I’m an Anarchist-Socialist myself Dave, I don’t want to eliminate gov’t but I do want to get it under control and limit its power. A difficult thing indeed. The 12 Labors of Hercules would be more easily accomplished.

I don’t want gov’t to be totally powerless either and there are those who like the power they have and would never vote to rob themselves of it.

I was once a Libertarian but I found them too psychopathic in the area of dog-eat-dog. (See Ayn Rand for one of their prime examples.) If you do well in their sink-or-swim world good, but for the rest of us? We would have the right to die.

Mutual Aid of Pietr Kropotkin [his observations on evolution as well] I found to be much more in the humanist and humane area people should be in. Not the Friedman economy we still have.

Night-Gaunt,

There have been “criminal” schemes like those covered by Glass/Steagal for sure.  But Friedman’s theories are not about HOW the rich are made richer just that the effects of enriching the already rich on the overall economy.

This has normally been instantiated through regressive taxation (wherein famously Warren Buffet points out that he pays a lower effective rate of tax than his secretary) and subsidising big business (as for instance the oil industry or agri-business) while reducing welfare and education spending.

It could only loosely be termed a Ponzi scheme in that the small risk for the mega-rich is they are crippling the buying power of their consumer market.  However, globalisation separates the workforce from the consumer sector so that the effects only become a problem in “the long run”.

Besides, as we’re seeing now with Wall St bonuses during recession, if individuals can pocket big enough cheques they are effectively buffered from any negative economic conditions for generations absent a general collapse of society and the rule-of-law.  That being unthinkable, it seems there is no hesitation in making hay while the sun shines (or the rules are stacked).

DMB I believe that that Ponzi-like scheme was used in the “Roaring 20’s” before and showed to be a failure then too. M. Friedman liked the idea of it and moved to create mathematical models that gave it credibility in theory. It still failed in fact.

Failed the economy as any criminal enterprise would but was a success for those who made money off of it. Without criminal charges either!

John Hanks, August 17 at 11:45 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

The rich are not like other people.  They are sociopaths who make their money through rackets of inheritance.  They are liars, bullies, and crooks.

...................................

The rich are exactly like all other human beings, except rich….

Also the wealthier they are and the more of them in any economy the tighter the money is, the lack of circulation puts a burden on the rest of us to operate. Which it has been found that every time just a few have most of the wealth the economy will eventually crater. We are in a very similar situation to 1929 even now.

Milton Friedman’s “Trickle-Down Economics” worked mathematically in his models in the 1970’s.  In practice it has been empirically disproven for more than 30 years ... so why is it still the darling theory of the rich?

Easy!  It is a moral cover.  Most rich people (like most people in general) are good empathetic people.  They don’t like the idea that their priviledge comes at the expense of others.  Enter the theory of Trickle-Down ... See? Being rich is doing the world a favour.

The other darling idea growing amongst the rich in the U.S. over the last 20 years or so is the “Prosperity Gospel”.  Forget all that stuff about the meek inheriting the earth, helping the poor and how hard it is for a rich man to get into heaven.  A very selective reading of scripture will tell you that God wants everyone to be rich and that those who believe are only getting what they deserve.

You seem to make some false economic assumptions, DaveG. For instance, Bushs’ tax cuts for the wealthiest caused not a ripple in the economy but the six hundred dollar refunds to working families actually caused a bump.

See, those who have wealth need no additional monies to put into goods or services, they buy what they want when they want it.Thus any tax cuts simply disappear into lock boxes of various sorts.

On the other hand, when working class folks realise a tax cut that money immediately goes back into the economy, benefiting us all.

You say that the republicans want tax cuts, and they certainly do, for the privileged few. I am no fan of the democrats but ‘cash for clunkers’ worked rather well in fact. Still working, too…..

Very good ITW -

How does the old joke go?  Bill & Hillary Clinton see an old boyfriend of hers pumping gas and Bill says “Wow, if you’d married that guy you’d be married to a gas station attendant!  How different your life would have been.”  “No,” murmurs Hillary, “if I’d married him he’d have been President of the United States.”

Hmmm ... meritocracy.  That would mean that the percentage of millionnaires in Congress would be much the same as the general population.  John Yoo would be working for the mob.  Tom Delay would be hustling Native Americans as a shady real estate agent.  James Jones would own a gunshop in a shifty part of town.

The possibilities are endless.

I LOVE the idea of living in a Meritocracy.  But we don’t.

Otherwise, George W. Bush would be either on Skid Row or a minor middle manager in a cubicle somewhere, bored out of his mind.  Dick Cheney would be a VP at a company specializing in either cheap pyramid schemes or in selling insurance where it’s indicted for NEVER paying off.  Most of the Senate would be somewhere else, and Michelle Bachman would be ranting at her beauty parlor customers in Bumf***, Minnesota.

Micheal Eisner would have been out at Disney many years earlier without a nine-figure buy-out, and Ken Lay and Enron would never have happened.

If we were a meritocracy, we’d all be using WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 instead of Word and Excel.  The former 2 are far superior to the latter two and always have been.

If we were a meritocracy, MS would have been forced to produce a properly designed and constructed op system rather than this bastardization called “Windows” that, with all its permutations, continues to violate fundamental standards of good operating systems.

If we were a meritocracy, Rush Limbaugh wouldn’t be paid $50 million a year.

We have boardroom socialism, so meritocracy cannot exist in the same environment.

ardee,

Your Warren Buffet’s company, “Berkshire Hathaway”, owns $27 billions in the biggest eight banks that receievd bail-out money, mostly Goldman Sacks and Morgan Stanley and Citi Bank. Out of these $27 billion, Buffet owns personally $7 billions.  Go figure.
When the oil was $148/barrel, I remember vividly that an interviewer asked Buffet, if the price was justified by the market or it is just pure speculations. He answered that it was justified by the market.
It turned out that buffet has huge stake in oil comapnies and his company almost own a med-size oil company, besides, Goldman Sacks and the rest of the big banks were prime speculators in the oil future market!!  Again, go figure.
Believe me, I have no belief system, religious or political or of any kind. The facts are the facts and time will tell, and I hope you meet that lawyer who will explain foundations to you. I tried to explain foundations to you, but to no avail in the previos thread when the subject came up, but you wouldn’t budge and like I was talking to the wind. Do you speed read or what??!!

truedigger3, August 10 at 7:45 pm

Admit it TD you didnt bother to read the links provided, secure in your own belief system why threaten that situation.

ardee wrote:
” Buffet is giving 85% of his fortune to the Gates Foundation, not to safeguard it, which, on the face of it, sounds awfully silly, giving money away to keep it???”
____________________________________________________

If the money will grow tax free, then that doesn’t sound “awfully silly” after all.
Yes, I remember we discussed that subject before and we deadlocked.
As I said foundations law is full of loopholes and side and back doors for the benefits of the foundations’ founders.
Hopefully, you may have a friend or a relative who is a lawyer and knows about this subject and explain that to you.
That is it about foundations from me.

truedigger3, August 10 at 8:45 am #

A Foundation is a good device to shelter wealth and let it grow tax free. The laws that govern Foundations are, as usual, written by super the rich for the benefits of the super rich. It is full of loopholes and back and side doors.
There is two way street between the donor and his foundation, which translates to that money can go back and forth between the donor or his estate and his foundation.
.............................................

We have had this conversation before, TD, but I guess you need a refresher course. Buffet is giving 85% of his fortune to the Gates Foundation, not to safeguard it, which, on the face of it, sounds awfully silly, giving money away to keep it???

For those interested in a glimpse into the person that is Warren Buffet:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity2.fortune/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

Reeding in the Herald Tribune from to day, that American famelies are living in the big water ways in the south, their they are safe, well in the same paper Mister Paulsen, but he is sleeping in his own house and bed, is it posseble that something is very wrong in your country.

Do the American citizen think this is a normal situation, that working people loose everything and thiefs and liar can live their live if nothing has happened, how can we respect the USA any longer, is it stil the land of the free, or are it the free who are order about and bullyed, by the so called slaves, and their zionist masters.

For an Europeên who respect and more or less loves the American people, its a disgraceful, scandalous, situation I feel ashamed for you, how you are used and misused by your countrymaN.

MERITOCRACY has a nice sound like equitable, but one can only be impressed by the reality of inequity as portrayed in the grand scheme of things. 

In a sense we seem to be back to Kings and Lords, as we notice them helping themselves as they see fit and feeding the masses the trickle down theory or instead is it a form of Fascism without the royalty? 

In the long run things have not changed, and as one poster mentioned here or on another thread, many people may be getting their just rewards as the Royalists after the Revolution. God save the Monybags!

I hear you Truthdigger and I agree.  What I said was

“Bill Gates amassed a heap of money as a some-times cut-throat entrepreneur.  However, having done so he appears to be devoting the second half of his life to the advancement of good causes through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”  (key words “cut-throat” and “appears”)  You are right it is better than NOT having a philanthropic foundation.

There is a saying that behind every fortune there is a great crime ... perhaps that overstates it, perhaps not.

However, in Bill’s defence, his company’s software has been bought and used by a lot of people.  To me that seems like better earned money than a financial player betting for or against movement in the value of someone else’s debt.

It seems that both ardee and DBM think highly of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and their “benevolence” and the “generosity” of their “charitable” foundations.
I say to that, not too fast. Both of these characters, especially, Bill Gates, have a long history of cut-throat wheeling and dealing that is unethical and border line illegal and monopolistic.
A Foundation is a good device to shelter wealth and let it grow tax free. The laws that govern Foundations are, as usual, written by super the rich for the benefits of the super rich. It is full of loopholes and back and side doors.
There is two way street between the donor and his foundation, which translates to that money can go back and forth between the donor or his estate and his foundation.
A a very very small fraction of the money is used for REAL charitable purpose, a much bigger portion is used for political contribution, grants to foundations that promote “democracy” and “free markets” in third world countries which translate to making these countries “hospitable” to foreign capital and corporations.
Some of the money is uded to finance “think tanks” and puplications that promote “free markets”.
Yes, some few foundations donate money to promote REAL humanistic endeavors and understanding, but they are few.
Some of the money is donated to colleges to promote specific research in specific fields and sciences that mostly serve the donor business.
But most of the money just stay in the foundation tax free and large part of it can be retrieved by the donor after specified number of years.
Yes, establishing a foundation is better than nothing . But there is more to the picture than meets the eye.

Ok ... home from work, I have time to indulge myself with a couple of observations.

MERITOCRACY

Firstly, to add to my comment on WriterOnTheStorm’s excellent contribution about “meritocracy” ... if you ever have a conversation with a very rich person who believes that it is all about meritocracy, see what they think about the idea of having a genuine meritocracy. 

Universally equivalent eductation and zero inheritance.   

... Ok, that’s totally unrealistic.  How about this then:  The wealthy can give their children every advantage.  Great schools, tutors, ballet lessons ... whatever.  But, the moment they leave university after receiving their first degree they are on their own.  If people die with money it goes to charity but not to their children. 

... you know what?  That’s not realistic either because the rich don’t really believe in meritocracy.  It is only moral cover.

The same goes for “trickle down economics”.  It is long since totally disproven but provides moral cover.  Ditto the “Laffer Curve” which shows how reducing taxes on the rich increases government revenue ... it’s never happened but we’re still told that NOT reducing taxes on the rich will cost them profit (ooops ... of course what it will cost is “jobs” - never mention the “p” word in public).

WEALTH

I am no serious economist but one things seems pretty self evident.  Within the constraint of the growth rate of an economy, the distribution of wealth is a zero sum game.  That is, if an economy grows by 4% but one sector of the population has an income increase of 5% then someone ended up with less (assuming real values).

Well, over the last 30 years the incomes of the top 1% have incresed at many times the rate of economic growth every year.  Which is why the remaining 99% have for the most part experienced falling real incomes and wealth.  That is why most people have a similar or slightly improved “standard of living” than their parents (if they’re lucky) but have gotten it at the expense of crippling debt and a shift from a one-income to a two-income lifestyle.

BONUSES & FINANCE

If people are lucky enough to work in an industry that produces a lot of what other people in the economy want they may well get substantial income.  However, the finance industry (which has grown to something like 30% of the total economy measured by dollar value) has not produced what it is supposed to.  The intent of the finance market is to allocate capital where it is most effectively used.  That is, use the profit motive to connect people with money to invest with people who have businesses which will provide the best profit.

When the finance industry instead allocates those funds to itself, that is investing in financial instruments which are invested in financial companies who sell financial instruments, then there is a closed (albeit upward) spiral of wealth creation without any value creation.  That is, a “bubble”.

What is really scary is that with the economy generally depressed the “best” investments at the moment are in ... finance.  (or so the markets seem to be telling us)

So ... to sum up.  The super wealthy finance sector is richly rewarding itself for dysfunctionally extracting wealth from the rest of the economy.  Some “meritocracy”!

That is the “wealth” that “Lefties” object to.  In fact, I suspect most everyone does unless they’re on the gravy train.

Outraged, August 10 at 12:53 am
I defend only reality:

The stats you posit are incorrect int hat thoe people to whom your refer do not, not by any means, work a 40 hour week. Many put in more than 60-70 hours routinely and breaking the one hundred hour barrier is common as well.

This is not a defense of greed at all, only of fact.

Re: rfidler

Let’s just roll some numbers here.

According to this article:

“JPMorgan Chase had 1,626 employees who received a bonus of least $US1 million last year, more than any other Wall Street firm, according to the report. Goldman Sachs had 953 employees who received $US1 million or more in bonuses, while Citigroup Inc. had 738, Merrill Lynch, 696, and Morgan Stanley, 428. Bank of America had 172, while Wells Fargo had 62.”

http://business.theage.com.au/business/us-bank-bonus-report-shocking-and-appalling-20090731-e3c3.html

If one(anyone) receives a ONE MILLION DOLLAR BONUS, and this is the low-end of this particular “totem pole”, this translates as:

$1,000,000.00 divided by 2080 hrs. (an average full time wage earner at 40hrs per week) this amounts to $480.77 dollars per hour.

$480.77 dollars per hour is (in an eight-hour day) $3,846.16 dollars PER DAY!  But wait…. it gets better.

3,846.16 dollars per day translates as (assuming a five-day week) to: $19,230.80 PER WEEK! (it’s really making your $40,000 per year look like poverty…. it REALLY is, hey…. for these banksters thats only 2 weeks work (but really… it isn’t even THAT, this is their BONUS), apparently the rest of the year they can be mid, middle-class and NOT LIFT ONE FUCKIN’ FINGER the other 50 weeks out of the year, quite the scam…. huh…)

Remember now, that’s just the BONUS, (ON THE LOW SCALE!) and still…..we haven’t yet counted their actual WAGE.

If you think for one minute “lefties” are denying you a living…. you are sadly mistaken, IT IS NOT “LEFTIES” WHO DENY YOU A LIVING.  Share the Wealth, Huey Long:

“Long was a staunch opponent of the Federal Reserve Bank. Together with a group of Congressmen and Senators, Long believed the Federal Reserve’s policies to be the true cause of the Great Depression. Long made speeches denouncing the large banking houses of Morgan and Rockefeller centered in New York which owned stock in the Federal Reserve System. He believed that they controlled the monetary system to their own benefit, instead of the general public’s benefit.

The resulting funds would be used to guarantee every family a basic household grant of $5,000 and a minimum annual income of $2,000-3,000, or one-third of the average family income. Long supplemented his plan with proposals for free primary and college education, old-age pensions, veterans’ benefits, federal assistance to farmers, public works projects, and limiting the work week to thirty hours.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long

A couple of references for Huey Long:

From the U.S. Social Security Site:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hlong1.html

From HistoryMatters:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5109/

From CommonDreams:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0902-32.htm

The issue is not the money….. it’s how the money is ALLOCATED!

Re: rfidler

Your comment: “OK. I’ll take the bait. My PERSONAL idea of middle income is $40-80 (family of four).

I have no guess at all about what lefties would say.”

Well, I think you are claiming that “the lefties” are saying you don’t have a right to earn a living, and it for this reason that I continue.  I sense…. that YOU FEEL that we are in opposite corners and that “lefties” think you should live at minumum wage….!  I say this because of your comment, “If by greedy, you mean that I have managed to earn more than the minimum wage for my entire working life, and didn’t feel guilty about not giving it right back to the government, well, I guess you’re right.” 

But this is not the case, in fact… I disagree with the low side of your premise when you “took the bait”, as you called it (lol).

Your premise, “My PERSONAL idea of middle income is $40-80 (family of four).”  I cannot by any FACTUAL measure regard $40,000 annually FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR to be “middle, middle-income”.  Where would one have to live…?!  OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY…?

Now, we should at least establish what we mean by the mid-range of middle income.

I consider, middle middle-income to be those who can save for their children’s education, save for retirement, pay all their bills, have decent health insurance, live in decent neighborhoods in houses that are a measure better than what the “working stiffs” live in, live in neighborhoods where the schools ARE GOOD and these same understand they are paid by THESE PARENTS, eat out every now and again, buy clothing to suit their liking (not extravagant…but every once in a while, chic), afford entertainment occasionally (for the whole family), afford tutors or lessons (not “upper-crust” tutors or lessons) but lessons or tutors to engage their childrens’ talents, take a trip or two per year (at their own expense) and generally be good….. not greedy, but enjoy or engage the better (not the best or what we might consider the finer things) but better, better than most.

I don’t see that your $40,000 (for a family of four) is going to cut it….. I don’t see how your $60,000 would cut it….. (depends WHERE you live somewhat), I would say, that $80,000 would probably cut it… yeah, I could enamor that.  Because that IS, at the MINIMUM…. what it takes to be MIDDLE, MIDDLE-INCOME, for a family of four.  Additionally, I don’t see how ANYONE could be considered “middle middle-income” and yet HAVE TO rely upon the government for their children’s college education.  That’s bogus!

WriterOnTheStorm,

Excellent enlightening post. Thank you.

Winter on the Storm,

Agree with DBM, very good post, nice to see your posts back on TD, seems I have not seen any posts by you for awhile?

WriterOnTheStorm - Re “meritocracy”

Fantastic contribution.  This should get printed up as an article in its own right on TruthDig.  It is well worth debate.

I think that in the hey-day of the New Deal there was a smidgen more reality to the Meritocracy concept and my father’s generation honestly believed that a good education was the best thing they could do for their children.  That’s what I’m doing for my kids but I suspect that it is true that the greatest correlation with future success for this generation is not education level but the existence of a good trust fund! 

(Note how rich people can’t even just give their kids money, they have to find a tax advantage in doing so!!!)

ummm ... a bit childish FT.  Right after it seemed that Ardee and rfidler had steered this conversation away from a left-right / ad hominem direction.

For mine, I have no problem with wealth.  I have a problem with people using wealth to the detriment of their fellow human beings.  Ardee points out the examples of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.  From what I understand, Buffet is a successful long-term value investor ... just what the stock market needs (as opposed to trend-watching inside trading speculators).  Bill Gates amassed a heap of money as a some-times cut-throat entrepreneur.  However, having done so he appears to be devoting the second half of his life to the advancement of good causes through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

I couldn’t say the same for Bernie Madoff, Eric Prince, Dick Cheney, the Bush family and a host of vacuous CEO’s sitting on each other’s remuneration committees and giving each other pay equivalent to more than a year’s average pay per day.

So there is wealthy and there’s wealthy.  When the rich try to ensure that the rest of the population is wrung out with effectively regressive (or even flat) taxes I have no time for them.  NBA star Carlos Boozer was just quoted saying how tough times are and how the tax burden is killing him on his $13.5M annual salary.  I’m a basketball nut but that is a truly pathetic absence of perspective.  He should be ashamed.

The bankers claiming that they deserve their massive bonuses?  In my (IT) consulting world, it is generally the case that the company builds up a bonus pool out of which a percentage is paid in bonuses.  So, no profit no bonus; no matter the performance of the individual, there has to be money there to pay out.  The banks, however, have the money supply under their control and seem quite ok with giving themselves money which should be going into the general economy even when their organisations are losing (now taxpayer) money.

That’s the kind of wealth and sense of entitlement that has people pissed off (lefties, righties, liberals and conservatives).

Folktruther, August 9 at 2:15 pm #

Ardee, I think taking money away from the rich and class struggle IS a left-right issue, the left position being excluded from the mainstream Progressive media.
..........................................

I prefer to approach this issue from another slant. One that somewhat avoids the right wing mantras concerning the left as ‘jealous’ or ‘unwilling to work as hard as those who have made their piles of money’.

I think if we frame this as an obligation to ones nation to pay a fair share of the burden of running this country we can circumvent the criticism of those who are not wealthy themselves but are exposed only to the propaganda from the wealthy who aim to keep it all.

We must, somehow, make public that which we know to be true; that there are far too many loopholes and hidey holes for gains both gotten and illgotten.

I wish I was more able to explain my position here….but I will continue to try. For far too long the usual approach has made no headway thus I try to build a new approach.

The idea that keeps popping up like a game of wack-a-mole in this debate is that of meritocracy. Oh how the right loves that notion, or better put, how the right needs that notion. Without the idea of meritocracy, the moral arguments for vulture capitalism fall apart like a cheap erector set.

The argument says that since everyone gets exactly what they deserve based on their own good works, there is no injustice in economic inequality.  Alan De Button, in his work, “Status Anxiety”, makes the observation that before capitalism and the ascendency of meritocracy, the poor were better off, because they could put their misfortune down to the circumstances of their lowly birth. Today, with meritocracy so universally embraced, the poor have only themselves to blame.

And yet, the acceptance of the idea of meritocracy is almost inexplicable, considering that not a shred of evidence has ever been produced to prove it’s validity. A meritocracy posits that, as a rule, everyone would have exactly what they earned or deserved economically. But how does one begin to define merit? Is it just sweat? Is it talent? If it’s talent, you were born with it, right? So how is that earned? For the vast majority of the billions who inhabit this planet, the opportunity to develop a talent or even a skill is a luxury they can only imagine.

I’m sure no one reading this has to go even 2 degrees of separation to find an example of someone who worked very hard, only to see society trend away from them, or some computer application make their skills obsolete. Likewise, everyone knows someone who got lucky, or knew the right person. Even if the lucky one worked just as hard, is she/he more deserving than the others?

All of this is complicated by a psychological phenomenon known as confirmation bias. This little number ensures that most people who have success, will perceive that success as earned, wether it was or not. And sooner or later, their conviction that they’ve earned their place in the class structure will lead to the conclusion that those below them earned their place as well.

Many who have achieved success have worked hard for it. They can be said to deserve it fairly. Conversely, there are those who are less enterprising and will rightly suffer for it. But for the moral argument of meritocracy to have validity as justification for completely unfettered capitalism, two things must be axiomatic: the harder you work, the more financial rewards you have, and the less you work the less financial success will come your way. If this sounds laughably disconnected from reality to you, don’t congratulate yourself - it just means you’re capable of separating fantasy from fact.

So, is this a simple case of cognitive dissonance, or is something else going on? I stated earlier that the widespread acceptance of the idea of meritocracy is ALMOST inexplicable. But once one begins to understand how crucial this notion is to the capitalist credo, it’s easy to suspect that the “meritocracy” has been knowingly and methodically foisted upon us. In the museum of the American Psyche it has long been a cherished part of the permanent collection, but the Great American Meritocracy is a deception. It’s time to take that mummified myth off display, and stow it in the darkest corner of the basement.

Folktruther,

Your well known cat, Mousey Tongue can be the spokes person for the Fiddler Bill. Yes please start with the Fiddler Bill, then we can go to the phony homeless Bill, you know, the guys who hold up signs which say “Christian will work for food”, we see them on the street corners here. Allegedly one well known Homless Bill in our town is purported to not really be homeless and is very close to Fiddler standards, we should really make him homeless and let him live under a bridge like homeless are supposed to.

Rumors were Homeless Bill was taking in 300 dollars a day, but only worked 4 days a week, not quite 40 K or middle class Fiddler standards but now a true hardworking Republican could work another 3 days maybe overtime so then the new improved successful Homeless Bill would work hard for what he has and become a very perfect homeless person and possibly buy his own bridge (of course charge rent) and maybe have a used shopping cart lot and repair shop.

Buying bridges could be the next hot investment?

By rfidler, August 9 at 8:55 am
““What? All I asked was, if you think “everyone has the right to protect themselves,” just how would YOU protect YOURSELF? Would you call a cop, the ACLU?”“
****************************************************

Depends on the situation and what may be close at hand that could be used as a tool to defend myself.

As far as corporations taking or denying me my rights and such, that gets a bit trickier which is where this country is now and that would require the people coming up with some actionable plan to stop this theft and denying of essential services that a huge ‘distorted distribution of wealth’ would require in a nation, basically doing what Thomas Jefferson spelled out in the Declaration of Independence; ‘when the government becomes the threat to the country, it is the citizens duty to rise up and take the government back and put in order’(paraphrased).

So how would you defend yourself?

Ardee, I think taking money away from the rich and class struggle IS a left-right issue, the left position beuing excluded from the mainstream Progressive media.

Money is a power resource and if you have enough money you can buy a media corporation that largely controls the mainstream truth.  The mainstream truth is funded by advertising, driven by large corporations who demand that the mainstream truth reflect their itnerests and values.  It is the truth system that must be liberated from corporate control and made responsive to the needs of the population.

I don’t think the rich are serious about halting the enormous class inequality in the US, and pseudo-Progressive journalists cater to them. and are restricted by them.  The only way to change this is by TAKING AWAY THEIR MONEY.

Especially Fidler’s.  I am in favor of Congress passing a law taking all of Fidler’s money away from him. Maybe we could burn it and put it in a crypt to cherish when we are feeling down.  It’s true that Fidler isn’t a biooionaire, but he identifies with them, and the punking of the American population by them.  Sometimes you just have to make do with what you can get.  First Fidler, than the rich.

rfidler, August 9 at 11:06 am

I should have noted that WE ALL need to think harder on this subject. No ad hominem intended.

ardee:

I agree with everything you just said on your last post. Really.

In fact, I had an exchange with KDelphi recently in which I bemoaned the class warfare aspect of this debate and her response was, in essence, “bring it on! That’s what I live for!” So is there class warfare, should there be? Not from where I stand.

And, in fact, Outraged, no right wing wacko, asked me for numbers, a ceiling if you will, and I responded.

Let me run a rough analogy: The government is the drug dealer, and the rich are the addicts. How do you fight the drug war? Who do you bust- the pusher or the addict?

And just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m not thinking. I’m just not thinking the way you want me to. Lose the ad hominem.

All I was trying to say to ardee was that I believe there are “lefties” out there who have numbers in their minds about what constitutes “enough” and then go on to charge anyone with more than that as, ipso facto, “greedy” and neglectful of their civic duty to provide for their neighbors, a sentiment with which I disagree.
...........................

Well, rfidler,, despite trying to put a “left vs.right” spin on this issue it isnt that at all. It isnt about a number or a ceiling either. You are simply, intentionally or not, sidetracking the real kernel of this discussion into a class warfare issue.

Warren Buffet is the second wealthiest man in the world. He is also on the side of higher taxes for the wealthy. Further he is the single largest contributor to the Gates Foundation, giving more that Bill Gates himself in fact. Is Buffet one of your “lefties”?

The real importance of a discussion like this is the fact that our legislature can be and is bought by wealth, passes laws favoring the accumulation of wealth by the few. Our tax code allows most large corporations to pay little or no taxes whatsoever despite having one of the highest corporate tax structures of any industrialized nation.

The wealthy few, with exceptions as noted above, find loopholes galore to avoid paying a fair and equitable share of the cost of this democracy, and thus handicap our nation and deprive our citizens. They do this with the willing complicity of those we elect.

In addition, our largest corporations insist, again by using the power of money, to influence policy and legislation, that we maintain a defense budget all out of proportion to our needs, refuse to allow a serious discussion about the need to revamp our horrifically expensive health care industry in order to insure all and save lives.

Yet you seem more than willing to limit this debate to a question of jealousy or ceilings. Please think harder on this subject ,especially as it will quite possibly determine whether we go forward with a democracy or continue the slide to fascism.

Outraged:
OK. I’ll take the bait. My PERSONAL idea of middle income is $40-80 (family of four).

I have no guess at all about what lefties would say.

All I was trying to say to ardee was that I believe there are “lefties” out there who have numbers in their minds about what constitutes “enough” and then go on to charge anyone with more than that as, ipso facto, “greedy” and neglectful of their civic duty to provide for their neighbors, a sentiment with which I disagree.

samosamo
“Talking big like you just spotted a terrorist and want him arrested and beaten on the spot.”

What? All I asked was, if you think “everyone has the right to protect themselves,” just how would YOU protect YOURSELF? Would you call a cop, the ACLU?

ChaoticGood, thanks for the info:

Potlatch very interesting and why it was opposed by special interests and religious interests, seems a potlatch is really a form of socialism. It reminds me of something like a cross between a garage sale or barter system and hospice all wrapped up in one, and very hard to collect taxes or pass the plate?

After reading abut Potlatch, it seems the opposition to national Health Care, should be opposed to potlucks.

In case you haven’t heard:

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

Woe to the crooks and liars.  I’m all for it, expose these degenerates, tell all of America who these “advocates” against sane healthcare REALLY are.  I will.

Better yet….. for those who interrupt (and undermine) the American People’s RIGHT to representative government.

Let those who say “Me First, Me First”..... go last.

Endorse and Support Single-Payer Healthcare.  (Yes, I know this is not what Pres. Obama is pushing…. but, this is what I SUPPORT… and a majority of the voting public btw)

Re: C. Curtis Dillon

Your comment: “Government is involved in far too much today but, despite what many say here, the government’s primary responsibility is to moderate its citizen’s behavior and to assure valid and acceptable social outcomes.”

Your conjecture is interesting.  But there are many SPECIFICS to which you have not alluded.  When you say the government’s “primary responsibility is to moderate its citizen’s behavior”, I disagree.  Although there are many facets and philospophies regarding what we could enamor the government’s responsibilty to be.  In this, I would say THE PRIMARY responsibility of the government of ANY state is to protect the state.  That said, there are many stances as to EXACTLY what that means, and if we indulge the premise….. how do we achieve that which we consider relevant.

In other words, if…. as I claim, the PRIMARY responsibility of government is to protect the state, what does that mean….?  Would or does it mean keeping its people educated…?  I think it does.  Does it mean, having a protective force, i.e. armed forces….? I think it does.  Does it mean, rooting out corruption….? I think it does.  Does it mean reducing nuclear weapons…?  I think it does.  Does it mean, we stop being the “bully on the block” as far as world affairs go?  I think it does.  What does or is the true function of government if not to protect the state and its governmental constucts?  In our case this would be The Republic and our representative democracy.

That said, what are the most pressing issues and the best ways, right here, right now….. circa 2009, to attain that?

During my early to middle 20’s I lived in the four corners region of the USA.  I lived in the “white mans world” but was introduced into the native american world as well.  I have to admit that I did not appreciate the lessons of the Hopi at that time, but as I have grown older I now believe that we are
Koyaanisqatsi.  That is what many native Americans call us.  It simply means “Life out of balance”.

The mainsteam culture is a culture of consumption and death, where many Native American cultures are the opposite ones that emphasize repenishment and life.  I think everyone on this board would do well to take a moment and read about the “Potlatch”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

It shows how some people on this planet have maintained sanity while living in America.  What a change in your life a simple potlatch on your birthday would mean.  Can you imagine the consequences?

Re: rfidler

Your comment: “So many people on this website rage against wealth. So I guess, when I say that you can call me greedy for making more than the minimum wage, I guess I mean that I’ve made enough to enrage some of those people. I’m talking about “an honest wage for an honest day’s work,” not bonus checks to Wall Street bankers. Obviously, it’s a sliding scale. Many hard core truthdiggers would begrudge me making much above the minimum (hell, some would hate me for having a job at all!), some would let me get away with being middle class, but most would call me greedy if I had managed to save a million dollars.

Millions, and billions- not what I was thinking at all.

I sense that you do not want to disclose your annual income…. fair enough, I would not want to either, especially on the internet to who knows who.

How about we frame our debate in a less personal way?  Two questions:

1. What annual income would you personally say is middle income?  (In this, I do not mean upper middle or lower middle, but the mid-range)

AND:
2. What annual income (only since you are claiming we see things so “differently” than you) would you CLAIM us “supposed lefties” consider middle income?

Note: A range, would be…. I feel a better way to consider this, in other words…. BETWEEN such and such, in $10,000 increments.

A very good discussion going on here.  Nothing like a few statistics to get people started.

Maybe it is the female influence ... for anyone with a bit of time look for the updates by “Purplegirl” and “Becky”.  For a good summary of the reasonable opposition position look at “Woodcock”.

Now, I certainly disagree with “Woodcock” but I think we need more people trying to make sense of the challenge from every angle.  There is certainly logic and fact in his comment.  I think, though, that the fact that his doctor COULD just slap on a $1600 annual retainer and that the insurance company COULD decree that all the hospitals within 50 miles are not to be used are the best two examples I’ve heard of why it is nuts to leave health care in the hands of for-profit businesses ...

I’m just sayin’ ...

By truedigger3, August 8 at 7:08 pm
““It is very depressing and disspiriting to read how many average citizens who commented here instead of huffing mad against their exploiters with their fantastic wealth , priviliges, tax breaks, tax rebates and bailouts.. etc.. etc are huffing mad against the average citizens e.g themselves to have a fairer share from the economy.”“
****************************************************

I agree with you on this but just what can be done that is actionable to stop the theft and make those we elect work for the people?

I’ve written my congressional rep and senators and all I get is hot air.

I vote against them but they keep getting re-elected.

If the people weren’t so addicted to the MSM BS then their attention might just be directed to the problems but for what end?

I thought long ago that this country reached that point where Thomas Jefferson mandated in the Declaration of Independence that it was the duty of the citizens to rise up and take our government back when that government became the threat to our country, again, to what end, nothing.

I would think that the saudis starting to trade oil in euros instead of dollars or china, japan and others holding our debt would call for that debt be paid would be the catalyst but somewhere I think that won’t even warrant action to reclaim our government all because they, the military industrial congressional complex with the willing and able conservative owned and controled MSM have done it up so well that there is no way the citizens will do more than what we are doing now.

It is very depressing and disspiriting to read how many average citizens who commented here instead of huffing mad against their exploiters with their fantastic wealth , priviliges, tax breaks, tax rebates and bailouts.. etc.. etc are huffing mad against the average citizens e.g themselves to have a fairer share from the economy.
Those people, I guess, love to leave the gold mine to the super-rich and be satified by the shaft.??!!
Maybe they all think, one day in the near future, they all will be rich and enjoy the same advantage.  Keep dreaming.!!

rfidler, August 8 at 2:48 pm

I would love to respond, but there is nothing in your feigned ignorance of the truths of our economic realities worthy of intelligent response. I would bet you think yourself cute, too, sorry to disappoint, you aint.

By rfidler, August 8 at 7:41 am

Talking big like you just spotted a terrorist and want him arrested and beaten on the spot.

Look here ignorant one, you don’t know me and yet you presume to put me in a catagory of one who is a gun toten reckless and irresponsible fool, so for that I hope you have a very trying time sometime soon where you sure as hell wish you knew how to defend yourself other than relying on those ‘historians’, the police, to come pick up what is left of your miserable self.

Seeitnow,

The FIT rate for the 400 richest americans was reported on this link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5DFqImg0c7M

You will note that this rate was achieved due to Bush tax cuts which favored the very wealthy who get most of their income from investments and not from wages like us proletariats. Your FIT effective rate sounds like your income was entirely from wages with few deductions, like home mortgage and property taxes.

In the arguments over wealth and selfishness, we in the wage earning class are at a huge disadvantage since we don’t have unfettered access to a team of lobbyists and/or personally know a Congressman or high official. It’s no accident that the rich have gotten way richer and the poor poorer. The rich have control of the media which feeds us constant mis-information on the evils of increases in the minimum wage and the righteouness of trickle down Lasser curve supply side economics. Thus we are made to feel fortunate that we have such benefactors who will pay us a subsistence wage, but at least we can shop at Wal Mart. Fortunately many of us including me lived most of our working lives prior to the Reagan presidency which declared war on the middle and working classes and continued on through Bush I and II and even Clinton. During this period CEO salaries went from 40x lowest paid worker to 400x lowest paid worker, and got us to worship their celebrity status in the bargain.

Such aspersions cast on TruthDiggers! Angry at another for getting the pitiful minimum wage or even having a job in this Great Depression? What kind of misanthropes do you think we are Rfidler? Most of us, like myself barely make ends meet with $16,000 or less a year and I am single. [The invisible ones in our society.] Very few people make $105,000 a year. That is in the stratosphere to the likes of me.

My paycheck tends to go down as the cost of living, including all that isn’t counted, goes up by leaps and bounds.

I like the idea of a stipend survival wage [indexed to inflation] for all and any more you earn will get taxed as you get more. The more you get the higher the tax. The more children you have the more you are taxed. The more you give the lower the tax conversely. The fewer people the more automation and the better everyone can live. It is possible just not probable at this time.

ardee:

“it is not wealth per se that irk most folks, it is the displays of overwhelming greed and selfishness.”

I think it is precisely “wealth, per se”, that irks some people on this site. And I’m not sure what you mean by “displays” of greed and selfishness.

“There are people who think a billion dollars in personal wealth is simply not enough.”

Who are they and how does the existence of their billions adversely affect poor people? And don’t say they take from the poor to fill their own coffers, because you know that’s not true. “When you ain’t got nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose.”

“There are people, and corporations as well, that work diligently to avoid paying anything in taxes.”

Within legal limits, what on earth is wrong with THAT? Unless you lie or cheat on your return, what’s wrong with trying to keep your own money?

“I think you should rethink ones obligations to the rest of our countrymen.”

That’s not fair. Just because I disagree with the current shape of redistributionist tax policy doesn’t mean that I don’t care about the less fortunate in this country. I just think there are better ways to help them than to give MY money to the loudest lobbyists in Washington.

What you should say ....

There are more of us than there are of you.  And its getting awfully close to the time for everyone to grab pitchforks and torches and storm the castles.

As production capital becomes more efficient there is less need for basic human labor.  Surplus laborers are pushed to the margins of society, while the rentier class continue to reap the benefits of production capital.

A Guaranteed Minumum Income is granted unconditionally based on citizenship.  Citizens of Alaska and Saudi Arabia, each receive a share of the oil revenues.  A basic income guarantees each citizen the means for survival.

Elizabeth Warren, a distinguished law scholar, discusses the disappearance of the middle class in her lecture.  The real decline of the wages since WW2 have led to more families with multiple wage earners and a consequent decline in family values.  Now the middle classes are becoming a surplus as the efficiency of production capital continues to increase. The members of the rentier class are laughing all the way to the bank.

rfidler, August 8 at 7:53 am #

Outraged:

So many people on this website rage against wealth.
..................................

Many people on this, and every political forum, rage about a lot of things. I think you miss the point, whether intentional or not, in that it is not wealth per se that irk most folks, it is the displays of overwhelming greed and selfishness.

There are people who think a billion dollars in personal wealth is simply not enough. There are people who believe their own fortunes, even inherited ones, mark them as somehow above the rest of us. There are people, and corporations as well, that work diligently to avoid paying anything in taxes. I assume you read the statistics Mr. Sirota provided in his article….

You seem to attempt to brand the left, or at least those members who speak out against greed and selfishness, as jealous or misguided. I think you should rethink ones obligations to the rest of our countrymen.

Outraged:

So many people on this website rage against wealth. So I guess, when I say that you can call me greedy for making more than the minimum wage, I guess I mean that I’ve made enough to enrage some of those people. I’m talking about “an honest wage for an honest day’s work,” not bonus checks to Wall Street bankers. Obviously, it’s a sliding scale. Many hard core truthdiggers would begrudge me making much above the minimum (hell, some would hate me for having a job at all!), some would let me get away with being middle class, but most would call me greedy if I had managed to save a million dollars.

Millions, and billions- not what I was thinking at all.

samosamo: “then I say, ‘everyone has a right to protect themselves’” Welcome to the Second Amendment, you rabid gun nut you!

THE ULTRA-RICH

@ Big B, August 7 at 7:09 pm #
>The time has also come for the flat tax.
> But this will never happen in america, for we do not share the same sense of community that the rest of the civilized world has.
Amen!

> it’s sad really, that we americans CHOOSE to be selfish assholes.
Possibly, but it is the ultra-rich who are gaming the system with their lobbyists, their US MSM, their astroturfed bogus ‘opposition’ - who look _exactly_ like the outraged ‘Brooks Brothers suit’ crowd ensuring the the Florida recount be slowed down until Daddy’s Supreme Court stitch-up could take effect.

Albert Gore _won_ the 2000 election. John Kerry _won_ the 2004 election. - Gore Vidal - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjCBR-vABMc

The ultra-rich ... and their corporate welfare queen corporations - Big Oil, Wall Street, Pharmaceuticals and Agribusiness. See the last eight years and the two oil wars, the fraudulent bailout and the healthcare stitch-up on drug prices for details.

Gore Vidal - The people don’t realise that they are ‘getting screwed; that the US is highly taxed, considering that, unlike Europe, they get so little for their money, with no state medical system, no welfare state, terrible public education system’. Taxes; ‘it all goes for war and has done for fifty years’. Prescient indeed. Gore Vidal interviewed by Patt Morrison from 1995. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L54H8HUNZZs

Peter Dale Scott - “Groups within the elite in a ferocious battle for control” -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDZR72PPUO0#t=06m49s

“The Haves. And the Have Mores. Or as I like to call them, my base.” - the Boy Emperor, not sitting in the corner, sucking his thumb and reading My Pet Goat this time at least. George the Lesser’s remarks to a white tie dinner crowd. None of your arriviste black tie affairs for George’s crowd ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls

Re: rfidler

I realize your comment was directed to TripleGreenCentury, however I would like to intercede, that is if you don’t mind.

Your comment: “If by greedy, you mean that I have managed to earn more than the minimum wage for my entire working life, and didn’t feel guilty about not giving it right back to the government, well, I guess you’re right. Call me greedy.”

Can you give a “ball-park” on what YOU specifically mean….. by “more than the minumum wage”?  Since for god’s sake, let’s be REAL, more than the minimum wage could mean….. hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars or even billions of dollars.  In fact…..“more than the minimum wage” could MEAN…..... TRILLIONS of dollars.  Can you be more specific, or is that a “no go”?

I say if anyone goes by ‘me-first-and-screw-anyone-else’ mantra then I say, ‘everyone has a right to protect themselves’ even when those ‘screwing-anyone-else’ SEEM to be within the law in their greedy endeavours.

An interesting title Mr. Sirota, “The Me-First, Screw-Everyone-Else Crowd”.  I have a story which relates.

This story was told to me, so in it’s essence is “hearsay” although it’s teller was of impeccible credulity.  This is a true story.

A mother of (at that time) an only child decided to invite some children over to their home for a day of fun and entertainment.  This of course means childhood “fun and entertainment”.  All types of activities ensued and at one point this mother brings out a bag of candy (I forget the type…. but it was apparently candy to die for).  She announces to the children that she has a “treat” for everyone.  At this point her own child, realizing she just may have some “in” regarding the matter pipes up, “Me first, Me first!”

This particular parent quickly assesses the matter and in no uncertain terms laments, empathetically and judiciously, “Oh…. Those who say “Me first!, Me first!..... (and in a sad tone continues).... GO LAST….”

Much to the “heart-wrenching” dismay of her brethen, a child of 5 or 6 yrs of age, she doles out the goods and her child is last to “partake”.

I hear that this child, now an adult, is a functioning member of humanity.

I surmise that the moral of this story….. especially as regards these “ADULTS” is:

Some people never grow up.

Oh, the irony!
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, both born poor and in troubled families, fought their way up, one to a Rhodes Scholarship the other as a Harvard Law professorship on nothing but brains and determination. They both even became minor millionaires.  And both are condemned by the Right as “socialists.”

But George W. Bush, who was a C+ student, born to wealth, and power, but utterly incompetent in anything productive, is held up as the hero of Capitalism and Individualism.  Molly Ivins described him thus:
“George Bush was born on third base and thought he hit a triple!”.

I don’t mind “Me, first”. I mind “Me get all, you get to starve.”

“A ‘machiavellian’ mass society valuing wealth-aquisition and typified by exploitative relations must, inevitably, be a violent society, using force to protect the ‘haves’ and the ‘hope to haves’ from the ‘have nots’ and outsiders. Such a society will destroy itself because its greed will cause it to consume its own resources and even its own people. No self-restraints can effectively be imposed because the society’s very nature, its internal dynamic, is to consume. Its voracious appetite will cause it to literally eat itself. When sufficiently weakened, other similar social monsters will finish it off - if anything remains.”               
                  Jack D. Forbes

Of course the rich cannot “keep what they earn,” because they earn nothing by themselves in isolation. What could they earn without the local, state and national infrastructure in roads, trains and airport facilities, electrical grids, police, fire, courts, and on and on? They couldn’t turn one penny without the myriad supports we all provide in common through our tax dollars.

And what of the workers they exploit and whose surplus value they expropriate to make themselves rich? What of the many employers who don’t or can’t provide health care for their employees who aren’t paid enough to purchase health insurance on their own? Only those who will never require health care need apply?

Pah! The wealthy are the corrosively greedy scum of the earth who tend to follow, as Adam Smith put it, “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind: All for ourselves and nothing for anyone else.” A pox upon them!

TripleGreenCentury:

If by greedy, you mean that I have managed to earn more than the minimum wage for my entire working life, and didn’t feel guilty about not giving it right back to the government, well, I guess you’re right. Call me greedy.

D. Sirota, thanks for a good article.
I am a bit concerned though that your article gives the impression that it’s only the usual crowd in the small percentage at the top who rejects any moves towards some redistribution of wealth for social purposes.  The real drama is that most people in the country seem to go along with that in the end.  They invariably feel more comfortable with the greed and the power at the top on most critical issues.  I come across this kind of thinking all the time.  It is a self-destructive fantasy.  And that’s why we continue to have the governments we have and the lack of sound policies.

The 400 highest wage earners in 2006 paid an average FIT of slightly over 17%. The average corporate income tax paid is about 2%, the third lowest of any industrialized country.  The onerous taxes we pay in the U.S. is a “myth” perpetrated by the likes of Steve Forbes, Fox News, WSJ, and CNBC - all right wing individuals or groups. Another myth is our so called “liberal” media. Most of what we are fed as so called “news” is through the filter of big corporations who are hardly liberal. What we are seeing with the “goonish” behavior at the health care town hall meetings is a combination of “white backlash” and “astroturf faux grassroot” orchestration. That so much of this backlash is taking place in the South is no surprise. That is the heartland of the “birther” movement. When these protestors say ” I want my America back” they are talking about an America run for and by white Americans.  When we held town halls during the summer of 2008 to develop the Democratic party platform, there was an overwelming response to the need for health care reform. On the campaign trail we heard the same need. The opposition to health care reform is obviously being driven by people who did not vote for Obama and want no part of anything he is for, even if it is self-defeating. Possibly what is going on here is necessary, in order for certain whites to blow off some steam, but it is ugly nonetheless. We are certainly not showing the best side of America.

The time has also come for the flat tax. All income should be taxable (no shelters) all income, corporate and private, should be taxed for social security and medicare (no more taxing just the first 105,000) A flat 15-20% should do it, on rich and poor alike, no more tax returns, no more deductions.

But this will never happen in america, for we do not share the same sense of community that the rest of the civilized world has. it’s sad really, that we americans CHOOSE to be selfish assholes.

Our current for profit healthcare system is the single biggest job killer in this nation. Anyone who runs a small business and is honestly interested in providing benefits to their workers and does not support a national health plan is a moron. The savings in administrative costs alone would be worth the switch. But keep in mind, most employers love the system the way it is, people are afraid to leave their jobs for fear of losing what crappy benefits they have. And people that are afraid to leave are often underpaid because their employers know they are afraid to leave. A national healthcare plan would be a bonanza for workers because they would instantly have mobility. Employers would once again have to compete for workers by providing a living wage and real benefits.

If that’s socialism, bring it on.

You’re going to tell me that all the “me firsters” are republicans? Can you blame people for being upset when they see news like this?

“The Senate Ethics Committee has dismissed complaints against Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) alleging that they had received special mortgage deals from Countrywide Financial.”

Or this?
“The Obama Administration is asking the Supreme Court to block the public release of detainee abuse photos that were the subject of a high-profile reversal by President Barack Obama earlier this year.”

Or this?
“The following day, Pelosi will shepherd her guests to a Napa Valley winery with buildings designed by world-famous architect Frank Gehry; the speaker and her husband, investor Paul Pelosi, own a nearby vineyard worth between $5 million and $25 million, according to her annual financial disclosure report.”

Every day we are bombarded with another bizarre news story about these truly sick politicians. I guess I am at a loss to understand. You can’t tell me this administration has a serious bone in their body when it comes to reform.

Until then, I admire anyone with enough energy and guts to confront them. I guess there are no mirrors in the White House.

rfidler: Please, not more “we can all be zillionaires” delusion peddling. It’s all relative. And those at the top will remain at the top as gigazillionaires. It’s important for them to feel superior. Few win big in the lottery, often unhappily, and those that pitifully pin their financial hopes on such things as lotteries, short selling, exotic derivatives, are in need of serious psycho-emotional correction.

Gordon Gecko (the guy on the wrong side, BTW, per his own creator, Oliver Stone) proudly stated, “I create nothing. I own.”

As for me, I own nothing. I create. I have papers that say I own this and that. But ownership is an illusion. I am a temporary steward of certain assets for the purpose of creating more and/or better, without harm to anyone or anything. I have no baggage and I love it.

One more quote: “Wisdom is greater than wealth. Wealth you must look after. Wisdom looks after you.” Our citizens would do well to change their priorities accordingly.

By rfidler, August 7 at 4:35 pm: “Here’s an easy reply for the stupid people who complain about being in a low tax bracket. Tell them it’s their choice to earn as much as they want…”

Not true!  The low tax bracket of 15%, is full of the super rich, such as Warren Buffet.  He has said it is unfair that he pays lower tax rates than his secretary.  Most corporations pay less than 5%.  That is disgusting. 

Another side of that is the stupid people in low tax brackets don’t complain about not having to pay much tax.

You clearly are one of the greedy people David Sirota described here.

TripleGreenCentury: “Here is an easy reply for the stupid people who complain about being in a high tax bracket.  Tell them it is their choice to earn and keep such a large amount of income.  They can easily get out of that tax bracket and avoid paying so much tax.  Said with proper antagonism and sarcasm, they will see how stupid their complaining is.”

Here’s an easy reply for the stupid people who complain about being in a low tax bracket. Tell them it’s their choice to earn as much as they want. They can easily become rich by getting educated and getting a job. Said with proper antagonism and sarcasm…”

Wealth and poverty aren’t blood types, races, ethnicities or forms of religion. Just because poverty is an evil affliction, doesn’t mean wealth is.

Do we have to start hating the down and out palooka who just won the Powerball with his last dollar now that he’s rich. I bet he’s pissed that he had to give Uncle Sam and the local tax boys 45% of the pot.

These khaki-panted “masters of the universe” children need to go to their rooms (in a prison or, if they’re lucky, at a hospital for the treatment of acute, chronic, sociopathic ego addiction. Woops, sorry, no hospitals like that in this profitcare country, so, sorry, prison it is).

Actually that number “22,000 dying annually” is a severe under count. 731 average die a day (2006) and you can bet that the number is now much more than that. [I get 266,315.]  Just as it is way more than 50 million not insured either. Just as the un and under employed are also under counted too figures into all of these numbers of hurting people. Real, living, breathing humans with their own lives, aspirations and nightmare that is their life.

I know it sounds cathartic god’stwaddle but it isn’t what we should want, but it could happen. Just remember the aftermath of it won’t you? Not that they won’t be able to put the few down who might actually be stupid enough to fall for their trap. They have been planning this thing for decades to get to where they are now.

Well NBR that sounds like the “I have mine and screw you” mentality he is talking about. I guess the rest of us are leeches if we want to help all of us—together. You sound like a Libertarian and I find them cold, calculating and embracing of the psychopathic me first and only of Ayn Rand. A sad thing indeed. If you are of the Master Mentality (Nietzsche) then your selfishness in all things is noted and appreciated by the other masters but not their slaves. The Slave Mentality (Nietzsche) also talked about isn’t what you might think. Though enslaved they think about each other as a group, not just the individual.
Atomitism is the death of the human race. We are not tigers who hunt alone. We are naturally gregarious and have a civilization because of it.

“It took Obama only 200 days. He has gone over the edge in his desire to transform America into a total socialist state. He has brought in thugs - disguised as union members to attack their fellow citizens at congressional town hall meetings. This will be his downfall.”—seeitnow

His ‘desire’ is following in lockstep the previous administration and no one has called Bush/Cheney socialist. Fascist yes, but then that is socialism for the wealthy and corporate state which Obama is maintaining as per his function. Just as those before him going back to Reagan when the downfall of the republic started. From becoming a permanent debtor nation to the degradation of the middle class. [Note: best years of the Middle Class 1945-1980, it started in 1945.]

I am always suspicious of millionaires and billionaires for I wonder how well the workers who actually did the job that sold the items were ever paid enough in the first place if all that spare money was left for the owners? Most people I have known were underpaid. Very few earned enough for what they did. Wouldn’t be the first time.

The polarization of wealth among the few is a bad sign, we had that before in 1929 and it is happening again. We have yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel. That light they are showing us today is just a lamp left on further down the way. A false light. [The same tactic was used in the previous Great Depression where there was constant talk about “turning the corner” for years before it actually happened.]

Now do you still think the Iranian protests, lead by a warcriminal that killed American servicepersons on behalf of, we know not who, was authentic?

However, I would like to take issue with the attitude here.  I believe there is confusion distinguishing between the following:

1.  Liberals, moderates, independents, progressives and conservatives alike do not necessarily support the health insurance company “reform” bill (previously known as the “universal health care reform bill” and the “health care reform bill”). The reasons are numerous starting with the fact that, if you are just reforming health insurance companies, just change the laws, don’t charge the American taxpayer a trillion just to do that. The bill doesn’t really do enough to change anything. And, we all suspect that the bill will be changed, after we “support” it, in the middle of the night, to accommodate the health insurance companies, who the Obamas are tightly liked to, and worked on behalf of, in the past.

2.  As long as the insurance companies are in the mix, there will be no real reform, we all know that. This is not rocket science. It

3.  Rush, Beck, and the other “organizers” admittedly support big corporations, health insurance co’s, and other things THAT THE AUTHENTIC PROTESTORS DO NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORT. This is nothing new. Obama did the same thing to the progressives. Remember? Its totally normal. The point is, this is not enough to get out the masses that we have seen. Its just the only thing going right now so its the best they have. We had many groups organizing us, including Acorn.
That is the difference?

4.  I believe the main thing driving this was the bank bailout and the stimulus. On the day of the vote, the general public literally shut down the phone system at congress. That was liberals as well as conservatives. But it all fell on deaf ears. The money is disappearing on all counts. Even the cash for clunkers does not add up if you divide the money by the number of cars sold. Missing money everywhere. But this time, the gov needs participation by the public, which they will not get due to the lack of trust in the administration. Still no reform.

5.  Perhaps the most alarming thing to me is the command by the Democrats for us all to “take to the streets” and fight our neighbors. This is very unhealthy on many counts. Its too hot, and it harms people’s health to fight this way and always has negative repercussions to the family, I don’t care what anyone says. The rhetoric on all the paid blogs of hatred toward the protestors, and the rancid talk on the liberal tv shows is nauseatingly difficult to listen to. I personally have protested for 8 years. I’m done. I feel I accomplished what I set out to do. Its Obama’s turn now. Obama now has the money and the power but misuses both. This is not the way to conduct the country’s business.

6. It is a mistake to minimize this movement. Its not all psychos and I refuse to speak of my fellow citizens that way. I know too many sincere conservatives. They have no other outlet right now. If Obama wants to dismiss these people, I fear he will be dismissing half the electorate soon. You can’t win on that.

Many liberals like me are just watching. The Democrats have soiled themselves acting like Bushies in every way. Nothing has changed. Its a total mess.

America through the lens of the World Wrestling Federation “Iron Cage” match. False arguments, staged confrontations all to maximise ticket sales and cable news ratings.  Americans want to watch “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” and dream about how they too, can have it all.  Americans know that to become rich, there must be low taxes for the wealthy, so to feed their fantasies, they vote to lower taxes.  Americans only see the “Big Trees” in the forest and measure the health of America by looking at a monopoly game called the “Free Market”.  Americans are dreamers and want to believe in something called the “American Dream”.  They will sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children to have a chance to have that “Dream”.
That’s why there are so many who can be convinced that giving health care to everyone is a bad thing, because if you have to share with the poor, then your chance to have the “American Dream” is diminished and that is unaceptable. 
It is amazing that they miss the point that having a healthy population is a pre-requisite to achieving the “American Dream” unless your vision of the dream is to have a big home in a walled off enclave separate from the hordes of sick, poor people who want what you have.  That is a sick, sick dream to my mind, but that’s just my opinion.

It is interesting to note that the so-called “Brooks Brothers Brownshirts” have not been recruited by lobbyists to scream at congressmen who voted to bailout Wall Street bankers.

Bravo, David.

People in the 39 percent bracket should really be complaining about, foreinstance, Hedge funders who are in the 15 percent bracket.  A few years ago one of them made $2.3 billion (in a Brit’s billion that’s two thousand plus millions) in just 13 months.  Why don’t the self-identified over-taxed ever direct their complaints at the likes of the Hedge funder?

But let some little minimum wage earner ($15,800/yr) type be in the 15 percent bracket and the self-identified over-taxed scream bloody murder.

Time for you people to smarten up.  You’re being had. You’re looking in the wrong direction. The tax cheats, the real beneficiaries of our present tax system, are the super rich not the bereft poor.

BRILLIANT

David Sirota’s article with Progressive talking points is wonderful - finally the succinct guide to out-argue the right wing nutcases.

But remember the line about not wrestling pigs. Or trolls. One, you will have to descend to the pig’s level, so you will get covered in mud like the pig. Two, the pig is used to operating at that level and will probably win. Three, the pig probably enjoys it.

But forewarned is forearmed. To that end, some more useful information.

1. Class Warfare, Baby

“It’s class warfare, Baby, by the rich and they are winning,” - Warren Buffett, paraphrased. Warren Buffett appears to oppose it—the sensible attitude unless you want to live in a new Brazil with a small number of mega-rich and huge numbers of the dispossessed with a murderous police force to keep some kind of order—he suggested that taxes on the rich be _raised_. In Mark Ames’s story on the LA Fitness killer -

http://exiledonline.com/revenge-of-the-nerd-what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-the-rampage-killer-who-attacked-a-pittsburgh-aerobics-class/

Meet the reptiles that are having you for lunch -

http://exiledonline.com/class-war-101-meet-the-reptiles-who-are-making-meat-out-of-you/

One reason to oppose class warfare is that it is unhealthy; for the rich as well as for the rest of us - Dr. Stephen Bezruchka - Is America Making You Crazy -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5oJPRuFDIk

2. The Khaki Pants Brigade

The Khaki Pants Brigade are poor whites who identify with the Re-pugnants, in the vain hope that they will someday get their share of the loot. They work as foot soldiers for the ultra-rich. ‘Poor’ is any amount short of the ultra-rich, because it is always healthier and better for _all_, except the ultra-rich, to have universal health care and a welfare state. See Stephen Bezruchka’s video above for why.

As Gore Vidal has said, “It’s not a party. It’s a mindset.” The GOP are not a political party. They are a bunch of rich folks who want to get and to keep as much money as possible. They want to pay NO taxes. They do not want to contribute to the common good. They have nothing but contempt for the rest of US. Particularly they dislike those who have come to ‘their’ country.

Gore Vidal with Riz Khan - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjoV29dt4AQ#t=01m50s

3. Mass Psychosis

Theirs, ours and US - See Comments at ‘Hiroshima Day: America Has Been Asleep at the Wheel for 64 Years’, By Daniel Ellsberg, August 06, 2009 -

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23206.htm