Zika

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,087
Look at what I quoted from gopher. Nothing was said about people already dems and being rich. It's the rich repubs that are crossing over, we're talking about, mostly due to DJT. The rich becoming dems.
It is all in how you define "rich." Republicans still and always have had enormous appeal to the middle class. The biggest lie of our time is that by Democrats that Republicans were the party of the rich. Imagine the silliness of that claim by presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

The problem that Democrats present is the destruction of the middle class. Look at China, you have a very wealthy class and you have people working for subsistence and effectively as slaves. They put nets around their factories to catch those who try to commit suicide by jumping. North Korea is the same. That is not unlike the Europe that many of our families escaped.

The US has historically been a nation of the middle class, and from that our strength came. That sector of our economy is now the highest taxed sector and is dwindling, not due to flight from our country, but due to people just giving up, retiring early, or going on welfare for a better lifestyle. Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama pay less than a third in percentage of what I and other middle-class Americans pay in taxes. The latest proposal by the Democrat nominee will increase taxes on that sector even more. Reagan and Bush cut taxes on the middle class. Democrats got rid of those breaks in short order.

I have a sense that you don't know the history of the Democrat party. Hillary has not changed that one iota. You need to go see Dinesh DeSouza 's new film: Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. I'll even pay for your ticket. At every turn in our history, Democrats supported slavery and segregation. Dwight Eisenhower was the one who battled FDR to allow blacks to serve on an equal basis in our military. It was Eisenhower's Supreme Court that ruled separate but equal was unconstitutional. He paid the price for that in a solidly Democrat South for decades.

John
 
Last edited:

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
The US has historically been a nation of the middle class, and from that our strength came.
WHAT? Do you have any evidence to support this? From my research, the period from 1900 to 1930 had huge disparity and a minimal middle class - less than now. We are quickly returning to that era but I'd like to see what supports your claim since you made yours first.

Reagan and Bush cut taxes on the middle class.
Well phrased, a statement with no claim of a result. What result did you intend to imply? Or was that statement just thrown in as a fun way to reminisce about the days when America Was Great?

By the way, those Reagan years were the period that had the greatest rate of change to separate the wealthy (top 1%) from the median income and lowest 20% of households.
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,087
@GopherT I will consider providing appropriate citations to back up my facts when you do the same.

For example, you refer to a period in our history which some refer to as the period of the robber barons. It was not an entirely negative period. Perhaps it was even necessary to aggregate the resources needed for our country to become industrialized, but there were inequities. Perhaps most important, it was less than thirty years out of our history of 240 years.

John
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
@GopherT I will consider providing appropriate citations to back up my facts when you do the same.

For example, you refer to a period in our history which some refer to as the period of the robber barons. It was not an entirely negative period. Perhaps it was even necessary to aggregate the resources needed for our country to become industrialized, but there were inequities. Perhaps most important, it was less than thirty years out of our history of 240 years.

John
Ah yes, sorry. Those times before 1900 were so equitable. Yes, those years were not left out of my claim due to lack of data, I left those years out because of the healthy middle class. Those post civil war years where families sent their children to the knitting and weaving mills for the extra cash so they can take their summer vacation by the shore. Or the 1850s where people were willing do take a huge chance of dying during a journey to California with the hopes of finding a few bits of gold dust after months of shaking a pan of sand in an ice cold river. Or those, years from 1800 to 1850 when immigrants were taking plots of farm land of the Western Reserve and beyond, as the frontier was pushed westward, where thy could spend their morning checking if the native Americans killed/stole their livestock or burned their crops before trying to plow their fields with a single horse (or pack of children) pulls the plow. Oh, did I mention the "dirt farmers" of the south? And, by your definition of "Middle class", did that include the slaves in the 1776 to 1665 era? According to a recent quote from a news show host, they were well fed so I'm not sure you consider them middle class or not. Anyhow, it sounds like your interpretation of FDR's dream of two chickens in every pot and a car in every garage was the first attempt to "make America great again" because that middle class had been so strong before the robber Barron era.

Also, you might want to correct most historians who claim the middle class didn't exist until the post-WWII era. I'm anxious to see your data. Please share.

Oh, and the solution to remove the income disparity that existed up to the Great Depression was reversed quite successfully under FDR. If the Republicans are the party of the middle class, why are they so opposed to reversing the income disparity and wealth disparity using the same methods from the 1930s to 1960s?
 
Last edited:

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
So diversity is a great panacea as long as we don't have it in wealth and income. Right. :rolleyes:
Do you feel the same way about health - we should have people of all levels of health? Education? "Careful, illiterate people are almost extinct - we need to save illiteracy!"

If those are your concerns, I'll assure you that the ecosystem has a "healthy" population if members with incomes between $0 and survival. You don't need to hold a fundraiser or a to save poverty.

EDIT: also, The republicans don't think there is diversity in income levels - they wouldn't be accusing dems of attempting to "redistribute wealth" if it is already distributed (diverse). If they believed wealth was already diverse, they would have picked a different word than "redistribute".

I think a future with income diversity and wealth would be great. Definitely not diverse now.
 
Last edited:

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
Republicans still and always have had enormous appeal to the middle class.
And your undying support of the gop has got you what exactly? Do you honestly think your "middle class" tax cuts were in proportion of what the big guys got?

Reagan and Bush cut taxes on the middle class.
Are you forgetting how Reagan paid for those tax cuts? He basically robbed Social Security Trust Fund to keep the country afloat. http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/09/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/

At every turn in our history, Democrats supported slavery and segregation.
Do you not remember what happened after Johnson got the civil rights bill passed? The southern democrats jumped to being republicans and pulled the republican party to being no longer "the party of Lincoln". You guys that are showing your total allegiance to the GOP should really go past the "spin zone" and dig a little deeper into history. The first pages of a google search or any search on this stuff are really a "popularity contest", not a history lesson or even unbiased facts.

And the Bush tax cuts did the same - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...orge-w-bush-borrow-social-security-fund-war-/
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
Do you feel the same way about health - we should have people of all levels of health? Education?
I accept diversity of outcomes as a force and fact of nature, and think it's silly to try to legislate it away.

But my point was the hypocrisy of the pro-diversity crowd that praises diversity when it is applied to physical appearance or ethnicity, while diversity of thought and diversity of success are despised.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-zika/479793/
Oxitec’s plan is to inject mosquito eggs with DNA that contains lethal genes, then release the genetically modified males from that batch of eggs so they can mate with wild females. (Males don’t bite; so releasing only males is a way to make sure the release of these insects doesn’t contribute to the spread of disease.) The offspring of these lab-tweaked males and wild females, having inherited the altered DNA, cannot survive to adulthood. If all goes as planned, the mosquito population should shrink as a result. There’s already good evidence that shows Oxitec’s approach can work. Field tests in Piracicaba, Brazil, resulted in an 82 percent decline to the mosquito population over an eight-month period, Oxitec says.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
I accept diversity of outcomes as a force and fact of nature, and think it's silly to try to legislate it away.

But my point was the hypocrisy of the pro-diversity crowd that praises diversity when it is applied to physical appearance or ethnicity, while diversity of thought and diversity of success are despised.
The chance of success by the current rules are so skewed that examples of it result in business news articles. It's like asking your little brother to join a game of monopoly after you and your friend already bought all of the properties. It would be almost impossible for little bro to win and worthy of business genius status if he did.

I would like to see your data on our current diverse income. You claim the current and well published data on lack of income diversity is wrong? Hypocritical? Please help me understand your viewpoint because nobody else seems to share it - not even the Republican Party. As I said above, they don't want it to be "redistributed". They didn't say "stop playing Robin Hood" which would mean the dems want to give money to the poor, they said, "redistribute".

Let me know when you have data.
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
I don't see how that could work unless the altered males far outnumber the wild, unaltered males. And even then, wouldn't the population rebound quickly once the damaged offspring are gone?
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
I would like to see your data on our current diverse income. You claim the current and well published data on lack of income diversity is wrong?
Huh? The left screams incessantly about income and wealth disparity, which is another word for diversity. They pass minimum wage laws to reduce income diversity. They demonize the 1%, which ironically will always exist no matter what. They want to "eat the rich". Are they all ignoring your "published data"?
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
Huh? The left screams incessantly about income and wealth disparity, which is another word for diversity. They pass minimum wage laws to reduce income diversity. They demonize the 1%, which ironically will always exist no matter what. They want to "eat the rich". Are they all ignoring your "published data"?
As I read your first post that mentions income diversity implied that we currently have diversity in income and, you seem to be saying that the dems are trying to destroy that current diversity in a seeming an unnatural effort because the dems see to, in your view, praise diversity in other areas? Was that your point? True or false?

I think that is what you are implying. Passing minimum wage laws is no different that wiping out illiteracy or small pox. See my previous post on health or education.

You seem to think wiping out income diversity differently.

By the way, I know a sign company in Rockford, Il. They can help you make signs to raise awareness that the poor in your area may go extinct if Hillary wins. Maybe your slogan can be "Save the Poor".
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
We already have a diversity of income.

From M-W.com
Full Definition of diversity

1: the condition of having or being composed of differing elements : variety; especially : the inclusion of different types of people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>
2: an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities : an instance of being diverse <a diversity of opinion>
 
Top