When you mention those most contributing to the poverty of the poor...

[PureX]

Well I think its safe to say it's clearly beyond redemption. Look at the profile of the apex people in power. All of government and business are firmly in the hands of billionaires and millionaires who will never willingly relinquish their grip on others. They just will squeeze harder and harder.


It would take a massive economic apocalypse or a major war to reclaim any level playing field that eliminates the parasitic nature of excessively wealthy individuals and governments whom have demonstrated clearly to be predators without recompense or remorse.

Keep in mind they are one entity. The government is just a collection of paid toadies for the wealthy elites. The elites WANT you to blame their toadies, and not them. That's what republicanism is all about these days: "Government bad! Rich people, good!". But the fact is it's the elites that are now making ALL the decision and controlling both parties. So every time you get screwed by some government policy pushed by republicans or democrats, it's the elites that are really doing the screwing, and who are really netting the benefits.

 

[Stevicus]

You set the stage with FDR.
Call it the 20th century.

I called Nixon a commie back in the day.
Imagine taking control of government, & demanding that
no pay or price increases are legal without Nixon's stamp.
Nixon was the perfect liberal...economic authoritarianism,
feting communist China, waging that useless war in Vietnam,

Nixon was the tool of billionaires, as evidenced by the sign in this picture.

That makes him capitalist, albeit more liberal than Reagan or his successors. Nixon was more liberal than the Clintons or Obama.

And he ended the war in Vietnam, which is more than can be said about Obama and Afghanistan.

Isn't it odd....liberals give Presidents credit when they're
Democrats, & things improve. But when the Jimmy Carter
Malaise ended under Reagan, no credit at all.

That's because the malaise (which wasn't caused by Carter) didn't end under Reagan, so why should he get credit? The deficit and national debt went up; America's warmonger and lumbering world police work were both ramped up. The arms race escalated. Social programs were cut, unemployment went up, and deregulation was the order of the day. In the decades which followed, America's economy and position in the world slowly diminished.

America is far worse off today than it was 50 years ago, and I attribute much of our decline to Reagan and his ilk (including many liberal Democrats who supported him and his ideology).

Liberals....they love regulation, high taxes, war, limiting speech,
the prison system, civil forfeiture, war, racial quotas, & war.
As long as blacks don't move into their neighborhood, they're
happy as clams. Conservatives are no better. And Libertarians
are useless. We're all doomed.

I don't deny that many liberals have degenerated and became materialistic hypocrites. The Clintons are the quintessential example of the decline of liberalism: Idealistic anti-war protesters in the 60s who became corrupted, warmongering irredeemable capitalists by the 90s. They're the perfect symbol for their generation.

And Reagan was the one who brought us civil forfeiture and escalated the war on drugs. Way to support the "free market," eh?

 

[Heyo]

Our representatives let them.

We elected the representatives.

 

[Estro Felino]

We elected the representatives.

No Italian elected Draghi...
Who btw is rumored to be one of the richest in Europe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you see the rich as having a greater ability and therefore responsibility to look outside their social circles?

I've known a bunch of rich people. They aren't always of a greater ability.

 

[danieldemol]

I've known a bunch of rich people. They aren't always of a greater ability.

I was speaking with regards to the specific abilities of generally being less segregated and more mobile.

In my opinion.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that a State that embraces neo-liberism is a State that is gradually and slowly committing suicide.
Perfect metaphor.

If the State is bright and not suicidal, it will help more and more people get well paid jobs.
More and more people will contribute with their income taxes to the state budget.

The State budget will grow.

That is why neo-liberism is neither intelligent nor pragmatic, as state policy.

Back to the thread topic: by favoring few élites, the State commits suicide.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nixon was the tool of billionaires, as evidenced by the sign in this picture.

That makes him capitalist, albeit more liberal than Reagan or his successors. Nixon was more liberal than the Clintons or Obama.

And he ended the war in Vietnam, which is more than can be said about Obama and Afghanistan.



That's because the malaise (which wasn't caused by Carter) didn't end under Reagan, so why should he get credit? The deficit and national debt went up; America's warmonger and lumbering world police work were both ramped up. The arms race escalated. Social programs were cut, unemployment went up, and deregulation was the order of the day. In the decades which followed, America's economy and position in the world slowly diminished.

America is far worse off today than it was 50 years ago, and I attribute much of our decline to Reagan and his ilk (including many liberal Democrats who supported him and his ideology).



I don't deny that many liberals have degenerated and became materialistic hypocrites. The Clintons are the quintessential example of the decline of liberalism: Idealistic anti-war protesters in the 60s who became corrupted, warmongering irredeemable capitalists by the 90s. They're the perfect symbol for their generation.

And Reagan was the one who brought us civil forfeiture and escalated the war on drugs. Way to support the "free market," eh?

Protest signs are proof now?
Liberals are in the business of giving Presidents
for happenings under their reign. I'm not. I look
for causes.
Civil forfeiture originated before Reagan & Biden,
but both enhanced its power.

 

[Kooky]

Many Capitalists hate the European Constitutions because they contain dangerous socialist principles .

As evidenced by their generous funding of numerous anti-EU movements, Brexit, neofascism etc.

 

[Estro Felino]

As evidenced by their generous funding of numerous anti-EU movements, Brexit, neofascism etc.

Are you speaking of the Capitalists mentioned in the OP?

 

[Stevicus]

Protest signs are proof now?

I said "evidenced." Evidence and proof are not the same thing.

Liberals are in the business of giving Presidents
for happenings under their reign. I'm not. I look
for causes.

Giving Presidents what?

Civil forfeiture originated before Reagan & Biden,
but both enhanced its power.

Well, I just find it interesting that free-market mavens like Reagan and his ilk seemed okay with the idea of civil forfeiture and the war on drugs, even though it directly contradicted their stated beliefs in free enterprise and "getting government off our backs." Hypocrites.

They pretty much gave a blank check to law enforcement and militarized the police, which is the most justifiable reason for opposing conservatives and capitalists. They're trying to make America into a police state.

 

[Revoltingest]

I said "evidenced." Evidence and proof are not the same thing.

Quibbling?
OK, "evidence" is the better word.

Giving Presidents what?

Left out a word..."credit".

Well, I just find it interesting that free-market mavens like Reagan and his ilk seemed okay with the idea of civil forfeiture and the war on drugs, even though it directly contradicted their stated beliefs in free enterprise and "getting government off our backs." Hypocrites.

Remember...conservatives are not libertarians.
They don't always respect civil rights.

They pretty much gave a blank check to law enforcement and militarized the police, which is the most justifiable reason for opposing conservatives and capitalists. They're trying to make America into a police state.

See previous statement.

 

[Stevicus]

Quibbling?
OK, "evidence" is the better word.

Okay.

Left out a word..."credit".

Okay, so then it would read: "Liberals are in the business of giving Presidents credit
for happenings under their reign. I'm not. I look
for causes."

I don't think this is just a liberal thing, but something more basic to politics. Presidents tend to get credit or blame for whatever happens under their watch, whether they deserve it or not. Usually, it's something that happens "in the moment," though. Years after the fact, public perceptions start to change. One example is how many people blamed Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression, leading to his electoral defeat to FDR in 1932. But in later years, historians seemed far more forgiving of Hoover and believed he was unfairly blamed for the Depression.

I think FDR had good intentions and did many great things, but I'll admit that he also had his dark side. One thing I'll say about liberals is that they are far quicker to criticize "one of their own" when there's something worthy of criticism, although the Clintons seem to be the exception that proves the rule.

Remember...conservatives are not libertarians.
They don't always respect civil rights.

See previous statement.

I've heard it said that libertarians are just conservatives who like to smoke pot. I also know that they don't go for all that "Moral Majority" nonsense that made up a good part of Reagan's support base. But there were and still are a lot of liberals, Reagan Democrats, and the like who enjoy capitalism and the luxury lifestyles of the rich and famous - even if they've always been somewhat embarrassed by being in the same big tent as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and his crowd.

But other than being embarrassed, this "immoral minority" never really could stand up and oppose the "moral majority" in any real meaningful way, which is why the GOP seems more heavily dominated by Trumpers.

 

[David Young]

In answer to the original question, if I "mention those most contributing to the poverty of the poor" then my "highest priority to mention" is parents who raise their children in self-inflicted poverty while refusing all offers of assistance.

The traveller and Gypsy communities usually get mentioned in this context, although not exclusively.

Next priority: junkies, winos and generally self-pitying individuals who I absolutely do not care about so long as they stay away from me.

By the way, why do you ask?

 

[Kooky]

Are you speaking of the Capitalists mentioned in the OP?

I am speaking of "many" capitalists.

 

[Estro Felino]

I am speaking of "many" capitalists.

A certain JP Morgan said the Italian Constitution is too socialist and should be changed to fit neo-liberalism.
This is the kind of bankers the European Left likes.

https://www.byoblu.com/2013/08/09/j-p-morgan-troppo-socialismo-nella-costituzione/

 

[Kooky]

This is the kind of bankers the European Left likes.

So the European Right likes a different kind of banker. Which ones?