If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   The income gap between poor and rich in the United States has grown more dramatically under President Obama than Bush or Clinton. This guy is a lousy socialist   (news.investors.com) divider line 341
    More: Interesting, President Obama, United States, income inequality, Emmanuel Saez, wealth redistribution, socialists  
•       •       •

1101 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 11:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



341 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 02:14:04 PM
Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.
 
2013-07-31 02:14:35 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: this entitled generation has totally shifted away from job creation and wage improvement to "he has more, that ain't fair).


probably the best way to actually change things, the people who have all the wealth might start getting scared that the plebeians are focused on the wealth gap.
 
2013-07-31 02:16:23 PM

Aristocles: So, one of your examples lasted all of 3 months, the other ended in despotism. Not a roaring endorsement.


Why did the Paris Commune last 3 months?  Why did the Spanish Civil War start and why did it end in despotism?  Capitalist backlash.

Not exactly a rousing endorsement for capitalism.

/Troll better (I know ya got it in ya!)
 
2013-07-31 02:16:47 PM

xanadian: Bloody William: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Raise the minimum wage, heavily enforced regulations on using unregistered immigrants including fines and prosecution that would make it unfeasible, severely punish companies that hours-shave to avoid giving benefits to employees, and directly incentivize using labor on creating jobs instead of blindly offering economic incentives to shift wealth around and build it up without hiring people.

Make it worthwhile to hire new workers at middle-class rates, and make it untenable to cheat or abuse workers with shiat wages, no benefits, and unreasonable demands.

Before I say what I'm thinking about raising the minimum wage, let me add a disclaimer that I can see what I'm about to suggest being abused in some shape or form.  And that suggestion is:  a tiered waiver program for small businesses who would otherwise go out of business if they had to pay their employees more.  I.e., a sole proprietor who has a little used book shop that hires someone to man the register a couple days per week.  Or a local landscaping company.  Of course, the OTHER option would be to reduce business tax rates for these smaller businesses* (much like we have a progressive tax rate for income) AND a uniform, increased minimum wage.  Then, any business should be able to handle the increased minimum wage.

*which we may already have, and is probably dependent on what state you're in. IANATE.


I think a general solution to a lot of economic problems is to establish a tiered system of regulation and even taxation for businesses based on their size.  Small businesses should be mostly left alone to thrive, medium businesses regulated and taxed moderately, while large businesses, the large concentrations of wealth that Jefferson warned would undermine democracy, should be heavily regulated and taxed.
 
2013-07-31 02:18:00 PM

MSFT: The Drawing Board: Why do you guys continue to feed a poster so up front about being here to bait and troll?

Yeah, I just blocked him myself.


He was talking about you.
Did you block yourself?
 
2013-07-31 02:18:21 PM
The impoverishment and attrition of the American middle class was launched under Reagan, and according to his philosophies - why wouldn't a Reagan Republican like Obama continue that? Remember - the fact that the current Republican Party consists of Talibans and Nazis doesn't make Obama a Liberal, or a real Democrat by some sort of relativistic magical alchemy.
The reality is that this country is politically f**ked out of all perspective, and needs to move about a mile to the left to even acheive a moderate policy. The rest of the civilized world thinks our political spectrum is completely insane - and they are right.

"I want to see this country's wealth in fewer, righter, tighter hands"
George Bush the Elder-1988 - a promise kept!
 
2013-07-31 02:18:46 PM

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: It sounds as though you advocate the exploitation rather than the empowerment of working class people. How fascist of you

By recognizing what the capitalist system does, this does not make me fascist.  Fascism is but a capitalist reaction to the proletariat asserting themselves and advocating change.

You sir, I would call the fascist and not I.  I say this because of your admiration and for promoting the works and legacy of noted fascist sympathizer and anti-Semite Henry Ford.


Henry Ford's politics are a distraction that cannot undermine the soundness of the economic theory. Nice try, though.
 
2013-07-31 02:19:21 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I am not a troll


i213.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-31 02:20:38 PM

Aristocles: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

No you're right, all the strongholds the Democrats had in the South turn into Republican strongholds roughly around the same time the Civil Rights Act was passed was just a coincidence.

Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why would the dirty, racist democrat party members become Republicans in order to pass the Civil Rights Act?

You're not making sense.


It's more complex than just Democrat vs. Republican...  SOUTHERN Democrats hated it by a wide margin; whereas NORTHERN Democrats were okey-dokey with it.  But yes, by raw party percentages, Republicans were 80% YEA while Democrats were in the low 60s.  There were still majorities in both parties, however.
 
2013-07-31 02:21:31 PM

FarkedOver: Aristocles: So, one of your examples lasted all of 3 months, the other ended in despotism. Not a roaring endorsement.

Why did the Paris Commune last 3 months?  Why did the Spanish Civil War start and why did it end in despotism?  Capitalist backlash.

Not exactly a rousing endorsement for capitalism.

/Troll better (I know ya got it in ya!)


Capitalism is not a form of government (neither is Socialism, under many definitions). If big scary "capitalists" could bring down your socialist regime in 3 months, it must have been pretty weak and unsustainable. Also, question, you're not saying Franco was a capitalist, are you?
 
2013-07-31 02:24:18 PM

SpankMeJohnny: Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.


Thanks for taking the time to post!
 
2013-07-31 02:25:02 PM

SpankMeJohnny: Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.


SpankMeJohnny
Account created:    2013-07-05 12:32:39

oh, look - another one!
 
2013-07-31 02:27:04 PM

Aristocles: Capitalism is not a form of government (neither is Socialism, under many definitions). If big scary "capitalists" could bring down your socialist regime in 3 months, it must have been pretty weak and unsustainable. Also, question, you're not saying Franco was a capitalist, are you?


He was a dictator/fascist backed by capitalists.
 
2013-07-31 02:27:51 PM

SpankMeJohnny: Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.


right, because a government that provides minimal assistance to its poorest populace are enslaving them.

/vote Republican
 
2013-07-31 02:28:13 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I am not sure what you mean by criminal profits.


The totally unregulated derivatives market, for starters, loans issued without regard to risk in order to be packaged and sold, rating investments at AAA for investors, including the pension funds you mentioned, while dumping their holdings in anticipation of a crash, manipulating the Libor rate to generate hundreds of millions as money flies around from bank to bank, high frequency trading that uses supercomputers to basically generate money out of thin air

The problem is that most of these things are not technically criminal, because the banks and their cohorts own the politicians and regulators who get to decide what is criminal.  These people make massive short term profits, while pumping up bubbles that will inevitably pop, causing severe economic crises that affect regular people, while the TBTF criminal organizations get taxpayer subsidized bailouts.

Having a supposedly democratic system be controlled by a small group of moneyed interests to the point that they are able to crash the economy to line their pockets with quarterly profits is bad for everyone.  I don't understand how people have difficulty seeing this.
 
2013-07-31 02:29:34 PM

mediablitz: Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: We should elect him again.

I'm hoping for someone to his left.

Zombie Reagan?


He wants your brains because Alzheimer's took his!
 
2013-07-31 02:29:40 PM

I_C_Weener: So, what I'm getting out of this thread is that President Obama is a 1964 Democrat who hates black people.


Which is why there's an increase in the income gap.  STUDY IT OUT
 
2013-07-31 02:30:20 PM

FarkedOver: He was a dictator/fascist backed by capitalists.


aren't they all at this point in history, aren't 'they all.

another grand contribution to society by Capitalism.
 
2013-07-31 02:33:03 PM

FarkedOver: Aristocles: Capitalism is not a form of government (neither is Socialism, under many definitions). If big scary "capitalists" could bring down your socialist regime in 3 months, it must have been pretty weak and unsustainable. Also, question, you're not saying Franco was a capitalist, are you?

He was a dictator/fascist backed by capitalists.


Why would capitalists back a dictator/fascist?
 
2013-07-31 02:33:35 PM

Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.



Either you're willfully ignorant, or dense, or a troll.

Whatever the case, you're not worth reading. You make this place worse just by showing up. To the ignore list with you.
 
2013-07-31 02:34:23 PM

Isitoveryet: Aristocles: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

This is true, however, Capitalism will make everyone more prosperous. There's really no need to peek into someone else's bank account.

apparently, prosperity in America means owning a refrigerator.


TFerWannaBe: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

No. Capitalism does not make any guarantees about anyone's success. It *can* work for everyone, but doesn't necessarily, no matter how hard they work at it.

nope, no promises at all.  there are some perks to being born into wealth in a Capitalist society, just like the royalty of old.  And it is depressing to see someone who is a hard motivated worker (who may lack higher education) get held back by wage caps & the ideas that;

Employee: "ya know, i work hard for this company, i've seen our profits raise year after year and feel i deserve a raise."

Employer: "this is what you are worth. don't like it? you can start over somewhere else, i appreciate your hard work and devotion to making me money but i'm not here to make you money"


Then the Employer says: "Why is no one buying my product? I better cut wages again."

Modern MBAs forget Henry Ford, who doubled his salary to attract the best workers and allow them more money to buy his cars.
 
2013-07-31 02:34:24 PM

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.

Well, that one guy sure sets the standard for everyone.  I never said it applied 100%.  Nothing ever does in politics.

Southern racists in general went to the GOP after the CRA.

Nixon counted on it (you dolt)


heh

It's what's known as the Southern Strategy.  Of course, the South started bleeding Dems (switching to Republicans, slowly) long before 1948 thanks to the Democratic Party adding civil rights as a plank to its platform...after a very long period of supporting slavery and (later) segregation.

As has been mentioned many times here, yesterday's Democratic Party is not today's Democratic Party.  Much the same can be said for the GOP.  I'm not sure how EITHER party is much like what it used to be in the 1800s/1900s...
 
2013-07-31 02:35:21 PM

SpankMeJohnny: Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.



Login: SpankMeJohnny
Fark account number: 866344
Account created: 2013-07-05 12:32:39

It looks like Free Republic hit their quota for new users so apparently Fark has been "blessed" with the spillover.
 
2013-07-31 02:36:25 PM

zappaisfrank: FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: It sounds as though you advocate the exploitation rather than the empowerment of working class people. How fascist of you

By recognizing what the capitalist system does, this does not make me fascist.  Fascism is but a capitalist reaction to the proletariat asserting themselves and advocating change.

You sir, I would call the fascist and not I.  I say this because of your admiration and for promoting the works and legacy of noted fascist sympathizer and anti-Semite Henry Ford.

Henry Ford's politics are a distraction that cannot undermine the soundness of the economic theory. Nice try, though.


Sure, he was a shiat bag.  But the notion that Ford "raised wages" is kind of a myth. What's more of a myth is that he did it out of some benevolent obligation to the plight of workers.

Ford had his goons actually go to people's houses and make sure they were being "Americanized".  This was a stipulation of the "raised wage".  They made sure you spoke english, didn't gamble or drink and made sure you avoided union organizations.  Oh and women weren't eligible unless they were single and the sole caretaker of a family, and men were not eligible if their wives worked outside of the home.

Now why did Ford create this $5 dollar a day bonus (not raise)?  To increase production and lower the price of his product and retain his current workers to avoid turnover.  The fact that they would buy his product was an added bonus.  He did not make his decision based on the betterment of workers but on his own profit margin.  And even when he did give the 5 dollar a day bonus he was still a coont about it by having his goons check in on his employees and make sure they were good Americans.
 
2013-07-31 02:38:36 PM

phaseolus: Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.


Either you're willfully ignorant, or dense, or a troll.

Whatever the case, you're not worth reading. You make this place worse just by showing up. To the ignore list with you.


Why do the same people keep telling me this? Is this just supposed to make me feel bad?

If you're really putting me on ignore, why do you keep responding?
 
2013-07-31 02:38:57 PM

Aristocles: Why would capitalists back a dictator/fascist?


You might want to dig up Reagan and Thatcher and ask why they supported Pinochet.

And you gotta love this Kissinger quote - "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

I guess a dictator is better than people actually voting and determining their own destiny.

/Why hasn't Kissinger been tried as a war criminal yet?
 
2013-07-31 02:43:59 PM
coeyagi:

Login: coeyagi (UltraFark) (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 470037
Account created: 2009-04-22 14:47:54

Uh oh, folks. Looks like we got another one of these! Don't you see how I've emboldened the account created date?

Gotta discount everything this guy says.
 
2013-07-31 02:45:59 PM
Time for a troll purge here on Fark, I think. Of course, if fark just provided the IP addresses for users in their profiles, we'd police it ourselves.
 
2013-07-31 02:47:20 PM

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: It sounds as though you advocate the exploitation rather than the empowerment of working class people. How fascist of you

By recognizing what the capitalist system does, this does not make me fascist.  Fascism is but a capitalist reaction to the proletariat asserting themselves and advocating change.

You sir, I would call the fascist and not I.  I say this because of your admiration and for promoting the works and legacy of noted fascist sympathizer and anti-Semite Henry Ford.

Henry Ford's politics are a distraction that cannot undermine the soundness of the economic theory. Nice try, though.

Sure, he was a shiat bag.  But the notion that Ford "raised wages" is kind of a myth. What's more of a myth is that he did it out of some benevolent obligation to the plight of workers.

Ford had his goons actually go to people's houses and make sure they were being "Americanized".  This was a stipulation of the "raised wage".  They made sure you spoke english, didn't gamble or drink and made sure you avoided union organizations.  Oh and women weren't eligible unless they were single and the sole caretaker of a family, and men were not eligible if their wives worked outside of the home.

Now why did Ford create this $5 dollar a day bonus (not raise)?  To increase production and lower the price of his product and retain his current workers to avoid turnover.  The fact that they would buy his product was an added bonus.  He did not make his decision based on the betterment of workers but on his own profit margin.  And even when he did give the 5 dollar a day bonus he was still a coont about it by having his goons check in on his employees and make sure they were good Americans.


More distractions.

You cannot escape the fact that paying people a good wage not only makes you successful, it makes everyone in the chain successful. Auto workers spend their money elsewhere, which makes the people elsewhere successful enough to buy a car also. The people drive their cars elsewhere and spend their money there, and on and on and on  You can blather about Ford's personal idiosyncrasies all day but you cannot deny the fact that the base theory is sound with a proven record of success. Yes, it was profit driven but it worked and everyone benefited, even those who didn't work directly for the auto industry.
 
2013-07-31 02:48:13 PM

FarkedOver: Aristocles: Why would capitalists back a dictator/fascist?

You might want to dig up Reagan and Thatcher and ask why they supported Pinochet.

And you gotta love this Kissinger quote - "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

I guess a dictator is better than people actually voting and determining their own destiny.

/Why hasn't Kissinger been tried as a war criminal yet?


Just because we tried to teach Pinochet about Austrian economics, doesn't mean it had any effect.
 
2013-07-31 02:54:56 PM

Geotpf: The health care law that passed was the absolutely strongest that could have passed Congress at the time (keep in mind that the Democrats only had complete control of Congress for a period of a few months, between the time Franken was finally sworn in and when Kennedy died, and only by one vote)


Also remember that that "control" was predicated on the idea that guys like Joe Lieberman (who singlehandedly killed the public option) and Bill Nelson (anyone remember the Cornhusker Kickback?) would vote with the Dems. So, to actually exercise that "control", the Dems had to cater to them.
 
2013-07-31 02:55:56 PM

Geotpf: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

The health care law that passed was the absolutely strongest that could have passed Congress at the time (keep in mind that the Democrats only had complete control of Congress for a period of a few months, between the time Franken was finally sworn in and when Kennedy died, and only by one vote).

Right now, the Republicans control the House, so they can and are blocking any further legislation, and are actively hurting the poor and employment levels by cutting government spending via the sequester and other means.

That is, blame Congress, which writes and passes laws, not the President, who only can sign (or veto) them and implement them after they have been passed.  American Constitution Law 101.


So we can blame congress for all of Bush's gigantic blunders too?
 
2013-07-31 02:59:30 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Time for a troll purge here on Fark, I think. Of course, if fark just provided the IP addresses for users in their profiles, we'd police it ourselves.


Agreed on all counts.
Back to reddit!
 
2013-07-31 03:04:22 PM

zappaisfrank: More distractions.

You cannot escape the fact that paying people a good wage not only makes you successful, it makes everyone in the chain successful. Auto workers spend their money elsewhere, which makes the people elsewhere successful enough to buy a car also. The people drive their cars elsewhere and spend their money there, and on and on and on You can blather about Ford's personal idiosyncrasies all day but you cannot deny the fact that the base theory is sound with a proven record of success. Yes, it was profit driven but it worked and everyone benefited, even those who didn't work directly for the auto industry.


Idiosyncrasies and distractions!? Really? He was the farking Rumpelstiltskin of job creators with all that shiat stipulations he had in order to be "eligible" for the bonus.

Not everyone benefited.  The decision to create the $5 a day bonus was due to the fact of the 400% turnover rate at the Ford plants. Further, ten thousand unemployed stood freezing in the snow outside the gates begging for a job.  What did Ford do? Turned the fire hoses on them.

Then by 1927 Ford was done producing the model T.  So he closed down the Dearborn, MI plant leaving 60,000 workers jobless.  3,000 of those old employees marched to the new factory in 1932 in River Rouge demanding a job.  What did St. Ford do used the police and goons to open fire on them killing 4 and wounding countless others.  Workers on the job at Ford plants rarely talked even on breaks out of fear that they might talk to a management spy and lose their job.

Conditions were horrendous and people stayed on the job because they NEEDED the job as this was happening during the Great Depression.

He was an iron fisted pro-business, anti-semite, ant-labor zealot who did more harm than good for labor. He did do wonders for capitalism, as you have suggested.
 
2013-07-31 03:05:21 PM

Aristocles: Just because we tried to teach Pinochet about Austrian economics, doesn't mean it had any effect.


lol

/I will never ignore you :-D
 
2013-07-31 03:08:23 PM

FlashHarry: so this week, obama is a plutocrat tool of wall street! (last week he was the libbiest lib who ever libbed!)


No matter what he does you will be there to blindly follow him.
 
2013-07-31 03:14:55 PM

Nemo's Brother: FlashHarry: so this week, obama is a plutocrat tool of wall street! (last week he was the libbiest lib who ever libbed!)

No matter what he does you will be there to blindly follow him.


nothing to add to the income gap? just coming in to make some ridiculous comment?
 
2013-07-31 03:18:08 PM

DarwiOdrade: How conservatives view the political spectrum:
[www.americanthinker.com image 450x298]

How everyone else views the political spectrum:

abearsrant.com

Democratic party is located at the "Solid Left"???  I wish.
 
2013-07-31 03:21:44 PM

Jairzinho: Democratic party is located at the "Solid Left"??? I wish.


I'd actually put the Democratic party on the right-center side of the spectrum.
 
2013-07-31 03:24:31 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."


This.
 
2013-07-31 03:25:28 PM
Ah, so this is that wonderful time of year when Brave Capitalists acknowledge the growing income gap AND admit it is a bad thing (since they can try to pin it on Obama).  This is a short season, once Autumn rolls around we'll be back to proclaiming that the American poor aren't really poor because of their weight problems and color television.
 
2013-07-31 03:26:01 PM
FarkedOver:
Conditions were horrendous and people stayed on the job because they NEEDED the job as this was happening during the Great Depression.

You mean kinda like now, where the pro-business right has gained so much political and economic advantage that they basically hold the American economy hostage? Like that?

He was an iron fisted pro-business, anti-semite, ant-labor zealot who did more harm than good for labor. He did do wonders for capitalism, as you have suggested.

Thank you for finally acknowledging the truth of my statements. Ford was not so much anti-labor as he was anti-union  which would put him perfectly in line with today's pro-business right. Unions are a scourge to be crushed and swept away as far as the right is concerned, so you would think they would hold him as a standard bearer for that reason. They've managed to sweep away the gains that people fought bloody battles to achieve to benefit their titans of industry just like their Ayn Rand books say they should do. I never defended Ford personally, only the capitalistic concept of a economically viable working class.
 
2013-07-31 03:28:16 PM

karmaceutical: Ah, so this is that wonderful time of year when Brave Capitalists acknowledge the growing income gap AND admit it is a bad thing (since they can try to pin it on Obama).  This is a short season, once Autumn rolls around we'll be back to proclaiming that the American poor aren't really poor because of their weight problems and color television.


and fridgerators.
 
2013-07-31 03:28:38 PM

Lionel Mandrake: coeyagi: Prove that the poor are better off.

THEY HAVE REFRIGERATORS!!1!

...what more proof do you need, lib-u-lardo?


and many of them have even cell phones, and not any cell phones mind you, but OBAMAPHONES!!1!!
 
2013-07-31 03:32:55 PM

zappaisfrank: Thank you for finally acknowledging the truth of my statements. Ford was not so much anti-labor as he was anti-union which would put him perfectly in line with today's pro-business right. Unions are a scourge to be crushed and swept away as far as the right is concerned, so you would think they would hold him as a standard bearer for that reason. They've managed to sweep away the gains that people fought bloody battles to achieve to benefit their titans of industry just like their Ayn Rand books say they should do. I never defended Ford personally, only the capitalistic concept of a economically viable working class.


What's good for the goose (capitalism) is not good for the gander (working people).  I rest my case on the 60,000 he laid off and left destitute and opening a new factory with fewer workers.  He always had profit in mind, no matter how much he paid his workers, he was never good for the working class and set the labor movement back years.
 
2013-07-31 03:36:24 PM

FarkedOver: Jairzinho: Democratic party is located at the "Solid Left"??? I wish.

I'd actually put the Democratic party on the right-center side of the spectrum.


Agreed. I'm only mid-left and I can't even see the Democrats from where I'm standing, they're so far right.

img.fark.net

And for comparison:

www.politicalcompass.org
 
2013-07-31 03:37:29 PM

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: Thank you for finally acknowledging the truth of my statements. Ford was not so much anti-labor as he was anti-union which would put him perfectly in line with today's pro-business right. Unions are a scourge to be crushed and swept away as far as the right is concerned, so you would think they would hold him as a standard bearer for that reason. They've managed to sweep away the gains that people fought bloody battles to achieve to benefit their titans of industry just like their Ayn Rand books say they should do. I never defended Ford personally, only the capitalistic concept of a economically viable working class.

What's good for the goose (capitalism) is not good for the gander (working people).  I rest my case on the 60,000 he laid off and left destitute and opening a new factory with fewer workers.  He always had profit in mind, no matter how much he paid his workers, he was never good for the working class and set the labor movement back years.


60.000 workers compared to 22 million jobs that have been outsourced in the last couple of decades? Hmm, looks a little lopsided to me.

I'm curious to know how the various plant closures and mergers orchestrated by Bain Capital type investment groups is significantly different from what you berate Ford for doing?
 
2013-07-31 03:39:00 PM

zappaisfrank: 60.000 workers compared to 22 million jobs that have been outsourced in the last couple of decades? Hmm, looks a little lopsided to me.

I'm curious to know how the various plant closures and mergers orchestrated by Bain Capital type investment groups is significantly different from what you berate Ford for doing?


You're comparing Ford manufacturing of the 20s to the 40s to the last couple of decades.  That's a little bullshiat, no?
 
2013-07-31 03:54:10 PM

Aristocles: karmaceutical: Ah, so this is that wonderful time of year when Brave Capitalists acknowledge the growing income gap AND admit it is a bad thing (since they can try to pin it on Obama).  This is a short season, once Autumn rolls around we'll be back to proclaiming that the American poor aren't really poor because of their weight problems and color television.

and fridgerators.


Boring new troll alt is boring.
 
2013-07-31 03:58:10 PM

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: 60.000 workers compared to 22 million jobs that have been outsourced in the last couple of decades? Hmm, looks a little lopsided to me.

I'm curious to know how the various plant closures and mergers orchestrated by Bain Capital type investment groups is significantly different from what you berate Ford for doing?

You're comparing Ford manufacturing of the 20s to the 40s to the last couple of decades.  That's a little bullshiat, no?


Actually, no. Unemployed is unemployed. In both scenarios, the objective is profit. It doesn't matter if it was eighty years ago or ten years ago. The difference I see is that Ford then, as today, still employs workers on American soil. The Bain type groups took the money and left devastated communities in their wake without a care. Again, we see that Ford's motives, while profit based, also considered the wider ranging effects on their potential customers, AKA the American working class. Bain, not so much.
 
Displayed 50 of 341 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report