Posted on May 19, 2016
7
7
0
"Descent into poverty" and "fear of descent into poverty" is a powerful inducement for violent social change.
Two-Thirds of U.S. Would Struggle to Cover $1,000 Crisis: Poll
Posted from nbcnews.com
Economy
Politics
Finance
Election 2016
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
3
3
0
One doesn't have to look far for evidence of the truth of your observations about poverty and the fear of poverty being powerful inducements for violent social change. It's also nigh unto impossible to find any example of the wealthy, those who are content with what they have, ever espousing social change. America is no where close to poverty but there sure is a lot of fear over it brewing these days. We are not suffering the economic punishments that Germany experienced after losing WWI, which fertilized the nation for the rise of Nazism, and yet our current political season is beginning to look more like a war zone every day. What's happening?
We weathered more dire economic straits during the Great Depression. FDR was a rock for the people to lean on in that time whereas President Obama is the target of criticism. He's black some point out as the reason. Well, sort of. He self-identifies as "black" though of mixed parentage. In spite of the criticism hurled at him, he remains optimistic. In the brief video embedded in this story he describes our economy as improving. So, why are people more afraid we're falling into irrevocable poverty.
Well, to be fair "we" didn't weather the Great Depression. Our parents and grandparents weathered it. Were they better people than we?
Also, we still enjoy the same government and economic engine that our parents and grandparents had, don't we? It should work just as well for us as it did for them, shouldn't it?
Or, have we destroyed our government and our economic engine with all of the progressive diddling until it no long serves us as well?
Me? To be honest, I'm beginning to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis...
We weathered more dire economic straits during the Great Depression. FDR was a rock for the people to lean on in that time whereas President Obama is the target of criticism. He's black some point out as the reason. Well, sort of. He self-identifies as "black" though of mixed parentage. In spite of the criticism hurled at him, he remains optimistic. In the brief video embedded in this story he describes our economy as improving. So, why are people more afraid we're falling into irrevocable poverty.
Well, to be fair "we" didn't weather the Great Depression. Our parents and grandparents weathered it. Were they better people than we?
Also, we still enjoy the same government and economic engine that our parents and grandparents had, don't we? It should work just as well for us as it did for them, shouldn't it?
Or, have we destroyed our government and our economic engine with all of the progressive diddling until it no long serves us as well?
Me? To be honest, I'm beginning to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis...
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; Those at the top of society's heap seldom have any real interest in climbing down.
MOST "revolutionary movements" are lead by people from the "second tier" of society who would like to move up - but can't.
MOST "peasant revolts" tend to have the same end - dead leaders and the peasants in worse shape than they started out being in.
During the late 20s and early 30s - although the economic situation was worse than it is today there was one major factor that was different - BOTH parties were prepared to "work across the aisle" for the good of the country as a whole. Today NEITHER party is prepared to "work across the aisle" for fear of being seen as "weak" and for fear that the other party will get some credit for doing something positive.
I don't think that "the government has been destroyed" through any sort of "progressive diddling" (after all it was "progressive diddling" that got America off the ground in the first place. More likely the cause for the government being destroyed (although it isn't really "destroyed" any more that a car that has been driven into two feet of mud and has run out of gas has been "destroyed") is the absolute demand by EACH political party for 100% credit for anything good that happens and to have the other political party bear 100% of the blame for anything bad that happens.
MOST "revolutionary movements" are lead by people from the "second tier" of society who would like to move up - but can't.
MOST "peasant revolts" tend to have the same end - dead leaders and the peasants in worse shape than they started out being in.
During the late 20s and early 30s - although the economic situation was worse than it is today there was one major factor that was different - BOTH parties were prepared to "work across the aisle" for the good of the country as a whole. Today NEITHER party is prepared to "work across the aisle" for fear of being seen as "weak" and for fear that the other party will get some credit for doing something positive.
I don't think that "the government has been destroyed" through any sort of "progressive diddling" (after all it was "progressive diddling" that got America off the ground in the first place. More likely the cause for the government being destroyed (although it isn't really "destroyed" any more that a car that has been driven into two feet of mud and has run out of gas has been "destroyed") is the absolute demand by EACH political party for 100% credit for anything good that happens and to have the other political party bear 100% of the blame for anything bad that happens.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL Ted Mc - I love talk about "working across the aisle". In a Congress replete with stories of canings and duels, I'd love to know of which era you speak. You never really met anyone who hated FDR? My father did. With a passion. And don't get him started on Eleanor. You might think that it would be hard to get him started on anything inasmuch as his ashes are floating somewhere around the Pacific these days, but I'm sure I could conjure him up to give you a good rant. If you studied the history of the era, you would find that the GOP opposed FDR's projects and programs (which have been shown to have extended the Great Depression).
And again you impress me with your bloviating. This time you defend "progressives" by saying that I want to blame all ill on one party. You have followed enough of my posts by now to know better. (I see you commenting on most of them) You just love to invent an argument that you can win rather than dealing with the one at hand. So, go ahead and argue with yourself and don't forget to take your victory lap when you're done. I'll be cheering for you...
And again you impress me with your bloviating. This time you defend "progressives" by saying that I want to blame all ill on one party. You have followed enough of my posts by now to know better. (I see you commenting on most of them) You just love to invent an argument that you can win rather than dealing with the one at hand. So, go ahead and argue with yourself and don't forget to take your victory lap when you're done. I'll be cheering for you...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; My apologies, I forgot to point out that I wasn't using the MODERN definition of "work across the aisle" which is "roll over and play dead". Yes, the Republicans opposed Roosevelt's plans (until they got something that they wanted in return). Yes, if you grant all of the "what if"s the economic analysts used with "perfect hindsight", you can conclude that Roosevelt's actions possibly prolonged "The Great Depression" (which is NOT the same thing as PROVING that Roosevelt's actions prolonged "The Great Depression"). Yes, no one had any better ideas about what to do in the middle of a global economic crisis. Yes, what pulled America out of "The Great Depression" was the wonderful opportunity for profit that arose WITHOUT the support of President Roosevelt on 01 SEP 39. Yes, many people (who had never met him) "hated" Franklin D. Roosevelt.
From 1932 until 1938 there was no need to "work across the aisle" as the Democrats actually controlled both the House and the Senate. From 1938 to 1940 an informal coalition of Republicans and Democrats (working across the aisle) was able to block the "New Deal Democrats" to some extent. From 1940 until 1942 the Democrats held control in both the House and the Senate. From 1942 to 1944 the "Conservatives" (working across the aisle) held control of the House and the Senate but the national war effort compelled them to work (again across the aisle) with the "New Deal Democrats". From 1944 to 1946 the national war effort compelled the "Conservatives" to continue working with the "New Deal Democrats". From 1946 to 1948 the Republicans held control of the House and the Senate. In 1948 the Democrats regained control of the House and the Senate.
You might be interested in (a more specific form of) the data from 1949 to 2012 so I've included a link.
Also of interest is WHICH of the "New Deal" policies had the most detrimental effect on America's recovery [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB [login to see] 9137485 ] . Strangely enough it wasn't the "Social Safety Net" legislation (opposed then as now by all "Good Conservatives") it was the "Let Business Regulate Itself" legislation (applauded then as now by all "Good Conservatives").
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/13-11-037.pdf
From 1932 until 1938 there was no need to "work across the aisle" as the Democrats actually controlled both the House and the Senate. From 1938 to 1940 an informal coalition of Republicans and Democrats (working across the aisle) was able to block the "New Deal Democrats" to some extent. From 1940 until 1942 the Democrats held control in both the House and the Senate. From 1942 to 1944 the "Conservatives" (working across the aisle) held control of the House and the Senate but the national war effort compelled them to work (again across the aisle) with the "New Deal Democrats". From 1944 to 1946 the national war effort compelled the "Conservatives" to continue working with the "New Deal Democrats". From 1946 to 1948 the Republicans held control of the House and the Senate. In 1948 the Democrats regained control of the House and the Senate.
You might be interested in (a more specific form of) the data from 1949 to 2012 so I've included a link.
Also of interest is WHICH of the "New Deal" policies had the most detrimental effect on America's recovery [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB [login to see] 9137485 ] . Strangely enough it wasn't the "Social Safety Net" legislation (opposed then as now by all "Good Conservatives") it was the "Let Business Regulate Itself" legislation (applauded then as now by all "Good Conservatives").
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/13-11-037.pdf
How Government Prolonged the Depression
Policies that decreased competition in product and labor markets were especially destructive.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Probably true, but my concern is for those in the USA that can not meet a $1000 crisis. And in this so called booming economy brought about over the last nearly eight years, nearly 40% of those wanting a job not being able to find one, or the continuous drive to feed the needy, or despite Obamacare not having medical insurance, or the influx of illegals (all inclusive, not just Mexicans) invading our nation, not to mention the refugees that are being treated better than our citizens. Sucks to be them, but fix your own problems world community.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
To be fair, Americans have never been known (at least not since the end of the 19th Century) for saving. We have long lived by the rule, "Spend all that you earn plus a dollar" (I wish our government observed that rule. They spend all that we earn plus all our credit and a fistful of dollars more
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
I must have been an exception, actually believing what the Social Security said in their paperwork. Retirement is a three legged stool, consisting of savings, pensions from work and supplemental from Social Security. My savings and investments for the future began at the age of 18 in the Navy, lost it all on occasion, but got my ducks in a row and its has been very, very good to me.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
This is absolutely appalling. I took basic business and accounting courses in H.S. In 1971 when I underwent Basic the USAF thought finances were important enough to commit training time to teach the basics. In my later career I taught "How to buy a new car" to all newly arriving airmen because educating them REDUCED the number of highly trained troops we admin discharged annually for financial irresponsibility. We really should, nationally, commit and incorporate into the sophomore year of high school, education in basic finances and make that a requirement for graduation.
(1)
(0)
LCpl Domingo Ariza
You would think, that is common sense, but...... It is like my 16 year-old said "I know how to make a box out of wood, but have no clue how to do a resume or balance a checking account". Funny thing is I never hear about bad wood boxes being in the news.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google