Plutocracy Now

[snjmom]

The US like Egypt will never see the military fire on its own people.

Too late. See Kent State and the Katrina response. Our military would be more than happy to fire on the "liberal atheists". They have been indoctrinated.

Federal troops fired on Katrina victims?
Check out Waco and Ruby Ridge if you wanna play that game!

Now I know why so many conservatives here see Dems/Libs as dishonest.......maybe its' because they really are!!!

You're right, it was NOLA PD doing the shooting in Katrina. But then, Waco and Ruby Ridge weren't fed troops either, just FBI, ATF and Marshalls.

Haven't been following the proselytizing of our Armed Forces?

 

[westwall]

Too late. See Kent State and the Katrina response. Our military would be more than happy to fire on the "liberal atheists". They have been indoctrinated.

Federal troops fired on Katrina victims?
Check out Waco and Ruby Ridge if you wanna play that game!

Now I know why so many conservatives here see Dems/Libs as dishonest.......maybe its' because they really are!!!

You're right, it was NOLA PD doing the shooting in Katrina. But then, Waco and Ruby Ridge weren't fed troops either, just FBI, ATF and Marshalls.

Haven't been following the proselytizing of our Armed Forces?

Uhhhh....snjmom...remember those tanks that were used to knock down the walls of the waco compound? Remember that? Those were National Guard tanks manned by National Guard troops that are paid from the coffers of the US Army so yes, Federal Troops were involved in the Waco killings. A clear violation of the Posse Comitatus laws.

 

[snjmom]

Ummm, nope.

The armed forces of the United States did not violate any civil or criminal statute in connection with their activities at Waco in 1993. While the armed forces of the United States provided extensive support for law enforcement agencies, including reconnaissance, equipment, training, advice, and medical assistance, they were careful in their conduct and well-advised legally as they determined exactly what support to provide. In fact, in at least two instances, law enforcement agencies solicited assistance from the armed forces that the armed forces either rejected or scaled back due to concern about remaining within the bounds of federal law.

 

[westwall]

Ummm, nope.

The armed forces of the United States did not violate any civil or criminal statute in connection with their activities at Waco in 1993. While the armed forces of the United States provided extensive support for law enforcement agencies, including reconnaissance, equipment, training, advice, and medical assistance, they were careful in their conduct and well-advised legally as they determined exactly what support to provide. In fact, in at least two instances, law enforcement agencies solicited assistance from the armed forces that the armed forces either rejected or scaled back due to concern about remaining within the bounds of federal law.

Who drove the tanks?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The US like Egypt will never see the military fire on its own people.

Too late. See Kent State and the Katrina response. Our military would be more than happy to fire on the "liberal atheists". They have been indoctrinated.

Federal troops fired on Katrina victims?
Check out Waco and Ruby Ridge if you wanna play that game!

Now I know why so many conservatives here see Dems/Libs as dishonest.......maybe its' because they really are!!!

Red Herring alert, watch the OP issue be moved to the back of the bus. Can a straw man or ad hominem attack be far behind?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Worth posting once again, the echo chamber's efforts to 'censor' anything which challenges the dogma of the far right inteferred with others considering one aspect of Reaganomics.

 

[georgephillip]

The great unmentioned reality in this is that Reagan and the two Bushes lowered taxes for the rich and created a huge National Debt.

This act effectively transferred $11 trillion dollars from middle class taxpayers to the wealthy.

It is the greatest redistribution of wealth in human history.

Chris...

Do you have details on this transfer?

Over what length of time?

$11 trillion trumps even the latest taxpayer bailout of Wall Street's high rollers, and could inspire more working class Americans to believe the class war really exists.

 

[georgephillip]

Sure....we all know that Democrats hate the rich!.......wait....hold on......Democrats love the rich!!!

Surprise! Wealthy donors are funding Democrats - Aug. 2, 2007

Don't you ever tire of being wrong? Plutocracy is about the rich, not about Democrats or Republicans. The very wealthy protect and vote their own interests no matter what label you wish to attach to them.
The unique difference and a difficult practice to understand is someone who is not rich, yet supports policies which benefit the rich at their own expense. While difficult to understand It's a practice not hard to explain, RW working men and women who support the GOP vote by emotion, not reason.

South of the Border Plutocracy

"I've seen these shameful conditions and all I can tell you is that 'abuse' and 'criminal' don't come close to describing the cruelty of it.

"In one factory, for instance, women stand all day assembling parts for computers without a bathroom break at eight hours a stretch; they can neither sit down nor are they allowed to drink water or eat anything.

"They do this for $5.00 a day.

"This limits them to a little food and forces them to live in cardboard tin roof shacks with no electricity or clean water. Americans would find such conditions intolerable and illegal for our pets much less humans."

Can we all agree the Koch brothers and Scott Walker would have little objection to bringing working conditions like those described above to Wisconsin?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sure....we all know that Democrats hate the rich!.......wait....hold on......Democrats love the rich!!!

Surprise! Wealthy donors are funding Democrats - Aug. 2, 2007

Don't you ever tire of being wrong? Plutocracy is about the rich, not about Democrats or Republicans. The very wealthy protect and vote their own interests no matter what label you wish to attach to them.
The unique difference and a difficult practice to understand is someone who is not rich, yet supports policies which benefit the rich at their own expense. While difficult to understand It's a practice not hard to explain, RW working men and women who support the GOP vote by emotion, not reason.

South of the Border Plutocracy

"I've seen these shameful conditions and all I can tell you is that 'abuse' and 'criminal' don't come close to describing the cruelty of it.

"In one factory, for instance, women stand all day assembling parts for computers without a bathroom break at eight hours a stretch; they can neither sit down nor are they allowed to drink water or eat anything.

"They do this for $5.00 a day.

"This limits them to a little food and forces them to live in cardboard tin roof shacks with no electricity or clean water. Americans would find such conditions intolerable and illegal for our pets much less humans."

Can we all agree the Koch brothers and Scott Walker would have little objection to bringing working conditions like those described above to Wisconsin?

It's not as if the Koch Brothers actually earned the great wealth they control, being born with a sense of entitlement and judged by the color of their money and not the content of their character, it's likely they have never heard the word "No".
Raised in the home of a virulent anti-communist and a founder of the John Birch Society it's not hard to understand the disdain they have for working people. As silent benefactors of the Tea Party movement, they support a reactionary force which hopes to return labor to their mid-nineteenth century status as a draft animal.
The reason the theory's of Marx gained traction is directly related to the actions of the progenitors of the Koch Brothers today known as the callous conservative movement; those who exploited labor also inspired labor and elected officals to make unlawful the working conditions which many nations worldwide still tolerate. Not suprisingly many industries have fled America because the soul of our nation is framed in fairness. Not so those who hold this truth to be self evident: "it's all about me".

 

[georgephillip]

From the Middle East to the Midwest

"As many as 80,000 people marched to the Wisconsin state Capitol in Madison on Saturday(2/19) as part of an ongoing protest against newly elected Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s attempt to not just badger the state’s public employee unions, but to break them.

"The Madison uprising follows on the heels of those in the Middle East. A sign held by one university student, an Iraq War vet, read, 'I went to Iraq and came home to Egypt?'

"Another read, 'Walker: Mubarak of the Midwest.'

"Likewise, a photo has circulated in Madison of a young man at a rally in Cairo, with a sign reading, 'Egypt supports Wisconsin workers: One world, one pain.'

"Meanwhile, Libyans continue to defy a violent government crackdown against masses seeking to oust longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi, and more than 10,000 marched Tuesday in Ohio to oppose Republican Gov. John Kasich’s attempted anti-union legislative putsch."

Uprisings...

One world; One pain.

The pain inflicted by those who value property rights and profit over human rights.

Karl Marx may have been dead wrong about the solution to Capitalism, but he was dead right about the revolutionary force capital becomes after emasculating government.

Scott Walker and Barack Obama are living proof of that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seems the arguments in support of "Plutocracy today" prevailed. The defenders of the Walkerites have moved on to deny, deflect and defame on anyother thread which challenges the emotional based dogma they hold dear.

 

[impalero]

The Plutocrats in the White House, Wall Street and Mega Corps and between them the revolving door, like to pit Americans against each other in a left / right divide as they rape and pillage other countries as well as their own country men.

These people are worse than Hitler running this country, with the amount of callous disregard and destruction they have caused not only abroad but here at home as well.

May they burn in hell forever.

 

[B. Kidd]

The great unmentioned reality in this is that Reagan and the two Bushes lowered taxes for the rich and created a huge National Debt.

This act effectively transferred $11 trillion dollars from middle class taxpayers to the wealthy.

It is the greatest redistribution of wealth in human history.

Chris...

Do you have details on this transfer?

Over what length of time?

$11 trillion trumps even the latest taxpayer bailout of Wall Street's high rollers, and could inspire more working class Americans to believe the class war really exists.

Details forthcoming......tick...tock....tick....tock......

 

[Ringel05]

Income inequality has grown dramatically since the mid-'70s—far more in the US than in most advanced countries—and the gap is only partly related to college grads outperforming high-school grads. Rather, the bulk of our growing inequality has been a product of skyrocketing incomes among the richest 1 percent and—even more dramatically—among the top 0.1 percent. It has, in other words, been CEOs and Wall Street traders at the very tippy-top who are hoovering up vast sums of money from everyone, even those who by ordinary standards are pretty well off.

Second, American politicians don't care much about voters with moderate incomes. Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels studied the voting behavior of US senators in the early '90s and discovered that they respond far more to the desires of high-income groups than to anyone else. By itself, that's not a surprise. He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.

It doesn't take a multivariate correlation to conclude that these two things are tightly related: If politicians care almost exclusively about the concerns of the rich, it makes sense that over the past decades they've enacted policies that have ended up benefiting the rich. And if you're not rich yourself, this is a problem. First and foremost, it's an economic problem because it's siphoned vast sums of money from the pockets of most Americans into those of the ultrawealthy. At the same time, relentless concentration of wealth and power among the rich is deeply corrosive in a democracy, and this makes it a profoundly political problem as well.

Plutocracy Now: What Wisconsin Is Really About | Mother Jones

Second, American politicians don't care much about voters with moderate incomes. Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels studied the voting behavior of US senators in the early '90s and discovered that they respond far more to the desires of high-income groups than to anyone else. By itself, that's not a surprise. He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.

Interesting. How did Bartels qualify his research parameters? The study itself is an exercise in subjective rationalization not objective observation simply based on the subject matter which in and of itself is primarily subjective in nature unless all factors are taken into account.
By the way, I'm familiar with Bartels, lets just say he is anything but unbiased in his political views.

 

[editec]

This nation has ALWAYS been run by the plutocrats.

Hell, folks George Washington was possible the wealthiest man in the Western Hemisphere when we had our revolution.

Our revolution wasn't a revolution from the bottom, but it was more a coup d'etat of our plutocrats against the English plutocrats,.

The only difference now, is that recently the Plutocrats have largely abandoned the social contract that formerly they once had with the rest of us.

FREE TRADE is, I suspect, at the most obvious example of that changing social contract.

As there is really no personal threat to the American Ruling class now that the Soviety Union has falled, and China is creating its own Plutocrat class, too, we're morphing into a world run by Plutocrats whose real affiliation and support goes to a one world system run by Plutocrats worldwide.

Oh we're still have wars and nations, but those will be, much as it was in Europe when the Peers of the realms controlled things, largely internal FAMILY squabbles.

 

[Douger]

My aren't we being the hypocrite today, don't you claim to earn a 6 figure income Chrissypoo? That would...uhhh make you a plutocrat you twit.

Oh. OK. Anyone who earn 6 figures is a plutocrat now eh ? My take on the households in the empire who are NOT earning six figures are probably feeling some pain here lately.
Once your masters ( Plutocrats)........ To be more precise they are The Plutarchy...........
jack the oil up, as planned, the cost of food and energy will skyrocket, as planned, and those earning under 6 figures will be at the New Poverty Level,as planned

plu·toc·ra·cy (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu·toc·ra·cies
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

 

[editec]

My aren't we being the hypocrite today, don't you claim to earn a 6 figure income Chrissypoo? That would...uhhh make you a plutocrat you twit.

Oh. OK. Anyone who earn 6 figures is a plutocrat now eh ? My take on the households in the empire who are NOT earning six figures are probably feeling some pain here lately.
Once your masters ( Plutocrats)........ To be more precise they are The Plutarchy...........
jack the oil up, as planned, the cost of food and energy will skyrocket, as planned, and those earning under 6 figures will be at the New Poverty Level,as planned

plu·toc·ra·cy (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu·toc·ra·cies
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

NO.

Certainly not everybody who is wealthy is remotely a PLUTOCRAT.

In order to be a plutocrat one must be enormously wealthy and also be involved in running the government -- either directely as in the cases of FDR or the BUSHes OR KENNEDYs, or by remote control as in the Koch Bros or Geroge Soros.

Of the 400 wealtiest people in the nation, I doubt collectively we can name 25 people. We all know a few names of a few billionaires, but for the most part?

The UBER-WEALTHY remain invisible by choice.

And if you think about it, if you were one of those fabulously wealthy people, you'd probably elect to stay sub rosa, too.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Food for thought:

Plutocracy encyclopedia topics | Reference.com

How do we get the influence of money out of our election process? Great wealth = power; and power tends to corrupt.

 

[georgephillip]

FLUSH as many Republicans AND Democrats from the US Congress and White House as possible in 2012?

 

[Dot Com]

My aren't we being the hypocrite today, don't you claim to earn a 6 figure income Chrissypoo? That would...uhhh make you a plutocrat you twit.

Oh. OK. Anyone who earn 6 figures is a plutocrat now eh ? My take on the households in the empire who are NOT earning six figures are probably feeling some pain here lately.
Once your masters ( Plutocrats)........ To be more precise they are The Plutarchy...........
jack the oil up, as planned, the cost of food and energy will skyrocket, as planned, and those earning under 6 figures will be at the New Poverty Level,as planned

plu·toc·ra·cy (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu·toc·ra·cies
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

NO.

Certainly not everybody who is wealthy is remotely a PLUTOCRAT.

In order to be a plutocrat one must be enormously wealthy and also be involved in running the government -- either directely as in the cases of FDR or the BUSHes OR KENNEDYs, or by remote control as in the Koch Bros or Geroge Soros.

Of the 400 wealtiest people in the nation, I doubt collectively we can name 25 people. We all know a few names of a few billionaires, but for the most part?

The UBER-WEALTHY remain invisible by choice.

And if you think about it, if you were one of those fabulously wealthy people, you'd probably elect to stay sub rosa, too.

They want to remain in the shadows and for the Koch Bros-funded, Armey (lobbyist)- run psuedo, grass-roots orgs to take to the streets. Pretty smart them. And yes, "rich" aint what it used to be. Hows about a YEARLY $200,000,000 bonus sound? The sad part is that these extreme compensations are *cough* "earned" simply by selling- out the middle- class such as outsourcing jobs by investing oversea's.