Blah, blah, blah

head_left_image

Libs say they want change

Obama is for change. That is what is written all over his website and all of his yard signs. Change. No one is exactly sure what type of change he has in mind, but change it is.

It seems that change is what all liberals want. They are never satisfied with anything. Something is always wrong and needs to be changed. All liberals tend to see are flaws. Flaws with the Constitution, the USA, the education system, capitalism, white people, etc.

The problem is that once change is instituted, the liberals want to change it again. No change is ever good enough for them. Take a look at US history and it is rife with examples of this. Part of being a lib must mean that change is all you ever want.

We are looking at a perfect example of this concept today. During the 60's and 70's, women fought hard for a footing on par with that of men. Women wanted to be able to go into the workplace just like their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers. They wanted to be able to have a family and still move up the old power ladder at work. All women were sisters. Sisters who could help each other. Everytime a women moved up a rung in the workplace it empowered all women. Anytime a women was moving to the top it was the right choice. Just get women up the ladder. All of the sisters would be behind them.

30 or 40 years later, here we are. Women have jobs that coexist along with their families. Women are in positions of power. Women are running for President and Vice President of the US. But, there is a problem. Read what the liberal media is saying about Sarah Palin. She has a child with special needs. She wont be able to do a job and take care of the child. She is against abortion. She shoots guns. She hunts and fishes. She should not be in a position of power. She is the wrong women for the job. Huh? Her sisters are saying this about her?

What happened to all women supporting each other? That concept is gone.Thrown out. Once the change of getting women into jobs and power positions was accomplished, the liberals had to change something. Not good enough anymore. Only certain women need apply now.  Sarah Palin is a conservative woman. Not the right type of change. Not the right type of woman. Not a sister to a lib women.

I contend that to a liberal, feminism, and all that it stood for, was intended only for liberal women, not conservative women.

Comment balloon 30 commentsKevin Robinson • September 02 2008 10:24AM

Comments

Kevin ~ Liberals are their own worst enemy. Perhaps, its because they really have no core beliefs. If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. I believe the liberals have fallen for this false messiah called Obama.

Posted by Broker Nick, Broker Nick Relocation Broker Service (South Florida Real Estate & Development, Inc.) over 10 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Liberals change the Constitution just twice? Once was prohibition (which had to be changed back) and the other was tax (which perhaps one day will also be changed back!!!)

Posted by Simon Conway (Orlando Area Real Estate Services) over 10 years ago

simon,  It sort of falls under the old adage "The Grass is greener on the other side".   Until you get there and find out that it is crab grass.  Change for Change sake alone is not necessarily what is needed.

Posted by Keith Webb, GRI (Guardant Investments, Inc.) over 10 years ago

Kevin,

I have not heard anything of substance that they want to change.

Congratulations this post is now featured in Silent Majority of Active Rain.

Posted by Mike Frazier, Northwest Tennessee Realtor (Carousel Realty of Dyer County) over 10 years ago

This decade the number and percentage of people living in poverty has increased and the average household income (adjusted for inflation) has decreased by $2000 (of course, $2000 is less than pocket change to a man who owns more homes than he can count). Why would anyone want to "change" that?

Posted by Jay Allen, MovieVoice (MovieVoice Production Co.) over 10 years ago

Kevin ~ Where are the feminists out there protecting Gov. Palin's right to hold public office and raise a family. Sad liberals, they show their true colors.

Posted by Broker Nick, Broker Nick Relocation Broker Service (South Florida Real Estate & Development, Inc.) over 10 years ago

Jay - this is America. The land of opportunity. You can do anything and be anything you want. The way to do that is on your own, not with Government hand outs of OTHER PEOPLE'S HARD EARNED MONEY!

Most people in jobs have to take a pee test to get that job and to keep that job. They then work hard and pay taxes so the Government can hand that money over to people who do not work and couldn't pass a pee test with a six month warning. What do YOU think is wrong with that picture?

Posted by Simon Conway (Orlando Area Real Estate Services) over 10 years ago

Kevin ~

Congratulations this post is now featured in the Blatant Politics Group of Active Rain.

Posted by Simon Conway (Orlando Area Real Estate Services) over 10 years ago

Simon, what are you talking about....do you even know? Are you aware that you post the talking points that large sums of money are spent to inject into the stream of information distributed by the media and the republicans who own it?

From the Federal Reserve 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances: (Page 12)

Concentration ratios. Because the Gini coefficient attempts to summarize many complex changes in terms of a single number, it may miss important variation for particular parts of a distribution or for particular subpopulations. A more detailed means of summarizing the relative distribution of wealth is the use of concentration ratios, the proportion of total wealth held by specific groups. In 2004, slightly more than one-third of total net worth was held by the wealthiest one percent of families (table 5). Although the estimated level of this share has changed over the surveys since 1989, the differences are not statistically significant. In 2004, the next-wealthiest nine percent of families held 36.1 percent of total wealth, again, a figure not significantly changed over the course of the surveys. This leaves less than a third of the total for the remaining ninety percent of the population. A subset of that group, families in the bottom half of wealth distribution, held only 2.5 percent of total wealth in 2004, and this figure is significantly different from the higher estimates for 1995, 1998, and 2001; of course, those differences reflect movements elsewhere in the distribution, but the statistical power of the tests is not sufficient to identify where among the groups shown the offsetting changes ccurred. A possible explanation of the decline for the lowest wealth group might be changes in their use of debt, but a separate examination of gross assets yields a pattern similar to that seen for net worth.

From Page 28:

Ownership shares. For some assets, the distributions of the amounts held are far more
disproportionate than the differences in ownership rates. Most striking is the 62.3 percent share
of business assets owned by the wealthiest 1 percent of the wealth distribution in 2004
(table 11a); the next-wealthiest 4 percent owned another 22.4 percent of the total. Other key
items subject to capital gains also show strong disproportions: the wealthiest 5 percent of
families owned 61.9 percent of residential real estate other than principal residences, 71.7
percent of nonresidential real estate, and 65.9 percent of directly- and indirectly-held stocks. For
bonds, 93.7 percent of the total was held by this group. The lowest 50 percent of the wealth

distribution, which held only 2.5 percent of total net worth in 2004, came close to its population
share only in holdings of installment debt (46.2 percent of the total) and credit card debt (45.7
percent of total outstanding balances). Although the 50th-to-90th percentile group held only 27.9
percent of total net worth, they came closer to holding their population share than any of the
other wealth groups. In the case of principal residences and associated debts, vehicles, and
credit card balances, they exceeded their population share; note that their income share was
equal to their population share in 2004.
Relative to the balance sheet for the wealth percentile groups in 1989 (table 11b), there
were substantial changes in amounts by 2004—for example total net worth rose 94.4 percent
over the period. At the same time, there was remarkably little change in ownership shares that
was statistically consistent. However, for principal residences and other residential real estate,
the data do show a significant increase in the share of the wealthiest 1 percent, which was mainly
offset by declines for the 50th-to-90th percentile group
."

America's wealthiest are the least taxed of any warlthy residents of post industrialized nations. GINI in France, according to the CIA Factbook, is 28, and in the US, 45. The wealth inequity in the US will be even more concentrated by the posted policies you so strongly describe and support. The trend and the data demonstrate a continued elimination of households in the US potentially capable of real estate purchase. The destruction of real property valuations currently playing out in the US will have a much smaller impact on the wealthiest ten percent, who already own 70 percent of all of the wealth, because their wealth is much more diversified, as the above data clearly shows, than it is in the holdings of the next 40 percent, who own approx. 27-1/2 percent of the wealth....they were "house rich" before valuations began to plummet.

So who, Simon.... five years from now, if your political sentiments prevail....will be left to buy what you try to sell? Isn't the dramatic concentration of wealth, especially the data on who owns most of the business assets, a total refutation of your, "anyone can make it on their own, if they try hard enough", rhetoric? What happens if we emerge from the housing implosion with the top ten percent picking up distressed properties on the cheap....they are the only ones in a position to do so....and the result is that the top ten percent own eighty percent of all US assets? In short....is their any limit to your extremism....or does it just play out until the inevitable happens....the "have nots", riot, as a result of their own, "nothing left to lose", desparate, awakening?

 

Posted by Ed LeFevre (Curious Sort) over 10 years ago

Ed - more wealth envy, what else are you envious of? America's wealthiest are the ones that provide the jobs for everybody else. I agree with Simon, anyone can make it, given the combination of personal effort and opportunity. If want what someone else has, go get it for yourself, don't ask the government to take it away and give to you.

Posted by Mike Saunders (Lanier Partners) over 10 years ago

Mike, laughable response.... wealth inequality was not much greater in Venezuela, a few years ago, than it is in the US today. Wealth distribution in Venezuela, as measured by GINI coefficient is now less inequiatble in Venezuela, than in the US. Do you think this just happened independent of politics?

I asked a relevant question...how much inequity is too much? Would 80 percent of all US wealth in the hands of the top ten perrcent of the population, bring down "the system"? The "cosumer" is done. Who is left to buy all of the poorly constructed "boxes", with their "must have" granite counter tops? Look around you.....ask your fellow "realtors".....the ones who remain stranding.

Americans are cattle who do not even know yet, that they are cattle....but they are stupid and indoctrinated, not comatose. The accomplishments of the French, via their politics, are there to see, to examine. Why is wealth distributed so much more equitably in continental Europe and in Scandinavia, than in the US?

One answer...p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s. The current distribution is ridiculously inequitable, and you chalk up reaction to this ridiculousness as "wealth envy", and I chalk up your reaction as due to "programming"..... the "return" on investment of the likes of the John Olin and the Sara Scaife Foundations in all of the right wing "think tanks" that have influenced you to have a POV that the wealthiest have "earned" what they hold, and everyone else is "just lazy"....that politics and wealth distribution are not connected....should not be linked, as if saying it makes it so.

Look at the second section of the Fed SCF report in my last post. The bottom 50 perrcent of the US population own 2-1/2 percent of the assets, and are responsible:

"installment debt (46.2 percent of the total) and credit card debt (45.7
percent of total outstanding balances)"

...your response is to regard the most powerless and least wealthy as "the threatr", and to lash out at those who criticize the gross inequity, as you defend the trend that is the very threat to your own wealth accumulation....but, your not indoctrinated..,,,programmed.....and neither is Simon....posting about "drug testing" and drug abuse.....as if those he criticizes are any threat, compared to the threat to the tattered remains of the consumer society, posed by those at the top of the pyramid......

If I found myself repeating the conclusions of the "think tanks" funded by Scaife and Olin, I would wonder whether my opinions are my own or not. It never even occurs to you or to Simon to wonder. Defend the elite, rail at the "have nots", over their "lazyness" and their "envy".....sheesh....!!

 

 

 

Posted by Ed LeFevre (Curious Sort) over 10 years ago

Ed - I would recommend that you go to Venezuela and try living there for a couple of years and then come back and see how you feel.

I would also consider you a bit more credible it you weren't anonymous.

Posted by Mike Saunders (Lanier Partners) over 10 years ago

My posted information from the 2004 Federal Reserve SCF is certinly not anonymous....and, you backed my argument. You condemn quality of life in Venezuela, as you ardently cheer for the very trends that will make life in the US more like life in Venezuela. You have no answer for the question of how much wealth inequity is too much....is eighty percent in the hands of the top ten percent, too much for the system to sustain without a backlash? Isn't the current wealth inequity a compelling proof that what you believe in, is not happening? How will those with their wealth centered in their home equity in 2004, be positioned in the now delayed, 2007 SCF? The results certainly will not be released until after the election....because they ain't good for the entrenched party. What is to stop the most wealthy from buying up all of the depressed priced real estate, for a song, in the coming years? How could that happening, broaden the way wealth is distributed? The answer is...it won't.....and you have no answers or solutions....just faith....in a consumer society that won't exist as we knew it....in the coming years. Walmart for necessities.... rented apartments for residences....a country that looks like Manhattan.....wealthy class, servant class, no middle class.

You're lovin' it....with your simplistic regurgitation of the BS that the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife indoctirnate you to repeat....I'll post the results of the 2007 Fed SCF study, available after the election. Let's see what unemployment, home valuations, and wealth inequity all look like, a few months from now. None of this deterioration matches what should happen in the scenario described in your "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", dogma.....does it?

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Ed LeFevre (Curious Sort) over 10 years ago

Ed you are a socialist. You should take your information and write a blog about it. My blog was about how the feminist movement must have only been for liberal women.

Posted by Kevin Robinson, Fractional Developer over 10 years ago

I agree with you Kevin!  I find it very funny that some people here on AR are trying to portray Palin as a hillbilly just because she hunts and fishes.  Since when does hunting and fishing lower your IQ? 

They want to dismiss all of her accomplishments just because she isn't a liberal. 

Posted by Pam Pugmire, Meridian Idaho Real Estate (Silvercreek Realty Group) over 10 years ago

I think Marxist is a better title for Ed. The redistribution of wealth; the means of production in the hands of the people. He's been reading the little red book.

Posted by Simon Conway (Orlando Area Real Estate Services) over 10 years ago

Ah, the little red book. How enlightening. Marx was nuts in my estimation.

Posted by Kevin Robinson, Fractional Developer over 10 years ago

Kevin ~ I don't understand how these liberals feel free to hijack our posts, but complain that conservatives are mean spirited. Perhaps, they should stay over there in Dissent and leave the grown up talk to those who actually know what they are talking about. Marxism has failed, and they still are trying to ressurrect it here in America.

Posted by Broker Nick, Broker Nick Relocation Broker Service (South Florida Real Estate & Development, Inc.) over 10 years ago

Ed,

Probably in every town in the country, you can find a successful legal immigrant that came here and worked hard, sacrificed some things and made a great life for themselves.  Not with handouts!  Where does personal responsibility come in?  How many people are out there with big screen tv's, expensive clothing, cable(with too many channels to watch), drinking, smoking, eating out, and on and on who are getting HELP?  How many govt. employees are making too much money and not doing much?  TONS!  Why do they not take a pay cut to help everyone out?  That is all for now, I have WORK to do!

Posted by John Hersey, e-PRO Realtor (Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Homesale Realty) over 10 years ago
John ~ Good to see you back, brother. Welcome home. Get back to work so you can pay the taxes Obama's promising you.
Posted by Broker Nick, Broker Nick Relocation Broker Service (South Florida Real Estate & Development, Inc.) over 10 years ago

Come now, guys.  Be nice to Ed (AR blog-less) LeFevre... he's only asking a simple question.  All he wants to know is at what point should the government step in and squash the financial incentive for achievement.  He's ready to share with you his answer to that question, I'm sure.

He asks: how much wealth inequity is too much?

I'd be happy to answer that for him as well, as soon as he answers a few similar questions for us all:

  1. How much sports score inequity is too much? (Pick a sport - almost any sport.)
  2. How much Olympic medal inequity is too much?
  3. How much grade inequity is too much?
  4. How much health inequity is too much?
  5. How much business ownership inequity is too much?
  6. How much home-selling inequity is too much?
  7. How much loan-closing inequity is too much?

 

All Ed has to do is identify the point at which he believes the government should step in and:

  1. Take away points from winning sports teams or athletes and give those points to the losing teams.
  2. Take away medals from winning Olympians and given them to those who came in 4th, 5th, 6th, or even last place.
  3. Take away high grades from those students who studied, and give them to those students who didn't study.
  4. Take away options for living healthy lives to assure that no one is too much healthier than over-eaters, smokers, drug-abusers, couch-potatoes, and others who choose high-risk lifestyles.
  5. Take away businesses from those who have started too many and give them to those who have no training or experience.  (Didn't you read the Fed SCF Study?  On page 28 it says that the top 5% of wealthy people own almost 85% of business assets.  At what point should those assets be given to minimum-wage earners or the unemployed in order to make those businesses prosper?)
  6. Take away listings and/or buyers from highly-skilled Realtors and give them to those who sit around waiting for business to "appear."
  7. Take away borrowers from Lenders who close too many loans, and give them to Lenders who are judging FICO scores to MLB batting averages - figuring anything above a 300 is really good.

That shouldn't be too hard.  After all, athletic ability, good study skills, living according to healthy standards, business acumen, RE selling skills, and Loan-closing skills are all just "distributed," - not "earned" or "achieved" or "developed" - like wealth.  (Said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.)

Posted by David Holzmann (Holzmann & Associates) over 10 years ago

Amen David.

Posted by Kevin Robinson, Fractional Developer over 10 years ago

Either Ed was already scared away by the others, or he was merely a troll stopping by for a day.

 

Too bad he didn't stick around to answer the "relevant" questions.  Maybe he'll come back.  If so, it might prove to be entertaining.

Posted by David Holzmann (Holzmann & Associates) over 10 years ago

Ed,

I appreciate your posting as previously I did not know how much of the country's wealth was flowing to the top 1%.  The wealthy in Europe seem not to be quite as greedy as ours.  The "mouseketeers" (Nick, Kevin, Mike, Jon and Simon) prefer not to think in terms of equitable sharing of a country's wealth and think it perfectly normal for a CEO to make 354 times the wages of the average worker in his corporation.  How can that be sustainable before either (a) a revolution, or (b) the disappearance of the middle class?  They think in terms of "wealth envy" and cannot see (or prefer to ignore) what this process is doing to our American way of life.  You and I will forever be labeled as "liberals" or "socialists" by the mouseketeers.  They simply do not and will not contribute to the re-building of our economy that the next administration will need to undertake but prefer to overconsume and consider their consumtion a necessary ingredient of their freedom.  E.g., for 5% of the world population to continue to consume 25% of the oil is not sustainable.  Is that not self evident?

Posted by Bill Schwent, Santa Fe Broker (Casa Tierra Realty) over 10 years ago

Hey Kevin ~ Bill put you in the mouseketeers club. Welcome brother.

Posted by Broker Nick, Broker Nick Relocation Broker Service (South Florida Real Estate & Development, Inc.) over 10 years ago

Nick,

I have arrived.

Posted by Kevin Robinson, Fractional Developer over 10 years ago

Bill,

Since Ed doesn't appear to be around any more, but you're taking up for him, perhaps you could answer the 7 questions I asked on Sept. 9th.

 

Since you're a Realtor, I'd be most interested in your answer to question #6.

Posted by David Holzmann (Holzmann & Associates) over 10 years ago

David,

I do not think that you will get an answer to those questions from them.

Posted by Kevin Robinson, Fractional Developer over 10 years ago

David,

Since I don't agree with your premise (that all wealth should be shared equally and that talent, innovation, initiative has no value), there is no answer to your "take away" interrogatories.  The point that I make (and I suspect it's Ed's as well) is greed.  Do you honestly think a CEO is worth 354 times more than what the workers in his corportation are? 

We all think the government should stay out of our lives, but there are times when they are helpful, indeed, necessary.  How about FNMA and Freddie Mac; how about Enron; how about the loans to Chrysler back in the 80's?  How else would you have these crises handled?

And, on my final point, how do you justify our consumption of 25% of the world's oil with only 5% of the population? 

I see your neo-conservative ambitions somewhat in contradiction with your born-again Christianity. (Simon excepted, of course)

Posted by Bill Schwent, Santa Fe Broker (Casa Tierra Realty) over 10 years ago

Bill,

Inequity was Ed's terminology.  I do not believe "wealth should be shared equally"  just like I don't believe pay should be shared equally, and I didn't see Ed proposing that it should be shared completely equally either.  But he questioned how much was too much - and implied that those who earn "too much" (or as you say, "are too greedy") should be penalized, have their pay taken from them and given to those who don't earn "enough" (or who are not "greedy.")

My questions still remain unanswered.  The questions weren't "will you agree that there should be no inequality in (fill-in-the-blank) situation?"  They were, "how much inequity is too much?"

To use your terminology, and sticking to what you know most:

At what point should the houses and/or buyers of "greedy" Realtors be taken away and given to the less-"greedy" Realtors?

 

If you knew what my "ambitions" and religious views really are, you wouldn't have finished with the statement you did.  I'm not too keen on labels.  (Maybe in your zeal to label me you hadn't noticed that.)

Posted by David Holzmann (Holzmann & Associates) over 10 years ago

Participate