The pitchforks are coming (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

 

[MC Gas Money]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

 

[msommer]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

I've bolded the bit you seem to have overlooked. HTH

And yes, I think that mercenaries don't really care who they kill or protect

 

[Politician Spock]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

They did in the revolutionary war.

When the country is made up of pro-government and anti-government countrymen, the government convinces their soldiers that they're not shooting at their own countrymen, but instead shooting at traitors to their country.

But if the revolution is successful, those "traitors" are remembered in history as "patriots" who defended their country.

Country and government are not the same thing.

 

[FlapJacks]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-power-to-kill.html?_r=0

If the Commander in chief has the authority, then it follows that those under his command can carry out the order,.

When you look at how federal authorities acted at Waco...

That said, the majority of the public remains so incredibly complacent that I just don't see it while the welfare state remains intact....Break that system and then you might see that complacency break down

 

[FlapJacks]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-power-to-kill.html?_r=0

If the Commander in chief has the authority, then it follows that those under his command can carry out the order,.

When you look at how federal authorities acted at Waco...

That said, the majority of the public remains so incredibly complacent that I just don't see it while the welfare state remains intact....Break that system and then you might see that complacency break down

 

[mr roboto]

We are also still largely a meritocracy especially regarding upward mobility from the middle class to the professional class. You can climb the ladder, excel and get promoted. Most people believe they deserve this - entitlement mentality exacerbates the growing feeling that they are not getting what they deserve. Just cause you went to college and graduated doesn't entitle you to a 65k job with full benefits. But you can have a very successful life if you are valuable.

 

[jon_mx]

.....This thread is gold

 

[MC Gas Money]

We are also still largely a meritocracy especially regarding upward mobility from the middle class to the professional class. You can climb the ladder, excel and get promoted. Most people believe they deserve this - entitlement mentality exacerbates the growing feeling that they are not getting what they deserve. Just cause you went to college and graduated doesn't entitle you to a 65k job with full benefits. But you can have a very successful life if you are valuable.

I dont think its as much a meritocrocy as you say. Thr real key to success is to be born rich and/or know the right people. Upward mobility does exist for a huge part of the country.

 

[MC Gas Money]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-power-to-kill.html?_r=0

If the Commander in chief has the authority, then it follows that those under his command can carry out the order,.

When you look at how federal authorities acted at Waco...

That said, the majority of the public remains so incredibly complacent that I just don't see it while the welfare state remains intact....Break that system and then you might see that complacency break down

I dont see how waco is comparable to a real revolution. It was a small conflict which the gov and media told many lies about to paint koresh and his people in a bad light.

In a real revplution much of the military probably feels the way as the people revolting and will not follow orders unquestioned against their fellow

Citizens, friends and fsmily

 

[MC Gas Money]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

They did in the revolutionary war.

When the country is made up of pro-government and anti-government countrymen, the government convinces their soldiers that they're not shooting at their own countrymen, but instead shooting at traitors to their country.

But if the revolution is successful, those "traitors" are remembered in history as "patriots" who defended their country.

Country and government are not the same thing.

Tje revolutionary war was against a foreign power. I dont see how it compares to an internal uprising

 

[Politician Spock]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

They did in the revolutionary war.

When the country is made up of pro-government and anti-government countrymen, the government convinces their soldiers that they're not shooting at their own countrymen, but instead shooting at traitors to their country.

But if the revolution is successful, those "traitors" are remembered in history as "patriots" who defended their country.

Country and government are not the same thing.

Tje revolutionary war was against a foreign power. I dont see how it compares to an internal uprising

Define what you mean by "foreign".

There were many people here at that time that had no problem with the government existing across the ocean, much like most people in Hawaii have no problem being in the same situation today. The federal government being in Washington DC isn't a "foreign" power to Alaska either.

So please help understand how the government on July 3rd, 1776 was a "foreign" power?

 

[MC Gas Money]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

They did in the revolutionary war.

When the country is made up of pro-government and anti-government countrymen, the government convinces their soldiers that they're not shooting at their own countrymen, but instead shooting at traitors to their country.

But if the revolution is successful, those "traitors" are remembered in history as "patriots" who defended their country.

Country and government are not the same thing.

Tje revolutionary war was against a foreign power. I dont see how it compares to an internal uprising

Define what you mean by "foreign".

There were many people here at that time that had no problem with the government existing across the ocean, much like most people in Hawaii have no problem being in the same situation today. The federal government being in Washington DC isn't a "foreign" power to Alaska either.

So please help understand how the government on July 3rd, 1776 was a "foreign" power?

Hawaai is not a colony and is granted the same rights and privelages as every other state. The british were a foreign country governing the american colonies and did not treat them as anything but a source of income and not an equal part of their empire.

 

[Politician Spock]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

They did in the revolutionary war.

When the country is made up of pro-government and anti-government countrymen, the government convinces their soldiers that they're not shooting at their own countrymen, but instead shooting at traitors to their country.

But if the revolution is successful, those "traitors" are remembered in history as "patriots" who defended their country.

Country and government are not the same thing.

Tje revolutionary war was against a foreign power. I dont see how it compares to an internal uprising

Define what you mean by "foreign".

There were many people here at that time that had no problem with the government existing across the ocean, much like most people in Hawaii have no problem being in the same situation today. The federal government being in Washington DC isn't a "foreign" power to Alaska either.

So please help understand how the government on July 3rd, 1776 was a "foreign" power?

Hawaai is not a colony and is granted the same rights and privelages as every other state. The british were a foreign country governing the american colonies and did not treat them as anything but a source of income and not an equal part of their empire.

One could argue that the state government/federal government relationship is essentially the colony/British government relationship that existed before, except that the Consitution limits what the federal government can do. Or at least it used to.

 

[MC Gas Money]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

They did in the revolutionary war.

When the country is made up of pro-government and anti-government countrymen, the government convinces their soldiers that they're not shooting at their own countrymen, but instead shooting at traitors to their country.

But if the revolution is successful, those "traitors" are remembered in history as "patriots" who defended their country.

Country and government are not the same thing.

Tje revolutionary war was against a foreign power. I dont see how it compares to an internal uprising

Define what you mean by "foreign".

There were many people here at that time that had no problem with the government existing across the ocean, much like most people in Hawaii have no problem being in the same situation today. The federal government being in Washington DC isn't a "foreign" power to Alaska either.

So please help understand how the government on July 3rd, 1776 was a "foreign" power?

Hawaai is not a colony and is granted the same rights and privelages as every other state. The british were a foreign country governing the american colonies and did not treat them as anything but a source of income and not an equal part of their empire.

One could argue that the state government/federal government relationship is essentially the colony/British government relationship that existed before, except that the Consitution limits what the federal government can do. Or at least it used to.

In some ways they do despite the constitution. The feferal abuses are more geared toward the citizens and not the smaller state governments. A revolution today would not include the local governments, they would be considered the tentacles of the larger evil fed where as during the revolutionary war they were part of the uprising along with the average people

 

[timschochet]

Politician Spock is right (can't believe I just wrote that!)

The American Revolution wasn't much of a revolution as compared to those of France, Russia, or Iran. The nature of the American way of life did not fundamentally change: prior to the revolution, this was a market based economy which recognized individual rights (for white man).

 

[Politician Spock]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

They did in the revolutionary war.

When the country is made up of pro-government and anti-government countrymen, the government convinces their soldiers that they're not shooting at their own countrymen, but instead shooting at traitors to their country.

But if the revolution is successful, those "traitors" are remembered in history as "patriots" who defended their country.

Country and government are not the same thing.

Tje revolutionary war was against a foreign power. I dont see how it compares to an internal uprising

Define what you mean by "foreign".

There were many people here at that time that had no problem with the government existing across the ocean, much like most people in Hawaii have no problem being in the same situation today. The federal government being in Washington DC isn't a "foreign" power to Alaska either.

So please help understand how the government on July 3rd, 1776 was a "foreign" power?

Hawaai is not a colony and is granted the same rights and privelages as every other state. The british were a foreign country governing the american colonies and did not treat them as anything but a source of income and not an equal part of their empire.

One could argue that the state government/federal government relationship is essentially the colony/British government relationship that existed before, except that the Consitution limits what the federal government can do. Or at least it used to.

In some ways they do despite the constitution. The feferal abuses are more geared toward the citizens and not the smaller state governments. A revolution today would not include the local governments, they would be considered the tentacles of the larger evil fed where as during the revolutionary war they were part of the uprising along with the average people

Whether or not the local governments would be involved in a revolution to come, has nothing to do with your position that the government in place on July 3rd, 1776 was a "foreign" one.

When the figting started, neighbors were shooting at neighbors. The one's still loyal to the government were convinced they were shooting at traitors.

 

[Guest]

This would be possible to solve. Analyze the optimal logarithmic curve for income distribution across the population. Enforce policies that maintain it within +\-, rooting the policies in healthy incentives that reward higher education, accomplishment and career advancement. On the high end if the scale, most of the hoarded wealth could be redistributed with reform of inheritance and trust laws. This could all be done without it being socialist. If I'm the son of a billionaire, do something crazy like cap my inheritance at a quarter billion. The precise mechanisms are not the point. The point is that that curve matters to preserve an equitable economy and the means of distribution should to an extend recognize the luck of massive success, dissuade laziness and mediocrity and motivate trying.

Yeah, not socialism at all. More like full fledged communism.

I couldn't disagree more. I believe it should be recognized that there exists a metric for the healthy distribution of wealth across a Capitalist economy, such that it works to protect those who are industrious and hard working across the spectrum. You don't contribute in the model I suggest, you don't participate. There happens to be a proven tendency for wealth to be aggregated at the top because of inherent advantages and influence.

Maintaining regulations that assure a distribution of wealth according to sound economic principles simply makes sense... And ensuring that wealth is granted according to contribution is the opposite of communist.

The fact is, the ability to succeed according to quality of your work ethic and industriousness is an illusion for many, and my system would work to restore a dream whereby one can climb according to quality.

As the author of the article rightly points out - consumers are needed to maintain a healthy Capitalist economy. When you kill the middle class, you create something closer to Feudalism (a much more historically natural state than Capitalism, which is an anomaly). Feudalism requires a system closer to Fascism than Democracy or a Republic to maintain. And lo and behold, what has been happening rapidly the past 14 years or so?

 

[Mister CIA]

Will we get pitchforks there or do we have to bring our own?

Stay tuned for emerging pitchfork sharing programs in a city near you.

 

[MC Gas Money]

The 0.01% would just pay some of the 99.99% with military training to be their private armies - thus redistributing the wealth beyond the 0.01%'s children and giving a finite length to their 'reign'

Do you really think american soldiers would kill their own countryman?

They did in the revolutionary war.

When the country is made up of pro-government and anti-government countrymen, the government convinces their soldiers that they're not shooting at their own countrymen, but instead shooting at traitors to their country.

But if the revolution is successful, those "traitors" are remembered in history as "patriots" who defended their country.

Country and government are not the same thing.

Tje revolutionary war was against a foreign power. I dont see how it compares to an internal uprising

Define what you mean by "foreign".

There were many people here at that time that had no problem with the government existing across the ocean, much like most people in Hawaii have no problem being in the same situation today. The federal government being in Washington DC isn't a "foreign" power to Alaska either.

So please help understand how the government on July 3rd, 1776 was a "foreign" power?

Hawaai is not a colony and is granted the same rights and privelages as every other state. The british were a foreign country governing the american colonies and did not treat them as anything but a source of income and not an equal part of their empire.

One could argue that the state government/federal government relationship is essentially the colony/British government relationship that existed before, except that the Consitution limits what the federal government can do. Or at least it used to.

In some ways they do despite the constitution. The feferal abuses are more geared toward the citizens and not the smaller state governments. A revolution today would not include the local governments, they would be considered the tentacles of the larger evil fed where as during the revolutionary war they were part of the uprising along with the average people

Whether or not the local governments would be involved in a revolution to come, has nothing to do with your position that the government in place on July 3rd, 1776 was a "foreign" one.

When the figting started, neighbors were shooting at neighbors. The one's still loyal to the government were convinced they were shooting at traitors.

I believe that now that most americans are united by the same feelings of being tread upon.

The british government over the colonies was very much foreign. Taxation without representation. The revolting colonists did not feel like an equal part of the british empire and despite a common language and culture to them they felt they were governed by a foreign monarchy.

Yes there were loyalists. There will always be loyalists no matter how corrupt their government is because people fear such a radical change in their way of life as well as many being subjected to brainwashinh by propaganda from a young age.

Even the worst dictators in history had citizens loyal to them no matter how badly they treated them.

Were an internal american revolution to take plwce today there would be a schism in the military. There are many disgruntled soldiers even up tp the officer corps. Not to mention there are generals who would take the nation wide anarchy as an oppurtunity to stage a coup de tat.

Battle lines will be drawn within the military and citizen population. The soldiers will have a much larger picture to consider than a small incident like waco, ruby ridge or kent state since a larhe conflict will have implications for their future where as the small incidents didnt.

 

[Politician Spock]

I believe that now that most americans are united by the same feelings of being tread upon.

I completely disagree. In this economic "recovery" from 2008, those with wealth have benefited greatly. Just read through the threads discussing the economy, stocks, etc... on this forum. People here have made a ####load of wealth over that time. They don't feel tread upon at all.

On the other hand, those in America that don't own investment assets, such as stocks and real estate, haven't benefited much at all by the recovery. All the money printing of QE after QE after QE has not trickled down to them any more than tax breaks for the rich trickles down to them. Their middle class jobs are not coming back, and the future doesn't look good to them.

As such, we have two very different experiences occuring in America right now. Those who are benefiting greatly, and want it to continue in this direction, and those that are getting nothing but heartache and disappointment from this direction.

The british government over the colonies was very much foreign. Taxation without representation. The revolting colonists did not feel like an equal part of the british empire and despite a common language and culture to them they felt they were governed by a foreign monarchy.

Only some felt that way towards the government. others were loyal, and it wasn't "foreign" to them at all, using any definition of "foreign" you want.

Yes there were loyalists. There will always be loyalists no matter how corrupt their government is because people fear such a radical change in their way of life as well as many being subjected to brainwashinh by propaganda from a young age.

You were correct, up until you said "because". Some probably did fear change. But others were successful in the existing form of government. So successful they were willing to shoot at the traitors.

Even the worst dictators in history had citizens loyal to them no matter how badly they treated them.

People who live well tend to be loyal. Tyrants and dictators don't treat everyone like crap. They surround themselves with people who happily drink the milk from their teats.

Were an internal american revolution to take plwce today there would be a schism in the military. There are many disgruntled soldiers even up tp the officer corps. Not to mention there are generals who would take the nation wide anarchy as an oppurtunity to stage a coup de tat.

I agree. This however doesn't explain why those soldiers who don't feel led to believe the government is wrong, wouldn't fire at Americans who they believe are traitors.

Battle lines will be drawn within the military and citizen population. The soldiers will have a much larger picture to consider than a small incident like waco, ruby ridge or kent state since a larhe conflict will have implications for their future where as the small incidents didnt.

This is pretty much my point. Not only is the population dividing as we speak, but if revolution were to occur, the military would fracture as well. Countrymen will shoot at countrymen.

 

[MC Gas Money]

I believe that now that most americans are united by the same feelings of being tread upon.

I completely disagree. In this economic "recovery" from 2008, those with wealth have benefited greatly. Just read through the threads discussing the economy, stocks, etc... on this forum. People here have made a ####load of wealth over that time. They don't feel tread upon at all.On the other hand, those in America that don't own investment assets, such as stocks and real estate, haven't benefited much at all by the recovery. All the money printing of QE after QE after QE has not trickled down to them any more than tax breaks for the rich trickles down to them. Their middle class jobs are not coming back, and the future doesn't look good to them.

As such, we have two very different experiences occuring in America right now. Those who are benefiting greatly, and want it to continue in this direction, and those that are getting nothing but heartache and disappointment from this direction.

The british government over the colonies was very much foreign. Taxation without representation. The revolting colonists did not feel like an equal part of the british empire and despite a common language and culture to them they felt they were governed by a foreign monarchy.

Only some felt that way towards the government. others were loyal, and it wasn't "foreign" to them at all, using any definition of "foreign" you want.

Yes there were loyalists. There will always be loyalists no matter how corrupt their government is because people fear such a radical change in their way of life as well as many being subjected to brainwashinh by propaganda from a young age.

You were correct, up until you said "because". Some probably did fear change. But others were successful in the existing form of government. So successful they were willing to shoot at the traitors.

Even the worst dictators in history had citizens loyal to them no matter how badly they treated them.

People who live well tend to be loyal. Tyrants and dictators don't treat everyone like crap. They surround themselves with people who happily drink the milk from their teats.

Were an internal american revolution to take plwce today there would be a schism in the military. There are many disgruntled soldiers even up tp the officer corps. Not to mention there are generals who would take the nation wide anarchy as an oppurtunity to stage a coup de tat.

I agree. This however doesn't explain why those soldiers who don't feel led to believe the government is wrong, wouldn't fire at Americans who they believe are traitors.

Battle lines will be drawn within the military and citizen population. The soldiers will have a much larger picture to consider than a small incident like waco, ruby ridge or kent state since a larhe conflict will have implications for their future where as the small incidents didnt.

This is pretty much my point. Not only is the population dividing as we speak, but if revolution were to occur, the military would fracture as well. Countrymen will shoot at countrymen.

What im tryimg to get at is that it wont be the military against the people but that some of the military will fight alongside the people.

And I feel that now the loyalists will be much fewer than the rebels as this country hss been sliding in the gutter for somr time. Even those who are better off than most are very unhappy and everyone besides the upper crust is seeing their quality of life diminish.

 

[timschochet]

You guys are dreaming. There will not be any kind of serious uprising in our lifetimes, or probably ever. Trouble? Sure. Populist candidates being elected on both sides? Of course and I hate that. But the kind of thing you're talking about here? Forget it, a total pipe dream.

 

[MC Gas Money]

Revolution is not something people dream about. It only happens out of neccessity and people will try to change things any way they can before resorting to that.

If the powers that be dont let the scales even out soon there will be at least significant civil unrest in some places. They know its coming which is why they are building detention across the country, bringing in a fleet of drones to patrol the skies and spying on any and all communication that they can.

The writing is on the wall and those in power are monitoring the situation. They have more data to go on than anyone and their preperation confirm that. Things cant continue on this downward spiral no matter how much bread and circuses they feed the masses.

The people will eventually reach their boiling point and once a major incident occurs it will spread. Revolution is a dangerous prospect that nobody wants to have to do, but people also want change.

 

[DiStefano]

You guys are dreaming. There will not be any kind of serious uprising in our lifetimes, or probably ever. Trouble? Sure. Populist candidates being elected on both sides? Of course and I hate that. But the kind of thing you're talking about here? Forget it, a total pipe dream.

The discontent is mostly in the middle classes. The lower class people are doing ok with bread and circus. But the middle classes are generally not revolutionary, except for the intellectuals who want to replace those in power with themselves.

 

[Politician Spock]

I believe that now that most americans are united by the same feelings of being tread upon.

I completely disagree. In this economic "recovery" from 2008, those with wealth have benefited greatly. Just read through the threads discussing the economy, stocks, etc... on this forum. People here have made a ####load of wealth over that time. They don't feel tread upon at all.On the other hand, those in America that don't own investment assets, such as stocks and real estate, haven't benefited much at all by the recovery. All the money printing of QE after QE after QE has not trickled down to them any more than tax breaks for the rich trickles down to them. Their middle class jobs are not coming back, and the future doesn't look good to them.

As such, we have two very different experiences occuring in America right now. Those who are benefiting greatly, and want it to continue in this direction, and those that are getting nothing but heartache and disappointment from this direction.

The british government over the colonies was very much foreign. Taxation without representation. The revolting colonists did not feel like an equal part of the british empire and despite a common language and culture to them they felt they were governed by a foreign monarchy.

Only some felt that way towards the government. others were loyal, and it wasn't "foreign" to them at all, using any definition of "foreign" you want.

Yes there were loyalists. There will always be loyalists no matter how corrupt their government is because people fear such a radical change in their way of life as well as many being subjected to brainwashinh by propaganda from a young age.

You were correct, up until you said "because". Some probably did fear change. But others were successful in the existing form of government. So successful they were willing to shoot at the traitors.

Even the worst dictators in history had citizens loyal to them no matter how badly they treated them.

People who live well tend to be loyal. Tyrants and dictators don't treat everyone like crap. They surround themselves with people who happily drink the milk from their teats.

Were an internal american revolution to take plwce today there would be a schism in the military. There are many disgruntled soldiers even up tp the officer corps. Not to mention there are generals who would take the nation wide anarchy as an oppurtunity to stage a coup de tat.

I agree. This however doesn't explain why those soldiers who don't feel led to believe the government is wrong, wouldn't fire at Americans who they believe are traitors.

Battle lines will be drawn within the military and citizen population. The soldiers will have a much larger picture to consider than a small incident like waco, ruby ridge or kent state since a larhe conflict will have implications for their future where as the small incidents didnt.

This is pretty much my point. Not only is the population dividing as we speak, but if revolution were to occur, the military would fracture as well. Countrymen will shoot at countrymen.

What im tryimg to get at is that it wont be the military against the people but that some of the military will fight alongside the people.

And I feel that now the loyalists will be much fewer than the rebels as this country hss been sliding in the gutter for somr time. Even those who are better off than most are very unhappy and everyone besides the upper crust is seeing their quality of life diminish.

If it happens, the military will most certainly be against the uprising led by these people. Our government can't even stay out of other country's civil wars. You honestly think they wouldn't order them to get involved here?

As for arguing what percentage of the military would side with the revolution, no one could possibly know that. As Tim is correct in saying, one can't even know if this will happen. Historically speaking, we're headed in that direction, but it's not like it's going to start tomorrow. A lot can change as time progresses. We shouldn't ignore though that currently we are headed in that direction.

 

[DiStefano]

I believe that now that most americans are united by the same feelings of being tread upon.

I completely disagree. In this economic "recovery" from 2008, those with wealth have benefited greatly. Just read through the threads discussing the economy, stocks, etc... on this forum. People here have made a ####load of wealth over that time. They don't feel tread upon at all.On the other hand, those in America that don't own investment assets, such as stocks and real estate, haven't benefited much at all by the recovery. All the money printing of QE after QE after QE has not trickled down to them any more than tax breaks for the rich trickles down to them. Their middle class jobs are not coming back, and the future doesn't look good to them.

As such, we have two very different experiences occuring in America right now. Those who are benefiting greatly, and want it to continue in this direction, and those that are getting nothing but heartache and disappointment from this direction.

The british government over the colonies was very much foreign. Taxation without representation. The revolting colonists did not feel like an equal part of the british empire and despite a common language and culture to them they felt they were governed by a foreign monarchy.

Only some felt that way towards the government. others were loyal, and it wasn't "foreign" to them at all, using any definition of "foreign" you want.

Yes there were loyalists. There will always be loyalists no matter how corrupt their government is because people fear such a radical change in their way of life as well as many being subjected to brainwashinh by propaganda from a young age.

You were correct, up until you said "because". Some probably did fear change. But others were successful in the existing form of government. So successful they were willing to shoot at the traitors.

Even the worst dictators in history had citizens loyal to them no matter how badly they treated them.

People who live well tend to be loyal. Tyrants and dictators don't treat everyone like crap. They surround themselves with people who happily drink the milk from their teats.

Were an internal american revolution to take plwce today there would be a schism in the military. There are many disgruntled soldiers even up tp the officer corps. Not to mention there are generals who would take the nation wide anarchy as an oppurtunity to stage a coup de tat.

I agree. This however doesn't explain why those soldiers who don't feel led to believe the government is wrong, wouldn't fire at Americans who they believe are traitors.

Battle lines will be drawn within the military and citizen population. The soldiers will have a much larger picture to consider than a small incident like waco, ruby ridge or kent state since a larhe conflict will have implications for their future where as the small incidents didnt.

This is pretty much my point. Not only is the population dividing as we speak, but if revolution were to occur, the military would fracture as well. Countrymen will shoot at countrymen.

What im tryimg to get at is that it wont be the military against the people but that some of the military will fight alongside the people.

And I feel that now the loyalists will be much fewer than the rebels as this country hss been sliding in the gutter for somr time. Even those who are better off than most are very unhappy and everyone besides the upper crust is seeing their quality of life diminish.

If it happens, the military will most certainly be against the uprising led by these people. Our government can't even stay out of other country's civil wars. You honestly think they wouldn't order them to get involved here?

As for arguing what percentage of the military would side with the revolution, no one could possibly know that. As Tim is correct in saying, one can't even know if this will happen. Historically speaking, we're headed in that direction, but it's not like it's going to start tomorrow. A lot can change as time progresses. We shouldn't ignore though that currently we are headed in that direction.

You keep ignoring the lessons of history.

 

[MC Gas Money]

I believe that now that most americans are united by the same feelings of being tread upon.

I completely disagree. In this economic "recovery" from 2008, those with wealth have benefited greatly. Just read through the threads discussing the economy, stocks, etc... on this forum. People here have made a ####load of wealth over that time. They don't feel tread upon at all.On the other hand, those in America that don't own investment assets, such as stocks and real estate, haven't benefited much at all by the recovery. All the money printing of QE after QE after QE has not trickled down to them any more than tax breaks for the rich trickles down to them. Their middle class jobs are not coming back, and the future doesn't look good to them.

As such, we have two very different experiences occuring in America right now. Those who are benefiting greatly, and want it to continue in this direction, and those that are getting nothing but heartache and disappointment from this direction.

The british government over the colonies was very much foreign. Taxation without representation. The revolting colonists did not feel like an equal part of the british empire and despite a common language and culture to them they felt they were governed by a foreign monarchy.

Only some felt that way towards the government. others were loyal, and it wasn't "foreign" to them at all, using any definition of "foreign" you want.

Yes there were loyalists. There will always be loyalists no matter how corrupt their government is because people fear such a radical change in their way of life as well as many being subjected to brainwashinh by propaganda from a young age.

You were correct, up until you said "because". Some probably did fear change. But others were successful in the existing form of government. So successful they were willing to shoot at the traitors.

Even the worst dictators in history had citizens loyal to them no matter how badly they treated them.

People who live well tend to be loyal. Tyrants and dictators don't treat everyone like crap. They surround themselves with people who happily drink the milk from their teats.

Were an internal american revolution to take plwce today there would be a schism in the military. There are many disgruntled soldiers even up tp the officer corps. Not to mention there are generals who would take the nation wide anarchy as an oppurtunity to stage a coup de tat.

I agree. This however doesn't explain why those soldiers who don't feel led to believe the government is wrong, wouldn't fire at Americans who they believe are traitors.

Battle lines will be drawn within the military and citizen population. The soldiers will have a much larger picture to consider than a small incident like waco, ruby ridge or kent state since a larhe conflict will have implications for their future where as the small incidents didnt.

This is pretty much my point. Not only is the population dividing as we speak, but if revolution were to occur, the military would fracture as well. Countrymen will shoot at countrymen.

What im tryimg to get at is that it wont be the military against the people but that some of the military will fight alongside the people.And I feel that now the loyalists will be much fewer than the rebels as this country hss been sliding in the gutter for somr time. Even those who are better off than most are very unhappy and everyone besides the upper crust is seeing their quality of life diminish.

If it happens, the military will most certainly be against the uprising led by these people. Our government can't even stay out of other country's civil wars. You honestly think they wouldn't order them to get involved here?As for arguing what percentage of the military would side with the revolution, no one could possibly know that. As Tim is correct in saying, one can't even know if this will happen. Historically speaking, we're headed in that direction, but it's not like it's going to start tomorrow. A lot can change as time progresses. We shouldn't ignore though that currently we are headed in that direction.

You dont think soldiers woulf have a problem dropping bombs in populated areas where they may have family and friends? Areas with tons of american children?

If the gov resorted to those tactics much of tje military would mutiny. If they stuck to tactics that didnt require mass destruction it would seriously limit their ability to combat an uprising.

Soldiers may be dropping bombs on children in the middle east but it being such a radically different culture it is easier for them to not think of arabs as humand and seperate their emotions from the situation

It will be much harder for them to keep their emotions under control on amerivan soil

 

[timschochet]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

 

[MC Gas Money]

You guys are dreaming. There will not be any kind of serious uprising in our lifetimes, or probably ever. Trouble? Sure. Populist candidates being elected on both sides? Of course and I hate that. But the kind of thing you're talking about here? Forget it, a total pipe dream.

The discontent is mostly in the middle classes. The lower class people are doing ok with bread and circus. But the middle classes are generally not revolutionary, except for the intellectuals who want to replace those in power with themselves.

As someone who is in the absolute lowest class in this country and interacts with others living in that plight I can tell you they are not very happy with the bread and circuses, they just feel hopeless and powerless to have an impact.

But if the right spark set off the powderkeg they will be a truly crazy and aggressive foe to deal with.

Imagine the poverty stricken population of DC and other nearby cities taking over washington en masse

The military would be powerless to stop them. They wont bomb the capital

 

[MC Gas Money]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

Completely different generation of people who were accustomed to hardship.

People are much quicker to anger now.

 

[timschochet]

You guys are dreaming. There will not be any kind of serious uprising in our lifetimes, or probably ever. Trouble? Sure. Populist candidates being elected on both sides? Of course and I hate that. But the kind of thing you're talking about here? Forget it, a total pipe dream.

The discontent is mostly in the middle classes. The lower class people are doing ok with bread and circus. But the middle classes are generally not revolutionary, except for the intellectuals who want to replace those in power with themselves.

As someone who is in the absolute lowest class in this country and interacts with others living in that plight I can tell you they are not very happy with the bread and circuses, they just feel hopeless and powerless to have an impact.But if the right spark set off the powderkeg they will be a truly crazy and aggressive foe to deal with.

Imagine the poverty stricken population of DC and other nearby cities taking over washington en masse

The military would be powerless to stop them. They wont bomb the capital

Again, you're dreaming. In fact, a group of poverty stricken people did try to occupy Washington once. They were called the Bonus Army. You might want to look them up on Wiki and see whether or not the army was ineffective.

 

[Politician Spock]

You dont think soldiers woulf have a problem dropping bombs in populated areas where they may have family and friends? Areas with tons of american children?

This is a red herring. We don't fight wars that way in other countries.

If the gov resorted to those tactics much of tje military would mutiny.

It's a good thing that's not how wars are fought.

If they stuck to tactics that didnt require mass destruction it would seriously limit their ability to combat an uprising.

Mass destruction in wars occurs when the strategy is to take out the nation's infrastructure. It would be very unlikely that an uprising would be being fed by an infrastructure. It would be more likely guerrilla warfare.

Soldiers may be dropping bombs on children in the middle east but it being such a radically different culture it is easier for them to not think of arabs as humand and seperate their emotions from the situation

And I'm sure they say "damn, missed the kid" when they miss.

Hate to break it to you, but our military actually does try its best to avoid civilian casualties, despite what Alex Jones tells you to believe.

It will be much harder for them to keep their emotions under control on amerivan soil

Some will go AWOL. I don't deny that. You seem to be denying that some won't, and will shoot at Americans deemed traitors.

 

[timschochet]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

Completely different generation of people who were accustomed to hardship.People are much quicker to anger now.

Your last statement is absolutely, demonstrably false. Have you studied American history at all? Because if you had you would never have written such a statement. We were a much more violent society then than we are now.

 

[Politician Spock]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

The depression sucked for everyone. They all wanted changed. FDR gave change to them.

They didn't have this situation we are in now where one half the population is getting better and wants to continue in that direction, and the other half of the population is getting worse and wants change. The divide is heating a tension that continues to get hotter each year here.

 

[timschochet]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

The depression sucked for everyone. They all wanted changed. FDR gave change to them.They didn't have this situation we are in now where one half the population is getting better and wants to continue in that direction, and the other half of the population is getting worse and wants change. The divide is heating a tension that continues to get hotter each year here.

Whether or not you're right (and FWIW I disagree with you,) the rhetoric back then is the same as now. Do you think the poor back then realized that the upper classes were suffering among with them? Of course not( they blamed all of their miseries on the wealthy.

 

[DiStefano]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

The depression sucked for everyone. They all wanted changed. FDR gave change to them.They didn't have this situation we are in now where one half the population is getting better and wants to continue in that direction, and the other half of the population is getting worse and wants change. The divide is heating a tension that continues to get hotter each year here.

Whether or not you're right (and FWIW I disagree with you,) the rhetoric back then is the same as now. Do you think the poor back then realized that the upper classes were suffering among with them? Of course not( they blamed all of their miseries on the wealthy.

As long as people aren't starving, and their children aren't starving, they may be complaining but they won't mount a revolution. Look at Greece and Spain, with 25% unemployment and the unemployment rate among the youth at 50%. But they aren't starving.

People are so ignorant of history and so ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the world.

 

[5Rings]

This would be possible to solve. Analyze the optimal logarithmic curve for income distribution across the population. Enforce policies that maintain it within +\-, rooting the policies in healthy incentives that reward higher education, accomplishment and career advancement. On the high end if the scale, most of the hoarded wealth could be redistributed with reform of inheritance and trust laws. This could all be done without it being socialist. If I'm the son of a billionaire, do something crazy like cap my inheritance at a quarter billion. The precise mechanisms are not the point. The point is that that curve matters to preserve an equitable economy and the means of distribution should to an extend recognize the luck of massive success, dissuade laziness and mediocrity and motivate trying.

Good plan, nothing dissuades my laziness like killing my drive to collect as much wealth as possible to take care of my children by not letting me take care of them financially.And as far as punishing the lucky can we just not pay out lottery winnings?

I am giving you some buy in for the attempt to motivate people to try, but will their be some

incentive to actually succeed or is it everyone gets a trophy day? you know cause they tried.

You make a reasoned point. No one would get out of bed anymore if they could only leave a quarter billion per kid.And to speak to the luck of business, let's take Michael Dell. Smart guy. Was in the right place at the right time, historically. Creates a company with a business model that ensures, partially anyway, that there can be no other Michael Dells in that space. (Dell exerted economic pressure that killed the market inefficiency he exploited). He's worth 16 billion. Well earned. But his success was all about timing. I have little doubt he'd have been successful regardless, but the fact he made more than 10 million in his life is a total outlier.

Meh...that's the attitude of nouvea riche and first generation higher upper class people just looking for enough money to retire comfortably early. They're less driven than the actual movers and shakers. Real money gets out of bed just to make the money...be it their first dollar or their fifth billion. Don't matter that they can only leave 250M to each kid.

Behind the sarcasm, that's my point. If we were to limit the amount that the uber rich could bequeath to future generations to an enormous, but not obsene amount, the remainder could be redistributed. The key in my way of thinking is not to merely redistribute, but to tie how the money is distributed to functional, healthy incentives - like holding that second job, getting an advanced degree with a high GPA, starting a profitable business, getting certification in a trade. Essentially, you incent behavior that advances the nation, while refusing steadfastly to rewarding the 20% that will always refuse to contribute much.

The insight is that you have to work the problem from both ends, addressing both the tilted playing field and the incentives for contributing (or not) to the economy. Our polarized two party system has gridlocked into a false idea that it's either or.

In the middle, there needs to be math. There is an empirical model for how wealth should be distributed in a healthy system. I don't pretend to know what the ideal logarithmic curve looks like, but I believe that identifying it and maintaining controls on it would have a positive effect on the entire economy, while baking fairness into the system.

Why in the world should we redistribute? This is a capitalistic not socialistic society, you aren't entitled to ####. Come earn it.Th American Dream is not dead; we just have a generation that thinks they are entitled to it without the hard work, sacrifice, and risk.

 

[Politician Spock]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

The depression sucked for everyone. They all wanted changed. FDR gave change to them.They didn't have this situation we are in now where one half the population is getting better and wants to continue in that direction, and the other half of the population is getting worse and wants change. The divide is heating a tension that continues to get hotter each year here.

Whether or not you're right (and FWIW I disagree with you,) the rhetoric back then is the same as now. Do you think the poor back then realized that the upper classes were suffering among with them? Of course not( they blamed all of their miseries on the wealthy.

As long as people aren't starving, and their children aren't starving, they may be complaining but they won't mount a revolution. Look at Greece and Spain, with 25% unemployment and the unemployment rate among the youth at 50%. But they aren't starving.People are so ignorant of history and so ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the world.

Google: Greece Startvation

 

[Politician Spock]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

The depression sucked for everyone. They all wanted changed. FDR gave change to them.They didn't have this situation we are in now where one half the population is getting better and wants to continue in that direction, and the other half of the population is getting worse and wants change. The divide is heating a tension that continues to get hotter each year here.

Whether or not you're right (and FWIW I disagree with you,) the rhetoric back then is the same as now. Do you think the poor back then realized that the upper classes were suffering among with them? Of course not( they blamed all of their miseries on the wealthy.

Back then the wealthy weren't responding with how great things are. Look at all the postings here of people claiming "recovery", "growth", yada, yada, yada. You're one of the biggest offenders of it. Yet these people are still suffering from 2008. Nothing has gotten better for them. This is nothing like it was 6 years after 1929. Six years after 1929 it still sucked for everyone. It didn't get better until we entered WWII.

 

[DiStefano]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

The depression sucked for everyone. They all wanted changed. FDR gave change to them.They didn't have this situation we are in now where one half the population is getting better and wants to continue in that direction, and the other half of the population is getting worse and wants change. The divide is heating a tension that continues to get hotter each year here.

Whether or not you're right (and FWIW I disagree with you,) the rhetoric back then is the same as now. Do you think the poor back then realized that the upper classes were suffering among with them? Of course not( they blamed all of their miseries on the wealthy.

As long as people aren't starving, and their children aren't starving, they may be complaining but they won't mount a revolution. Look at Greece and Spain, with 25% unemployment and the unemployment rate among the youth at 50%. But they aren't starving.People are so ignorant of history and so ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the world.

Google: Greece Startvation

So if things were so bad, where was the revolution? The reality is, yes, certain people did go hungry. But they were not so desperate as to start a revolution. There has been a rise in extremist parties, but the Greek economy is starting to recover. It takes a lot of discontent to start a revolution, and the whining and complaining of the middle classes doesn't usually do it.

 

[Politician Spock]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

The depression sucked for everyone. They all wanted changed. FDR gave change to them.They didn't have this situation we are in now where one half the population is getting better and wants to continue in that direction, and the other half of the population is getting worse and wants change. The divide is heating a tension that continues to get hotter each year here.

Whether or not you're right (and FWIW I disagree with you,) the rhetoric back then is the same as now. Do you think the poor back then realized that the upper classes were suffering among with them? Of course not( they blamed all of their miseries on the wealthy.

As long as people aren't starving, and their children aren't starving, they may be complaining but they won't mount a revolution. Look at Greece and Spain, with 25% unemployment and the unemployment rate among the youth at 50%. But they aren't starving.People are so ignorant of history and so ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the world.

Google: Greece Startvation

So if things were so bad, where was the revolution? The reality is, yes, certain people did go hungry. But they were not so desperate as to start a revolution. There has been a rise in extremist parties, but the Greek economy is starting to recover. It takes a lot of discontent to start a revolution, and the whining and complaining of the middle classes doesn't usually do it.

You're the one claiming the starvation/revolution link. Tell us more.

 

[MC Gas Money]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

Completely different generation of people who were accustomed to hardship.People are much quicker to anger now.

Your last statement is absolutely, demonstrably false. Have you studied American history at all? Because if you had you would never have written such a statement. We were a much more violent society then than we are now.

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. I made no mention of the violence of society. What I said is that the depression era people were more accustomed to a simpler life and capable of handling hardship like the current generation. They were not used to any of the luxeries of technology we have now. Put this generation in that era and they would absolutely erupt with anger.

It is happening now, because of things like obamacare, that people will be losing a lot of entertainment and luxeries and that is just building up the pressure cooker. Any generation has the same propensity for violence under the right circumstances.

We all know you have a monopoly on history knowledge, but my position is based on psychology, not history

 

[MC Gas Money]

You guys are dreaming. There will not be any kind of serious uprising in our lifetimes, or probably ever. Trouble? Sure. Populist candidates being elected on both sides? Of course and I hate that. But the kind of thing you're talking about here? Forget it, a total pipe dream.

The discontent is mostly in the middle classes. The lower class people are doing ok with bread and circus. But the middle classes are generally not revolutionary, except for the intellectuals who want to replace those in power with themselves.

As someone who is in the absolute lowest class in this country and interacts with others living in that plight I can tell you they are not very happy with the bread and circuses, they just feel hopeless and powerless to have an impact.But if the right spark set off the powderkeg they will be a truly crazy and aggressive foe to deal with.

Imagine the poverty stricken population of DC and other nearby cities taking over washington en masse

The military would be powerless to stop them. They wont bomb the capital

Again, you're dreaming. In fact, a group of poverty stricken people did try to occupy Washington once. They were called the Bonus Army. You might want to look them up on Wiki and see whether or not the army was ineffective.

Once again you are bringing up something that is hardly related to whar im saying. Im talking about a large scale violent revolt, not 20k vets seeking their cash payments

You sound like a looney tune with your comparisons to my hypothetical scenario

 

[DiStefano]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

The depression sucked for everyone. They all wanted changed. FDR gave change to them.They didn't have this situation we are in now where one half the population is getting better and wants to continue in that direction, and the other half of the population is getting worse and wants change. The divide is heating a tension that continues to get hotter each year here.

Whether or not you're right (and FWIW I disagree with you,) the rhetoric back then is the same as now. Do you think the poor back then realized that the upper classes were suffering among with them? Of course not( they blamed all of their miseries on the wealthy.

As long as people aren't starving, and their children aren't starving, they may be complaining but they won't mount a revolution. Look at Greece and Spain, with 25% unemployment and the unemployment rate among the youth at 50%. But they aren't starving.People are so ignorant of history and so ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the world.

Google: Greece Startvation

So if things were so bad, where was the revolution? The reality is, yes, certain people did go hungry. But they were not so desperate as to start a revolution. There has been a rise in extremist parties, but the Greek economy is starting to recover. It takes a lot of discontent to start a revolution, and the whining and complaining of the middle classes doesn't usually do it.

You're the one claiming the starvation/revolution link. Tell us more.

France, 1789:

"These problems were all compounded by a great scarcity of food in the 1780s. A series of crop failures caused a shortage of grain, consequently raising the price of bread. Because bread was the main source of food for poor peasants, this led to starvation. Contributing to the peasant unrest were conspiracy theories that the lack of food was a deliberate plot by the nobility.[23] The two years prior to the revolution (1788–89) saw meager harvests and harsh winters, possibly because of a strong El Niño cycle [24] caused by the 1783 Laki eruption in Iceland."

Russia, 1917:

"Perhaps the main thing which led to the collapse of the Tsarist regime was the First World War. If the Tsar’s government before 1914 was weak, the war pushed it to breaking point. The war took men from the farms and food to the front, and it clogged up the railway system, so that people starved in the towns. Prices rose, and there was famine in the winter of 1916-1917. "

Those were the two most famous Revolutions which totally overthrew the established order of things. The American revolution was of a different sort.

 

[timschochet]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

The depression sucked for everyone. They all wanted changed. FDR gave change to them.They didn't have this situation we are in now where one half the population is getting better and wants to continue in that direction, and the other half of the population is getting worse and wants change. The divide is heating a tension that continues to get hotter each year here.

Whether or not you're right (and FWIW I disagree with you,) the rhetoric back then is the same as now. Do you think the poor back then realized that the upper classes were suffering among with them? Of course not( they blamed all of their miseries on the wealthy.

Back then the wealthy weren't responding with how great things are. Look at all the postings here of people claiming "recovery", "growth", yada, yada, yada. You're one of the biggest offenders of it. Yet these people are still suffering from 2008. Nothing has gotten better for them. This is nothing like it was 6 years after 1929. Six years after 1929 it still sucked for everyone. It didn't get better until we entered WWII.

Ypure wrong on both counts. Back then, the wealthy DID claim things were getting better and used words like recovery and growth all the time. Ever heard of the song "Happy Days Are Here Again"? Just like now Americans tried to stay positive. But the other way you're wrong is that back then there was 33% unemployment. We don't have anything like that now. We MAY be worse off in the long run, time will tell, but we don't have the ingredients for rebellion, nothing near it.

 

[timschochet]

DiStefano you're correct, but I think you have to throw in Iran in 1978 as well.

 

[Politician Spock]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

The depression sucked for everyone. They all wanted changed. FDR gave change to them.They didn't have this situation we are in now where one half the population is getting better and wants to continue in that direction, and the other half of the population is getting worse and wants change. The divide is heating a tension that continues to get hotter each year here.

Whether or not you're right (and FWIW I disagree with you,) the rhetoric back then is the same as now. Do you think the poor back then realized that the upper classes were suffering among with them? Of course not( they blamed all of their miseries on the wealthy.

As long as people aren't starving, and their children aren't starving, they may be complaining but they won't mount a revolution. Look at Greece and Spain, with 25% unemployment and the unemployment rate among the youth at 50%. But they aren't starving.People are so ignorant of history and so ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the world.

Google: Greece Startvation

So if things were so bad, where was the revolution? The reality is, yes, certain people did go hungry. But they were not so desperate as to start a revolution. There has been a rise in extremist parties, but the Greek economy is starting to recover. It takes a lot of discontent to start a revolution, and the whining and complaining of the middle classes doesn't usually do it.

You're the one claiming the starvation/revolution link. Tell us more.

France, 1789:"These problems were all compounded by a great scarcity of food in the 1780s. A series of crop failures caused a shortage of grain, consequently raising the price of bread. Because bread was the main source of food for poor peasants, this led to starvation. Contributing to the peasant unrest were conspiracy theories that the lack of food was a deliberate plot by the nobility.[23] The two years prior to the revolution (1788–89) saw meager harvests and harsh winters, possibly because of a strong El Niño cycle [24] caused by the 1783 Laki eruption in Iceland."

Russia, 1917:

"Perhaps the main thing which led to the collapse of the Tsarist regime was the First World War. If the Tsar’s government before 1914 was weak, the war pushed it to breaking point. The war took men from the farms and food to the front, and it clogged up the railway system, so that people starved in the towns. Prices rose, and there was famine in the winter of 1916-1917. "

Those were the two most famous Revolutions which totally overthrew the established order of things. The American revolution was of a different sort.

I still don't understand why you think that despite starvation in Greece, there won't be a revolution there.

They are already a stage deeper than us. Our people have just been protesting. Their people have already been rioting. They're at a higher risk of revolt than we are. It's a really odd example to bring up to suggest we're not at risk.

 

[NCCommish]

On the whole military killing American civilians question. That ain't happening. Unless the military has changed substantially since I was in the majority would certainly not fire on American citizens. Always a few who will do anything but they are not the majority.

 

[Politician Spock]

If there was going to be a revolution in this country it would have been in 1932, following the collapse of the banks and sheer panic, with one third of the nation unemployed. In a very real way, FDR probably saved this country from collapse.

Nowadays we have such a series of controls in place that it's unlikely that we'll face any sudden collapses like the Great Depression again: instead, when things go bad, they happen slowly in a drip drip style. That's not the stuff that uprisings are made out of.

The depression sucked for everyone. They all wanted changed. FDR gave change to them.They didn't have this situation we are in now where one half the population is getting better and wants to continue in that direction, and the other half of the population is getting worse and wants change. The divide is heating a tension that continues to get hotter each year here.

Whether or not you're right (and FWIW I disagree with you,) the rhetoric back then is the same as now. Do you think the poor back then realized that the upper classes were suffering among with them? Of course not( they blamed all of their miseries on the wealthy.

Back then the wealthy weren't responding with how great things are. Look at all the postings here of people claiming "recovery", "growth", yada, yada, yada. You're one of the biggest offenders of it. Yet these people are still suffering from 2008. Nothing has gotten better for them. This is nothing like it was 6 years after 1929. Six years after 1929 it still sucked for everyone. It didn't get better until we entered WWII.

Ypure wrong on both counts. Back then, the wealthy DID claim things were getting better and used words like recovery and growth all the time. Ever heard of the song "Happy Days Are Here Again"? Just like now Americans tried to stay positive. But the other way you're wrong is that back then there was 33% unemployment. We don't have anything like that now. We MAY be worse off in the long run, time will tell, but we don't have the ingredients for rebellion, nothing near it.

We can see from the numbers that rich were lying back then.

We can see from the numbers that today the rich are benefiting greatly from QE. Those that aren't benefiting aren't blind to this.