Robert Riech Slobbers About Fairness

[Listening]

Obama Has to Explain Why Fairness Is Essential to Growth (and Why Some Democrats Have to Stop Believing Otherwise).

Let's start with this.

Robert Reich: Obama Has to Explain Why Fairness Is Essential to Growth (and Why Some Democrats Have to Stop Believing Otherwise)

The Cory Booker imbroglio has ignited a silly but potentially pernicious debate in the Democratic Party between so-called "pro-growth centrists" who want the president to focus on how well he's done getting the economy back on its feet after the Bush administration almost knocked it out, and "pro-fairness populists" who want him to focus on the nation's widening inequality and Wall Street's (and Romney's) continuing role in generating profits for a few at the expense of almost everyone else.

According to the National Journal's Josh Kraushaar, for example:

Conversations with liberal activists and labor officials reveal an unmistakable hostility toward the pro-business, free-trade, free-market philosophy that was in vogue during the second half of the Clinton administration..... Moderate Democratic groups and officials, meanwhile, privately fret about the party's leftward drift and the Obama campaign's embrace of an aggressively populist message... [T]hey wish the administration's focus was on growth over fairness.

This is pure bunk -- or should be.

Fairness isn't inconsistent with growth; it's essential to it. The only way the economy can grow and create more jobs is if prosperity is more widely shared.

The key reason why the recovery is so anemic is that so much income and wealth are now concentrated at the top is America's the vast middle class no longer has the purchasing power necessary to boost the economy.

*******************************

Class warfare at it's best.

The middle class has it very good in many cases. Could Reich provide some numbers...he never does. Just like his lesbian twin Paulene Krugman.

What is happening is that people are not educated for what we need. And hence they don't have the buying power. Additionally, if you look at how many single parent household we have, you see we are way inefficient. if that was rectified..there would be more discretionary income to boost demand.

But Riechman wants to push it all on the wealthy.

What else would you expect ?

 

[georgephillip]

A discussion of medieval history:

"In the U.S. 1% owns just under half of the investment capital, 5% owns 70%. Literally, a medieval power structure."

A New Economic Paradigm: An Interview With Gar Alperovitz

Do you slobber for a greater concentration of capital?

 

[Mr. H.]

Why care who owns what? That's always baffled me.
It's when you learn to love and appreciate nothing that you've found true wealth.
Fucking crybabies.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A discussion of medieval history:

"In the U.S. 1% owns just under half of the investment capital, 5% owns 70%. Literally, a medieval power structure."

A New Economic Paradigm: An Interview With Gar Alperovitz

Do you slobber for a greater concentration of capital?

So since Obama has more then a million dollars shall we confiscate all his assets and money? How about the liberal billionaires and millionaires, or is your fairness reserved just to those who you don't agree with?

 

[MikeK]

Why care who owns what? That's always baffled me.
It's when you learn to love and appreciate nothing that you've found true wealth.
Fucking crybabies.

The reason to be concerned about who owns what is inequitable distribution of the Nation's wealth is destabilizing and ultimately destructive to democracy.

Wealth is power. Excessive wealth is excessive power. Accumulation of excessive wealth should not be permitted.

 

[Mr. H.]

****, I mean Mike- I myself AM democracy. That is the definitive tennet of U.S. citizenship.

I am empowered not by ownership in equity, nor do the so-called "empowered" have dominion over my individual citizenry.

I'm wealthy beyond the dreams of other nations because of a simple piece of cloth that is the American Flag, and a faded piece of paper that is Our Constitution.

Take your ass pennies elsewhere.

 

[Rozman]

Hey if the Libs feel that the government doesn't have enough money to spend
they can always pay more when tax time comes around.
Nobody is stopping them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Moderate Democrats? LOL

They went extinct when Zel Miller left the Party

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why care who owns what? That's always baffled me.
It's when you learn to love and appreciate nothing that you've found true wealth.
Fucking crybabies.

The reason to be concerned about who owns what is inequitable distribution of the Nation's wealth is destabilizing and ultimately destructive to democracy.

Wealth is power. Excessive wealth is excessive power. Accumulation of excessive wealth should not be permitted.

Tell that to Zuckerberg, Buffett and Soros

But its OK for the Government to overspend by $1.3 TRILLION annually

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is it Fair that our government has no respect for our efforts and overspend by $1.3 Trillion?

hmm?

Where's the fairness?

 

[Rozman]

Why care who owns what? That's always baffled me.
It's when you learn to love and appreciate nothing that you've found true wealth.
Fucking crybabies.

The reason to be concerned about who owns what is inequitable distribution of the Nation's wealth is destabilizing and ultimately destructive to democracy.

Wealth is power. Excessive wealth is excessive power. Accumulation of excessive wealth should not be permitted.

Tell that to Zuckerberg, Buffett and Soros

But its OK for the Government to overspend by $1.3 TRILLION annually

And the Lib economists like Krugman and Reich feel that government doesn't spend nearly enough.Go figure.

 

[georgephillip]

A discussion of medieval history:

"In the U.S. 1% owns just under half of the investment capital, 5% owns 70%. Literally, a medieval power structure."

A New Economic Paradigm: An Interview With Gar Alperovitz

Do you slobber for a greater concentration of capital?

So since Obama has more then a million dollars shall we confiscate all his assets and money? How about the liberal billionaires and millionaires, or is your fairness reserved just to those who you don't agree with?

Do you see the connection between who owns capital and who owns democracy? The link I posted contains a one hour interview you might find enlightening. Many conservatives are rethinking worker control of the means of production:

"In the U.S. 1% owns just under half of the investment capital, 5% owns 70%. Literally, a medieval power structure.

"So if there is to be a democratic alternative, what you look for is: Are there ways that democratic ownership can happen? Indeed, if you look closely, there are some 13 million people involved in one form or another of worker-owned companies, a form that changes who owns; there are 130 million people involved in credit unions and co-ops, another democratized form of ownership; there are 4,000 or 5,000 neighborhood corporations, devoted to neighborhood development; there are 2,000 utilities that are owned by cities.

"People don’t realize that. A quarter of the American electricity supply is essentially socialized in a radically decentralized way, utilities and co-ops, city-owned utilities. And it’s been growing. There’s a whole quiet building up of a different model that has a very American tone to it but goes at the central question of who owns capital, who owns the wealth. That I think is a critical basis for possible longer- term change."

A New Economic Paradigm: An Interview With Gar Alperovitz

 

[Katzndogz]

Faiirness is the antithesis of growth. Where there is fairness there is no growth at all.

 

[georgephillip]

Explain how the economy can grow and create more jobs if prosperity is not widely shared?

 

[Katzndogz]

Explain how the economy can grow and create more jobs if prosperity is not widely shared?

Do you really think you should be given prosperity as a birthright?

If you want prosperity, put the bong down and get a job. Once you have that job, work harder, go back to school, increase your skills and you will get a better job. If you save your money and invest it wisely you can own your own company.

All of which requires intense effort to become propserous. You don't get it by laying around. You don't get it by pushing a broom. You don't get it by smoking dope. You don't get it for nothing. If you really want to be propserous, forget the 40 hour work week and a beer afterwards. Put in 60 hours a week, then go to school at night.

 

[georgephillip]

Explain how the economy can grow and create more jobs if prosperity is not widely shared?

Do you really think you should be given prosperity as a birthright?

If you want prosperity, put the bong down and get a job. Once you have that job, work harder, go back to school, increase your skills and you will get a better job. If you save your money and invest it wisely you can own your own company.

All of which requires intense effort to become propserous. You don't get it by laying around. You don't get it by pushing a broom. You don't get it by smoking dope. You don't get it for nothing. If you really want to be propserous, forget the 40 hour work week and a beer afterwards. Put in 60 hours a week, then go to school at night.

You express the philosophy of a slave.

Where's the birthright that guarantees one percent of the population 20% of total income?

When one percent controls 20% of all income there's insufficient demand for goods and services the economy is capable of producing at or near full employment.

All the beer, bongs, and night school in the world won't change that.

 

[MikeK]

Explain how the economy can grow and create more jobs if prosperity is not widely shared?

Do you really think you should be given prosperity as a birthright?

If you want prosperity, put the bong down and get a job. Once you have that job, work harder, go back to school, increase your skills and you will get a better job. If you save your money and invest it wisely you can own your own company.

All of which requires intense effort to become propserous. You don't get it by laying around. You don't get it by pushing a broom. You don't get it by smoking dope. You don't get it for nothing. If you really want to be propserous, forget the 40 hour work week and a beer afterwards. Put in 60 hours a week, then go to school at night.

The essence of your brainwashed ignorance is seen in the fact that you perceive the world as consisting of millionaires and pot smokers with nothing in between. You obviously believe that success as a human being depends on owning a company.

Something I've learned is that most if not all of those who parrot this kind of corporatist propaganda on the Internet are brainwashed losers. They don't have a pot to piss in and are therefore comparable to the milquetoast nerds who come here to talk tough from the safety of anonymity.

I have no wealth to speak of and I smoked a lot of pot during the sixties and seventies. But I am indeed prosperous in human terms. I've raised three beautiful girls and I have five beautiful grandchildren, I own my home and car. I have no debts, I want for nothing and I lead a very comfortable, contented life in retirement.

And I respectfully suggest that you will never achieve success in human terms unless you dispose of the mental yoke imposed on you by right-wing propaganda. You need to learn the meaning of enough and that Rush Limbaugh is a false prophet.

 

[Listening]

Why care who owns what? That's always baffled me.
It's when you learn to love and appreciate nothing that you've found true wealth.
Fucking crybabies.

The reason to be concerned about who owns what is inequitable distribution of the Nation's wealth is destabilizing and ultimately destructive to democracy.

Wealth is power. Excessive wealth is excessive power. Accumulation of excessive wealth should not be permitted.

While I am unwilling to accept this as an absolute fact, I am most interested to learn more about why you claim this is true.

My largest concern is the ability of small business to launch....because of the way big business controls things through the government.

What I don't understand is how Obama can be so pro-government/anti-business when, in fact it is government that props up large businesses to the frustration of the rest of us.

 

[MikeK]

Why care who owns what? That's always baffled me.
It's when you learn to love and appreciate nothing that you've found true wealth.
Fucking crybabies.

The reason to be concerned about who owns what is inequitable distribution of the Nation's wealth is destabilizing and ultimately destructive to democracy.

Wealth is power. Excessive wealth is excessive power. Accumulation of excessive wealth should not be permitted.

While I am unwilling to accept this as an absolute fact, I am most interested to learn more about why you claim this is true.

Excessive wealth translates to excessive political power. It enables individuals and/or small groups to more effectively corrupt politicians and officials.

That is one reason. Another is, considering that a nation's wealth resources (Gross Demestic Product) is finite, the way that wealth resource is distributed will determine the stability of the nation and the nature of its politics (democracy vs corporatocracy=fascism). When the bulk of a nation's wealth is vertically distributed, as it presently is here in the U.S., it is hoarded by a small group which exists as a de-facto controlling aristocracy (the "One Percent") while the controlled majority (the "Ninety-Nine Percent") is gradually disenfranchised, deprived, or impoverished. But when the wealth is horizontally distributed, via fair wages, worker benefits, government regulations that affect distribution, etc., as it was throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, the economy is stimulated by the circulation of money because the money is spent by the middle and lower classes, not hoarded by the super-rich, and the nation is thus stabilized.

My largest concern is the ability of small business to launch....because of the way big business controls things through the government.

Therein lies the tale. Government is controlled by the corporatocracy via a virtual army of lobbyists who bribe our legislators (our Congress consists mainly of multi-millionaires). Corporations do not like competition from small businesses and will do all they can to eliminate them. And our bribed legislators accommodate corporate interests. We are even burdened by a corrupt Supreme Court majority -- which is willing to say that corporations are people rather than legal entities which are created or dissolved by the filing or altering of papers.

What I don't understand is how Obama can be so pro-government/anti-business when, in fact it is government that props up large businesses to the frustration of the rest of us.

Obama is a young man with a young family. He is being careful to avoid stepping on the toes of anyone who could cause him to regret it when he leaves Office, whether in November or in four more years. But he is still a better choice for the average person because he is not directly involved in the grand scheme to undermine the middle class -- as is the right-wing. For one important example, Obama is not motivated to privatize Social Security and Medicare, which would put the finishing touch on the middle class and alter forever the character of America. Mitt Romney is salivating at the thought of doing exactly that. He is the archetypal corporatist.

So the best thing we can do for now is keep Obama in place and hope we can come up with a candidate who is willing to emulate FDR.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why care who owns what? That's always baffled me.
It's when you learn to love and appreciate nothing that you've found true wealth.
Fucking crybabies.

The reason to be concerned about who owns what is inequitable distribution of the Nation's wealth is destabilizing and ultimately destructive to democracy.

Wealth is power. Excessive wealth is excessive power. Accumulation of excessive wealth should not be permitted.

Who the heck are you to determine what is excessive? Do you starry eyed liberals not understand that the thing that made this country great wasn't a "fairness" doctrine where we all shared equally but was instead that the US offered more opportunities for those without wealth to create it for themselves and their loved ones then any other place on the planet? Why would we change that? And if we WERE going to change it then why would we copy countries that are now failing? That makes ZERO sense.