Someone on the forum here just recently posted about how someone making $500k/year had more in common with someone making $5k/year than $5 million/year. That poster could have been the illustration for the Op-Ed you just linked.
I found this article an interesting read relevant to the topic at hand.
Stop pretending you're not rich.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/...mdesk&kwp_0=619284&kwp_4=2201328&kwp_1=919831
I found this article an interesting read relevant to the topic at hand.
Stop pretending you're not rich.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/...mdesk&kwp_0=619284&kwp_4=2201328&kwp_1=919831
Wealthy liberals have nothing to do with socialism?How so? The article is about wealthy liberals and has nothing to do with socialism. I'm not claiming her as a socialist, but what Nikole Hannah-Jones did, sending her daughter to a poor neighborhood school is much more consistent with socialist values than what we see from wealthy liberals. (I'm not a big fan of NPR, but this is pretty good)
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/201...f-schools-is-maintained-by-individual-choices
(yes, I tested the link this time )
Wealthy liberals have nothing to do with socialism?
Class separation and calcification has nothing to do with socialism?The article has nothing to do with socialism.
Class separation and calcification has nothing to do with socialism?
People in the 90th percentile claiming they are economically similar to those in the 50th percentile has nothing to do with socialism?
Perpetuation of wealth from generation to generation has nothing to do with socialism?
The perception of the American as a meritocracy has nothing to do with socialism?
Housing and zoning practices designed to segregate American society has nothing to do with socialism?
Tax policies designed to protect the upper middle class have nothing to do with socialism?
Alright, so we've now established that the article is related to socialism. The point I'm trying to make is that we often place all the blame on conservatives when it comes to our inability as a nation to make social progress. However, its worth reflecting on things we (as in upper middle income progressives) are unwilling to give up in the name of social progress. It is easy for progressives to simply say, "Raise taxes on the wealthy". Alright, but who are the wealthy. Even the name we use, upper middle income, is designed to convey that these people should not be included with the 1%. If we as progressives want to see social progress, we need to accept that we also have a price to pay. We can't just pin this on those that make more than we do, because this effect just cascades up the chain. If we really are committed to decreasing the gap between the wealthy and the poor, we need to stop supporting measures like those I listed above (those discussed in the article) that are designed to perpetuate our own success and that of our children at the expense of the poor and lower middle class.Socialism is opposed to those things, what point are you trying to make?
Alright, so we've now established that the article is related to socialism. The point I'm trying to make is that we often place all the blame on conservatives when it comes to our inability as a nation to make social progress. However, its worth reflecting on things we (as in upper middle income progressives) are unwilling to give up in the name of social progress. It is easy for progressives to simply say, "Raise taxes on the wealthy". Alright, but who are the wealthy. Even the name we use, upper middle income, is designed to convey that these people should not be included with the 1%. If we as progressives want to see social progress, we need to accept that we also have a price to pay. We can't just pin this on those that make more than we do, because this effect just cascades up the chain. If we really are committed to decreasing the gap between the wealthy and the poor, we need to stop supporting measures like those I listed above (those discussed in the article) that are designed to perpetuate our own success and that of our children at the expense of the poor and lower middle class.
Note that I'm not saying all sides are equally responsible here. The greater issue by far is the super wealthy manipulating the system. I'm just saying that it is something that is worth considering and thinking about.
This would be a pretty good example of the same thing we are discussing. You’ve personally run a test that is achieving 180 degree opposite results of what happened in the actual conversation. A logical person would conclude you’re most likely screwing the test up somehow, most likely due to selective curation of what you had people read.
I would suggest to you that considering you run into the same problem on here over and over again that you may want to ask yourself why this happens to you so much more than anyone else.
So to get back on topic here in this thread, socialism still leads to suck (see Venezuela) and Scandinavian style social welfare programs are basically DOA in the U.S. although they'll remain the pipe dream of progressives since Truman and maybe before that. None of them ever lived to see it and I'm betting no one in this thread will ever live to see it either. Now we return you to regularly scheduled arguing about this for yet more decades to come.