with Robert Reich
Point of view and information you won’t find in the corporate media
http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/?task=viewvideo&video_id=75542
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tomorrow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one.
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
They had no constitution as such, no law against it, but they never did.
I think that shows that a constitution is no match for moral fiber.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
They had no constitution as such, no law against it, but they never did.
I think that shows that a constitution is no match for moral fiber. [/quote]
Well, maybe it just shows that a constitution is no match for naval power.
Sure, they never seized the property of “the rich”. They seized the property of other cities instead.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
[/quote]
Everybody who voted in Athens was affluent anyway. Unpaid debts were grounds for suspension of citizenship.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
They had no constitution as such, no law against it, but they never did.
I think that shows that a constitution is no match for moral fiber. [/quote]
Well, maybe it just shows that a constitution is no match for naval power.
Sure, they never seized the property of “the rich”. They seized the property of other cities instead.
[/quote]
Well, depending on who you ask, the Delian League did not devolve into the Athenian Empire because Athens took their resources, but because they would rather give their money than to prepare for war.
So, Athens was nearly the only city of the league prepared for war and she dominated them all, there is a lesson in there somewhere.
As there is in the fact that they refused to rob what they considered to be their own.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
[/quote]
Everybody who voted in Athens was affluent anyway. Unpaid debts were grounds for suspension of citizenship.[/quote]
Yeah.
Made you think twice before you succumbed to “predatory lenders” didnt it?
Anyone know how he is getting $750billion in 10 years? And this still does nothing for the current debt.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
with Robert Reich
Point of view and information you won’t find in the corporate media
http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/?task=viewvideo&video_id=75542[/quote]
HEAR HEAR
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
They had no constitution as such, no law against it, but they never did.
I think that shows that a constitution is no match for moral fiber. [/quote]
The average worker in the Athenian democracy was relatively rich. “At its economic height, in the 4th century BC, Ancient Greece was the most advanced economy in the world. According to some economic historians, it was one of the most advanced preindustrial economies. This is demonstrated by the average daily wage of the Greek worker, it was, in terms of wheat (about 12 kg), more than 3 times the average daily wage of the Romano-Egyptian worker during the Roman period (about 3.75 kg).”
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
They had no constitution as such, no law against it, but they never did.
I think that shows that a constitution is no match for moral fiber. [/quote]
The average worker in the Athenian democracy was relatively rich. “At its economic height, in the 4th century BC, Ancient Greece was the most advanced economy in the world. According to some economic historians, it was one of the most advanced preindustrial economies. This is demonstrated by the average daily wage of the Greek worker, it was, in terms of wheat (about 12 kg), more than 3 times the average daily wage of the Romano-Egyptian worker during the Roman period (about 3.75 kg).”
http://upge.wn.com/?t=ancientgreece/index2.txt[/quote]
By that standard, the American poor have nothing to complain about.
They make more than 80% of all people worldwide, historically speaking they live better than most kings ever did.
But that is not how people are wired, the will not accept a system that has lifted billions out of poverty if the differences in wealth are to great, because they do not think in absolute but in relative terms.
There is a word for that attitude, I believe it is called envy.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Anyone know how he is getting $750billion in 10 years? And this still does nothing for the current debt.[/quote]
A 2% raise on taxes on the ultra-rich. The intention was not to cut social spending.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
They had no constitution as such, no law against it, but they never did.
I think that shows that a constitution is no match for moral fiber. [/quote]
The average worker in the Athenian democracy was relatively rich. “At its economic height, in the 4th century BC, Ancient Greece was the most advanced economy in the world. According to some economic historians, it was one of the most advanced preindustrial economies. This is demonstrated by the average daily wage of the Greek worker, it was, in terms of wheat (about 12 kg), more than 3 times the average daily wage of the Romano-Egyptian worker during the Roman period (about 3.75 kg).”
http://upge.wn.com/?t=ancientgreece/index2.txt[/quote]
By that standard, the American poor have nothing to complain about.
They make more than 80% of all people worldwide, historically speaking they live better than most kings ever did.
But that is not how people are wired, the will not accept a system that has lifted billions out of poverty if the differences in wealth are to great, because they do not think in absolute but in relative terms.
There is a word for that attitude, I believe it is called envy.[/quote]
Why complain when you have to pay for the mistakes of the finance sector?
The top .01% have made so much of the gains yet want there taxes cut and social spending deflated. There is a word for that it’s called GREED
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
So why do you only apply your morality to the poor and middle class but do not apply it to the ultra-rich?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
They had no constitution as such, no law against it, but they never did.
I think that shows that a constitution is no match for moral fiber. [/quote]
The average worker in the Athenian democracy was relatively rich. “At its economic height, in the 4th century BC, Ancient Greece was the most advanced economy in the world. According to some economic historians, it was one of the most advanced preindustrial economies. This is demonstrated by the average daily wage of the Greek worker, it was, in terms of wheat (about 12 kg), more than 3 times the average daily wage of the Romano-Egyptian worker during the Roman period (about 3.75 kg).”
http://upge.wn.com/?t=ancientgreece/index2.txt[/quote]
By that standard, the American poor have nothing to complain about.
They make more than 80% of all people worldwide, historically speaking they live better than most kings ever did.
But that is not how people are wired, the will not accept a system that has lifted billions out of poverty if the differences in wealth are to great, because they do not think in absolute but in relative terms.
There is a word for that attitude, I believe it is called envy.[/quote]
Why complain when you have to pay for the mistakes of the finance sector?
The top .01% have made so much of the gains yet want there taxes cut and social spending deflated. There is a word for that it’s called GREED[/quote]
Sure, but the gubbamint has about 6 or 7 dozens agencies to watch over them which pretty much prevented nothing.
I would argue that they make it easier, they provide a fig leaf for when it is needed.
I would rather have them gone broke, like they would have, on a free market.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
They had no constitution as such, no law against it, but they never did.
I think that shows that a constitution is no match for moral fiber. [/quote]
The average worker in the Athenian democracy was relatively rich. “At its economic height, in the 4th century BC, Ancient Greece was the most advanced economy in the world. According to some economic historians, it was one of the most advanced preindustrial economies. This is demonstrated by the average daily wage of the Greek worker, it was, in terms of wheat (about 12 kg), more than 3 times the average daily wage of the Romano-Egyptian worker during the Roman period (about 3.75 kg).”
http://upge.wn.com/?t=ancientgreece/index2.txt[/quote]
By that standard, the American poor have nothing to complain about.
They make more than 80% of all people worldwide, historically speaking they live better than most kings ever did.
But that is not how people are wired, the will not accept a system that has lifted billions out of poverty if the differences in wealth are to great, because they do not think in absolute but in relative terms.
There is a word for that attitude, I believe it is called envy.[/quote]
0_0
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
So why do you only apply your morality to the poor and middle class but do not apply it to the ultra-rich?
[/quote]
I can’t.
I’m french.
There is no ultra-rich here. They have already fled.
But if you manage to catch some of them, feel free to “apply my morality” to them.
More seriously : this is not a “poor vs rich” issue.
It will soon become a “old vs young” issue.