularius, on 09/07/2008, -1/+13Way to pull a big hunk of ***** out of your ass.
- CourtesyFlush, on 09/07/2008, -0/+12Most labels are flawed.
Especially when they are constantly being used to divide, accuse, belittle, harass, condemn, obfuscate, distort, deny, and hate. - Gabberwok, on 09/07/2008, -0/+9Joe, the mistake you're making is assuming that middle class refers to a specific annual income range - it doesn't (even measured in real wages). It's a relative measure, and it is indeed very possible for the incomes of an entire population (lower class to upper class) to rise at the same time. The class distinctions just rise with them. Now you could say that any rise like this would just be inflation, since it happens to everybody at once, but real income can also grow across the board as long as there is an associated increase in production. Being middle class now means a much more comfortable lifestyle than being middle class 50 years ago, and with increases in technology and production the quality of life can continue to increase.
- pintomp3, on 09/08/2008, -4/+11the unregulated free market is like the unpoliced street. obviously we don't want a police state, but letting thugs and gangs run the streets is not a solution either. the free market is not a sentient being with a conscience, it is an ideology that eventually aggregates wealth and power into the hands of the wealthy and powerful.
- fugazied, on 09/08/2008, -0/+7By 'we' do you mean the financial industry who lobbied the federal government incessantly so they could get regulations removed and then banks could give sub-prime mortgages to people they knew couldn't pay them back the interest rate jumped to 13% in 4 years?
- Someguy101, on 02/19/2009, -1/+8What is there to tax? You can't get water by squeezing a rock. Tax should be based on percentage of income. A poor person paying $100 a month in taxes is not the same as a rich person paying $100 a month in taxes. The sacrifice is far greater for the person who has nothing.
- paintgrl, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7Good point, so few people vote for issues now it seems:(
- ElGubrush, on 09/07/2008, -9/+15I believe that the labels of Democrat and Republican, are fundamentally flawed. There are many different kinds of liberalism and conservatism. While I am a social conservative, I do not feel the need to push my values on others. I am voting democrat because they are the new fiscal conservatives, and it is folly to believe the Iraq war is sustainable if America ever wishes to dig itself out of this recession.
- diggproof, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6Unemployment is 6.1% you schmuck. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the exact opposite of what you said, people becoming poorer as employers cut wages and hours. I'm glad I went to college, maybe you should try it sometime.
- stefzula, on 09/08/2008, -8/+14Digg me up and bury this story if you hate MrBabyMan!
Digg me down if you love 'em - pintomp3, on 09/08/2008, -1/+7he realizes that you cannot sustain 3rd world gaps in wealth without risking revolution.
- MetalGear7, on 09/08/2008, -1/+7We need to take a ***** stand against this superpowered *****
- DavidYeah, on 09/08/2008, -0/+5As I see it, republicanism is a rooted in democracy, and democracy is rooted in a strong middle class. The strictly meritocratic, hierarchical society that the conservatives overwhelmingly condone is rooted in wealth and inequality.
The modern Republican party, as far as I'm concerned, is not a republican party, since they get little power from democracy; they get their power from corporations and the rich, while destroying the democratic/republican government from within. They're passing all the power on to those corporations and the rich that control them as they diminish the power of the government.
That's how this radical democrat sees it, anyway. - kilogrammatic, on 09/07/2008, -5/+10Slugicide is absolutely right. He talks about the growing inequality in America and how the poor are growing ever more desperate... and pretty much says that Republicans need to sound more sad about that in order to lure back their old voters. Way to really care about America.
- balder, on 09/08/2008, -1/+6Sorry to say the GOP has little to do with Federalism now.
They want to pass laws that do the following nation wide:
ban abortion
remove most if not all gun control laws
make gay marriage illegal
teach creationism in all schools
Only teach abstinence only in schools
I can go on but this is the Sarah Palin plank of the GOP that has been in charge sense W was (s)elected in 2000. - mfc5200, on 09/08/2008, -1/+6I would consider myself a strong economic conservative, and I want to see taxes cut extremely. But you know what? I don't really like Bush's tax cuts. If you are going to cut taxes, start at the bottom brackets, those affect 100% of tax payers, not 10%. Start at the lower brackets, and work your way up, not the other way around.
Also, it would be nice is they would f'ing index the tax brackets to inflation. Because as a result of inflation, people pay a few more % points of their income in taxes every year, even though they aren't making anymore "real" money, just because the value of their currency has gone down. How is that fair? - mhensley1288, on 09/08/2008, -1/+6Nevermind the fact that relatively high paying, low-skill, American jobs can be and are shipped overseas. Whether we are talking about customer service jobs to India or manufacturing jobs to China, one thing is clear: American corporations care about nothing but their own bottom line, whether it hurts Americans or even themselves in the long run.
- pintomp3, on 09/08/2008, -1/+6smart, determined, and hard working like paris hilton and george w. bush? we live in a plutocracy.
- paradexes, on 09/08/2008, -0/+5FTA "Societies that try too hard to enforce equality deny important freedoms and inhibit wealth-creating enterprise. Individuals who worry overmuch about inequality can succumb to life-distorting envy and resentment.
All true! But something else is true, too: As America becomes more unequal, it also becomes less Republican. The trends we have dismissed are ending by devouring us."
Ok is it me or is this saying that society needs to be unequal in order to be Republican?
He scores points for the overall idea that he gets that people are being alienated. The whole Rich get rich and poor get poorer message that people have been lobbing at the Republicans for years is starting to take hold in their own ranks. For all the good it will do. The political elite are not exactly hiding it anymore (or are really bad at hiding it) or are just thinking we are all real stupid and think their words will be enough to make us believe them.
Although this is not exactly limited to the Republicans either. There are a fair number of Democrats who fit the whole benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else. Just look at their voting records. - mgenovese, on 09/08/2008, -0/+5People are digging down a comment yielding only poll statistics and forecasts from other sources? Diggers can't seem to handle the truth.
- DaDrake, on 09/07/2008, -4/+9The fact is, you can predict a voter better if you concentrate on their marital status rather than their income. Why? Because the general election has become a fight over ideologies, not typical class issues we seen decades ago. Plus I am from Virginia... many counties have it worst then inner-city places and yet they are republican strongholds. Furthermore, I am not sure how good fairfax and other NOVA counties are for an example. These places grew because of people moving out-of-state to be near DC for business. The author makes it sound like Virginians earned significantly more or significantly less money then became democrats. The growth in the NOVA area wasn't caused by people native to Virginia.
Not to mention, Virginia really doesn't represent stereotypical republican vs democratic as portrayed on TV. For one, both George Allen and Jim Webb made phone calls urging people to vote for them; more interesting, they both highlighted how they were for the "Marriage Protection Act" (aka ... we hate gays). Devotees Davis in Alexandria (might be spelling her name wrong) aligned herself with Bloomberg to push her anti-gun agenda; it was the democrat who accused her of being too radical (on gun control) and he won with the support of the VCDL and NRA (even tho he wasn't pro-gun... just less of the two evils). She lost in a land slide. - stretch611, on 09/07/2008, -5/+9Another interesting tidbit FTA:
It’s widely understood that abundant low-skilled immigration hurts lower America by reducing wages. As the National Research Council noted in its comprehensive 1997 report: “If the wage of domestic unskilled workers did not fall, no domestic worker (unskilled or skilled) would gain or lose, and there would be no net domestic gain from immigration.” In other words, immigration is good for America as a whole only because — and only to the extent that — it is bad for the poorest Americans. Conversely, low-skilled immigration enriches upper America, lowering the price of personal services like landscaping and restaurant meals. And by holding down wages, immigration makes the business investments of upper America more profitable.
Middle-class Americans surely share in the cost-lowering benefits of immigration. But the middle class also pays the higher local tax bills that can result from immigration. Immigrants do not qualify for many federal benefits, but they do use the roads, schools, hospitals and prisons supported by state and local property taxes — the taxes that fall most disproportionately on the middle class. - devophl, on 09/08/2008, -0/+4There was a survey from earlier this year that showed that a lot of wealthy Americans voted Democratic and a lot of the poorest Americans voted Republican. You ask why?? Isn't this exactly opposite of what you'd expect. The reasoning is quite easy. Most poor Americans are disillusioned by politics, especially at the Federal level while at the same time being extremely culturally conservative. These voters tend to be single issue voters and abortion, gun rights and religion tend to sway their votes more than economic issues do. On the other hand, the very rich tend to have money to spend and many of them become philanthropic. They tend to give to the very causes Democrats embody.
So in the end the poll showed that Americans tend not to vote on economic issues. Republican lawmakers tend to aide the rich at the expense of the poor yet they get a lot of votes from the poorest Americans. Democrats tend to aide the poor at the expense of the rich and yet many uber-rich are Democratic.
The shrinking Republican party is more due to a shrinking middle class than to some sort of income inequity. A big chunk of the Republican party are white middle class Americans. Republican policies that aide the rich with tax cuts and hurt the middle and lower classes because of free trade and globalism may in fact be working against them. - ZenMojo, on 09/08/2008, -0/+4Not too coincidentally, the two smallest governments in the last 40 years were under Carter and Clinton. The fastest growing national debt in the last 40 years was under all Republican presidents but, in particular, Reagan and Bush.
Democrats have been fiscal conservatives since the 70's, but when they DO spend money it tends to be on economic efficiency, social support, and not the military-industrial complex. No coincidence, then, that our most militant years since the 70's have been under big military governments. Americans don't tend to buy toys they don't intend to play with. Remember that. - pintomp3, on 09/08/2008, -4/+8"We can have democracy in this country or great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
the gap between the wealthy and the poor has growing steadily for decades. in 1970, the average CEO made 28 times the average employee. now the average CEO makes 458 times the average employee:
http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2007 ... - DeFex, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3hey i know. send all the poor people to war or to jail. then they will either be dead or at least not allowed to vote.
- mfc5200, on 09/08/2008, -5/+8I don't even like McCain and your paragraph is absolute *****. I will be digged down for this but so be it.
"Democratic policies are not about giving free handouts to anyone who wants them. They're about helping people help themselves out of their difficult circumstances."
*****. For example, the other day I was at a supermarket. The person in front of us with 4 children paid with her US issued food stamp card. The children were young (1-8 years old). Not only can she not afford food, but shes having more children and thus getting more welfare and food stamps. And I'm sure she will continue to vote for the politicians who give her free *****. In the city I live, the same can be said about government employees (teachers, government office workers, anyone on a government payroll), they always vote for the people who promise them higher wages by using OTHER peoples money.
"Creating new jobs in ailing or dead industrial areas, replacing jobs that are going overseas for much lower wages."
If other countries are offering the same services for lower wages, there is nothing you can do. Back in the 50's industrial jobs were the "high tech" jobs of their day. Hence they paid well. Today that is not the case (in most circumstances). Today the well paying jobs are in engineering, design, programing (google, yahoo, msft, etc).You know all the perks that Google employees are notorious for? Well they get them because they are in well paying high skilled fields.
If you look at top 100 places to work for, almost all of them are in "high tech or high skilled" industries. Because those are the equivalent of the "industrial" jobs of the 50's, 60's, etc. Today however, those jobs which use to relatively require high skills (and thus high wages) no longer do. Hence poorer countries can do those things instead. If you want to compete, study harder, and study the right fields. College is essential, and make sure you pick a good major.
The only way you can prevent those jobs from going "overseas" is by either putting tariffs on the good, or subsidizing our industries. Both result in us paying higher prices for goods, which is not fair for everyone else who isn't involved in such an industry. For instance, I wouldn't like to see tariffs on Automobiles in order to support the U.S automotive industry, because that will result in me paying a lot more for a car. That would be the equivalent of welfare, taking from one group of society at gunpoint, in order to give to another.
www.ideachannel.tv I would recommend you watch that series, it's very good. - Aeaus, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3At the root core a political party is a mechanism for progress. A Republican Party that can address economic woes will mean it benefits America. They can't become noticed without having a record of improving the nation, because at some point non-issues and partisan attacks diminish in value. Assuming America doesn't implode in the next few years then the GOP is stuck in one major *****, the younger generation, while traditionally democratic will stay democratic. They don't have decades of political involvement which hums at the traditional notions of party ideology which are grossly inaccurate.
- inactive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3I want what you're smoking.
- akchrs, on 09/08/2008, -10/+13I don't want the USA turned into a socialist state. I remember the Carter years and Obama would be worse time ten.
- Pherdnut, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3What does the GOP stand for? Answer that before attacking this article. You guys are having an identity crisis right now and none of the things you've pretended to be are true anymore. I've got about 9.6 Trillion arguments against your claims of being for smaller gov. and fiscal responsibility.
- P8triot1, on 09/07/2008, -15/+18"Of course, any redistribution of wealth is actually quite wrong."
That "wisdom" forgets that the wealthy live off the labor of the workers, with the redistribution of wealth simply forced on them, with the "law" supporting the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy. - inactive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3Hey, those people voted against their own self interests and got burned. Cry me a river.
When every sign says they will give tax breaks to the rich, send jobs overseas, and give their big business buddies as many deregulation favors as they want, how can you possibly expect different? - PabloMac, on 09/08/2008, -1/+3Digg this comment if you realize that MrBabyMan doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to read/digg/bury/comment on any of his submissions.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 197 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is