This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is sorely missing an "implementation" section. It needs a list of executive or legislative branch actions or attempted actions which tried to create the "ownership society". Two things that come to mind are the zero-down payment initiative and the President's unsuccessful attempts to privatize social security. I'm curious at how much of lack of regulation of the housing market had roots in policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimmer ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps included within this section could be some info on how Bush's vision of the "Ownership Society" resulted in millions of people getting sham home loans to buy houses they could not afford, and how our current economic collapse directly resulted from these very policies. You don't hear Bush talking much about this Ownership Society anymore, now that it's clear that his policies resulted in a DECREASE of home ownership. I think this is a relevant and important concept that should be added to this article. MisplacedFate1313 ( talk) 18:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the article may be currently in copyright violation. The phrase defining the ownership society appears, without attribution directly from the cato institute.
CSTAR 15:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I propose the following modification
Ownership society is a term apparently first used by George W. Bush in early 2003 and now widely used by members of his administration and supporters of his privatization programs. According to Bush's acceptance speech in the 2004 Republican National Convention,
The term appears to have been used originally by President Bush (for example in a speech February 20, 2003 in Kennesaw, Georgia) as a phrase to rally support for his tax-cut proposals (Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, Bush OKs Funding Bill for Fiscal '03, Feb 21, 2003 Scott Lindlaw). Since early 2004 Bush and his supporters describe the ownership society in much broader and more ambitious terms. The term is also used more generally to include specific policy proposals concerning education and retirement savings. According to the Cato Institute [1]
"...if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country." - President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004
"We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew, with the past cut off and the future ignored. - John Major conference speech 1991." What does this have to do with the article? - Jerryseinfeld 21:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"The sale at affordable prices of public housing to tenants". Can you sell a price? - Jerryseinfeld 21:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"and workers take full responsibility for their retirement savings and associated financial risk." You don't like that do you. It's not going to be "full" responsibility in out lifetime, and that's not near the presidents suggestion. "Associated financial risk", it's dangeours to save? Come on now. - Jerryseinfeld 21:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Have control [of decisions on]", parents control [have power over their children's], workers control [have some responsibility for the investment of] their retirement savings. What's with the brackets? Is this a quote from soneone? They don't add anything to thr meaning of the text, you don't have to explain what "control" means, and it certainly doesn't mean what's in those brackets. Parental "control" is "power", pehaps it is, does that have to be there, why is that there? To "control" the retirement savings doesnt mean "responsibility for the investment of", it simply mean that the worker have to save money. - Jerryseinfeld 23:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Large corporations found this direct ownership of small parcels of shares to be a significant administrative overhead." First of all, EVERY public company has a lot of shareholders, if you don't like it, then that's fine, it has nothing to do with this article. Secondly, the conversation is really wandering from the subject here. - Jerryseinfeld 21:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Complaints from British Gas were well-publicised. It is clear enough that (in the UK context) the large corporations had some reservations about 'share-owning democracy', as it came out of the privatisations.
Secondly, I wonder why you feel a WP article should feel so constrained as to what is mentioned.
Charles Matthews 21:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have now looked in detail at your edits. They seem to be entirely slanted, and not a reasonable reflection of the concept (rather than the narrow election slogan).
I suggest that your edits are heavy-handed, and remove context.
Charles Matthews 21:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This guy just reverted 9 edits. - Jerryseinfeld 22:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The orignial positive uplifting article ( [3]) was in a few seconds turned into a vague, negative, disordered, unfocused article. Good job. - Jerryseinfeld 22:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, WP doesn't do uplift. Try The Little Book of Political Panaceas.
And could you try to spell, to use the edit summaries, and to refrain from personal comments? No one says it is easy to write on politics here.
Charles Matthews 23:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why does years have to be links, like 2004, when a person see a year, do they want to go there and read about everything else that happened that year? What's the purpose of it? - Jerryseinfeld 23:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Both the headline "history" and "analysis" are really unnecessary in my opinion. Private ownership has ALWAYS existed. Does it have to mention people that have talked about it in the past? And analyze what "control" and "ownership" means? - Jerryseinfeld 00:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Two points.
Firstly, inclusion of a large section of the White House press release of August 9 2004 goes against the Wikipedia policy of not including original sources. It also is no help in making this page conform to NPOV.
Secondly, I am having difficulty with your failure to comprehend what this encyclopedia is and does. This article of course should link in some way to the page on ownership, and in such a way at least to make clear what the relationship with the usage on this page is. Where a word like control is used three ways in one sentence, it is also in my view quite reasonable to analyse it, and make the connection control to ownership.
Charles Matthews 06:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here is the policy page on primary sources: Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. It could be clearer, but it does make the point about not including primary documents, such as the press release or the Cato Institute quote, unless they are being analysed paragraph by paragraph.
I would say that this supports the line that has been taken by a couple of us on this talk page.
Charles Matthews 07:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also notice that parts of the original discussion record got deleted (some the deletions were probably inadvertent, since there was quite a lot of conflicting edit activity on this page). One of the deletions was to the headings (I believ rant was the term used). I will reinsert the following portion in for the record. In any case, its authenticity can be verified using the page history data:
BEGIN
Could you please provide the source of the fact sheet in the article? For instance, the ownership society proposals as detailed in blah? As it stands, it has no background whatsoever. CSTAR 23:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
END
N.B. Lumidek placed these remarks within the above area of text demarcated between the delimiters BEGIN END. I have yanked them out and replaced them here. I understand that Lumidek's insertion in this area was probably inadvertent and in good faith. CSTAR 17:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What a bunch of losers you are. I'll pray for you when your entitlement program expires. - Jerryseinfeld 19:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ownership society: the rich control society and therefore own the poor. See wage slavery
Wow, can we get any more weasel words into one article (some say, it is criticized because, etc.)? How about we focus on the idea as put forth by GWB and not extrapolate it to "proponents of this would favor..." and crap like that? Disclosure: anti-"Ownership society" libertarian. Paul 00:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I think in the 1980s Reagan used the concept of the "Ownership Society" in reference to homeowners. Socialists have for decades talked about common-ownership societies vs. private-ownership societies. Mrdthree 05:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions direct shareholding control of schools. Would this society also have workers directly own shares of workplaces? It seems unlikely but I can't find anything that says otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.249.230 ( talk) 07:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The article should mainly focus on the term "ownership society" as used by George W. Bush. It should not extrapolate this concept to other presidents and other countries without reliable sources making this connection. Most of the discussion in "Ownership and control" and "Political consequences and unexpected consequences" is original research. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 05:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is sorely missing an "implementation" section. It needs a list of executive or legislative branch actions or attempted actions which tried to create the "ownership society". Two things that come to mind are the zero-down payment initiative and the President's unsuccessful attempts to privatize social security. I'm curious at how much of lack of regulation of the housing market had roots in policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimmer ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps included within this section could be some info on how Bush's vision of the "Ownership Society" resulted in millions of people getting sham home loans to buy houses they could not afford, and how our current economic collapse directly resulted from these very policies. You don't hear Bush talking much about this Ownership Society anymore, now that it's clear that his policies resulted in a DECREASE of home ownership. I think this is a relevant and important concept that should be added to this article. MisplacedFate1313 ( talk) 18:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the article may be currently in copyright violation. The phrase defining the ownership society appears, without attribution directly from the cato institute.
CSTAR 15:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I propose the following modification
Ownership society is a term apparently first used by George W. Bush in early 2003 and now widely used by members of his administration and supporters of his privatization programs. According to Bush's acceptance speech in the 2004 Republican National Convention,
The term appears to have been used originally by President Bush (for example in a speech February 20, 2003 in Kennesaw, Georgia) as a phrase to rally support for his tax-cut proposals (Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, Bush OKs Funding Bill for Fiscal '03, Feb 21, 2003 Scott Lindlaw). Since early 2004 Bush and his supporters describe the ownership society in much broader and more ambitious terms. The term is also used more generally to include specific policy proposals concerning education and retirement savings. According to the Cato Institute [1]
"...if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country." - President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004
"We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew, with the past cut off and the future ignored. - John Major conference speech 1991." What does this have to do with the article? - Jerryseinfeld 21:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"The sale at affordable prices of public housing to tenants". Can you sell a price? - Jerryseinfeld 21:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"and workers take full responsibility for their retirement savings and associated financial risk." You don't like that do you. It's not going to be "full" responsibility in out lifetime, and that's not near the presidents suggestion. "Associated financial risk", it's dangeours to save? Come on now. - Jerryseinfeld 21:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Have control [of decisions on]", parents control [have power over their children's], workers control [have some responsibility for the investment of] their retirement savings. What's with the brackets? Is this a quote from soneone? They don't add anything to thr meaning of the text, you don't have to explain what "control" means, and it certainly doesn't mean what's in those brackets. Parental "control" is "power", pehaps it is, does that have to be there, why is that there? To "control" the retirement savings doesnt mean "responsibility for the investment of", it simply mean that the worker have to save money. - Jerryseinfeld 23:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Large corporations found this direct ownership of small parcels of shares to be a significant administrative overhead." First of all, EVERY public company has a lot of shareholders, if you don't like it, then that's fine, it has nothing to do with this article. Secondly, the conversation is really wandering from the subject here. - Jerryseinfeld 21:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Complaints from British Gas were well-publicised. It is clear enough that (in the UK context) the large corporations had some reservations about 'share-owning democracy', as it came out of the privatisations.
Secondly, I wonder why you feel a WP article should feel so constrained as to what is mentioned.
Charles Matthews 21:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have now looked in detail at your edits. They seem to be entirely slanted, and not a reasonable reflection of the concept (rather than the narrow election slogan).
I suggest that your edits are heavy-handed, and remove context.
Charles Matthews 21:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This guy just reverted 9 edits. - Jerryseinfeld 22:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The orignial positive uplifting article ( [3]) was in a few seconds turned into a vague, negative, disordered, unfocused article. Good job. - Jerryseinfeld 22:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, WP doesn't do uplift. Try The Little Book of Political Panaceas.
And could you try to spell, to use the edit summaries, and to refrain from personal comments? No one says it is easy to write on politics here.
Charles Matthews 23:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why does years have to be links, like 2004, when a person see a year, do they want to go there and read about everything else that happened that year? What's the purpose of it? - Jerryseinfeld 23:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Both the headline "history" and "analysis" are really unnecessary in my opinion. Private ownership has ALWAYS existed. Does it have to mention people that have talked about it in the past? And analyze what "control" and "ownership" means? - Jerryseinfeld 00:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Two points.
Firstly, inclusion of a large section of the White House press release of August 9 2004 goes against the Wikipedia policy of not including original sources. It also is no help in making this page conform to NPOV.
Secondly, I am having difficulty with your failure to comprehend what this encyclopedia is and does. This article of course should link in some way to the page on ownership, and in such a way at least to make clear what the relationship with the usage on this page is. Where a word like control is used three ways in one sentence, it is also in my view quite reasonable to analyse it, and make the connection control to ownership.
Charles Matthews 06:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here is the policy page on primary sources: Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. It could be clearer, but it does make the point about not including primary documents, such as the press release or the Cato Institute quote, unless they are being analysed paragraph by paragraph.
I would say that this supports the line that has been taken by a couple of us on this talk page.
Charles Matthews 07:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also notice that parts of the original discussion record got deleted (some the deletions were probably inadvertent, since there was quite a lot of conflicting edit activity on this page). One of the deletions was to the headings (I believ rant was the term used). I will reinsert the following portion in for the record. In any case, its authenticity can be verified using the page history data:
BEGIN
Could you please provide the source of the fact sheet in the article? For instance, the ownership society proposals as detailed in blah? As it stands, it has no background whatsoever. CSTAR 23:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
END
N.B. Lumidek placed these remarks within the above area of text demarcated between the delimiters BEGIN END. I have yanked them out and replaced them here. I understand that Lumidek's insertion in this area was probably inadvertent and in good faith. CSTAR 17:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What a bunch of losers you are. I'll pray for you when your entitlement program expires. - Jerryseinfeld 19:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ownership society: the rich control society and therefore own the poor. See wage slavery
Wow, can we get any more weasel words into one article (some say, it is criticized because, etc.)? How about we focus on the idea as put forth by GWB and not extrapolate it to "proponents of this would favor..." and crap like that? Disclosure: anti-"Ownership society" libertarian. Paul 00:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I think in the 1980s Reagan used the concept of the "Ownership Society" in reference to homeowners. Socialists have for decades talked about common-ownership societies vs. private-ownership societies. Mrdthree 05:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions direct shareholding control of schools. Would this society also have workers directly own shares of workplaces? It seems unlikely but I can't find anything that says otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.249.230 ( talk) 07:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The article should mainly focus on the term "ownership society" as used by George W. Bush. It should not extrapolate this concept to other presidents and other countries without reliable sources making this connection. Most of the discussion in "Ownership and control" and "Political consequences and unexpected consequences" is original research. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 05:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)