Good question Anne, and one that I think is an important one to ask. Obviously those at that are on the lower end of the income scale will say overall inequality matters more, while those that are at the higher end will say overall quality of life. If there was a way to effectively balance the two, we would be living in bliss. However, there isn’t, which is why policymaking has become harder and gridlock has become more common.
lucas, I understand that you want a smaller government, but it really should work together to find solutions that will benefit everyone in the long-run, not just one group over another. These policy changes will allow America to progress not to regress, which is why gridlock in Congress is so distasteful.
Not surprising that so many bills have been filibustered. At this point, it doesn’t seem like almost anyone on either side has any interest in doing anything besides staging political theater.
Yes because passing law after law is certainly the most efficient way to run a country. If you believed in small government you would have no problem with how gridlocked things are.
I don’t think that we are necessarily degrading decades of progress. It is not our fault that mutations within certain viruses or diseases are occurring. Rather, these problems allow for innovation within the scientific community to find better methods to fight against these mutations and perhaps be one step ahead the entire time!
The author believes that income inequality is more important to deal with than wealth inequality.
I would agree with that, although both wealth and income are important gauges of the distribution of “assets.”
When he states that the real inequality is in the top 1% of incomes, you know we have a significant problem of wealth distribution.
How many people, percentage wise, can be in the top 1%, or even top 10%?
Whether there is a lot of jockeying for position over the years, only one out of 10 people can be in the top 10%.
The wealth distribution (and income distribution) are pathetic reminders of how close we are to becoming a banana republic.
Don Levit
The facts are inequality is at its highest since the new deal!
What matters more: overall inequality, or overall quality of life?
At what price is adequate for that though?
Good question Anne, and one that I think is an important one to ask. Obviously those at that are on the lower end of the income scale will say overall inequality matters more, while those that are at the higher end will say overall quality of life. If there was a way to effectively balance the two, we would be living in bliss. However, there isn’t, which is why policymaking has become harder and gridlock has become more common.
I would rather bills be filibustered than passed blindly through. When government is ineffective is when it is at its best.
Absolutely. But when certain issues raise and congress bands together is the best.
lucas, I understand that you want a smaller government, but it really should work together to find solutions that will benefit everyone in the long-run, not just one group over another. These policy changes will allow America to progress not to regress, which is why gridlock in Congress is so distasteful.
Not surprising that so many bills have been filibustered. At this point, it doesn’t seem like almost anyone on either side has any interest in doing anything besides staging political theater.
Yes because passing law after law is certainly the most efficient way to run a country. If you believed in small government you would have no problem with how gridlocked things are.
The problem then leads back to the president deciding he has to use his executive privilege. Which he has done numerous teams for pointless reasons.
“Fourteen days into the crisis, Harlow performed emergency surgery, puncturing the tissue inside Gage’s nose to drain the wound.”
I am so glad I live in today’s society.
Imagine dental work and amputations back then. *Shudder*
We are close to getting like this again. As more of our antibiotics become inadequate. We are quickly degrading decades of progress.
I don’t think that we are necessarily degrading decades of progress. It is not our fault that mutations within certain viruses or diseases are occurring. Rather, these problems allow for innovation within the scientific community to find better methods to fight against these mutations and perhaps be one step ahead the entire time!
Damn Romneycare! Messing everything up
The author believes that income inequality is more important to deal with than wealth inequality.
I would agree with that, although both wealth and income are important gauges of the distribution of “assets.”
When he states that the real inequality is in the top 1% of incomes, you know we have a significant problem of wealth distribution.
How many people, percentage wise, can be in the top 1%, or even top 10%?
Whether there is a lot of jockeying for position over the years, only one out of 10 people can be in the top 10%.
The wealth distribution (and income distribution) are pathetic reminders of how close we are to becoming a banana republic.
Don Levit