"Saint" Reagan's "Solidarity" With Free Unions

[Mini 14]

One thing that hasn't changed

ALL governments exist to socialize cost and privatize profit.

One thing that has changed

In 1982 the richest 1% of Americans got around 9% of total US income. Today they receive over 20%.

What theory of "politics" explains the connection?

See....all that would be good if economies, political climates, and technology (among countless other factors) were static.....if things back then were EXACTLY THE SAME as things are now. Unfortunately, the world changes, no matter how much we wish it didn't.

If you invest $500 in a risky stock, and the company succeeds, should you receive a greater profit than the person who only invested $5?

All of this stuff is tied together....you can't pull out one little piece, ignore the rest, and decide that you have derived the answer. Well......you can.....

but you'd be wrong again.

It isn't Bush's fault, nor Reagan's, nor Lincoln's. Just because they're all Republicans doesn't mean they're all evil.

It is the fault of Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton and Obama that the richest 1% of US taxpayers have virtually doubled their share of total US income and wealth over the past thirty years.

That makes them evil and greedy regardless of how much society has changed over that time period.

Ignore the tech boom.

That will make your fable sound a lot better.

 

[georgephillip]

Which 1% of Americans captured most of the national income and wealth generated by the tech bubble?

 

[Mini 14]

Which 1% of Americans captured most of the national income and wealth generated by the tech bubble?

And when did the bubble occur?

And who invested the capital?

And could that have had something to do with the rise from 9% to 20% over the past 29 years?

And are you as big a fucking idiot with regard to politics and economics as you're leading us to believe?

 

[georgephillip]

Are you?

 

[Mini 14]

I am rubber....

 

[georgephillip]

As in sap...

 

[sparky]

we're watching history repeat here....

 

[georgephillip]

US History?

Scott Walker appears to be attempting a paint-by-numbers approach to Reagan's treatment of organized labor (PATCO) in 1981; however, Walker doesn't bring the same star power to his assault that Reagan did.

The Gipper didn't have any reason to fear labor politically. Unions were opposed by nearly half of all American voters in 1981, and nearly half of all union members nationwide voted for Reagan in both of his presidential campaigns.

That's probably not the case in Wisconsin.

Last November less than 41% of eligible voters turned out nationwide, and I'm guessing Democrats were more likely to stay home than Republicans. Walker and other Republican governors aren't likely to have the same advantage next time.

Then there's the little matter of an $8 trillion housing bubble and thirty years of off-shoring that sets today's economy apart from Reagan's time, and, finally, I can't imagine the Gipper's handlers ever allowing a prank call to reach Reagan's ear.

Ronald Reagan, Enemy..

 

[editec]

In 1919 North Dakota cut Wall Street off at the knees when it began doing business as the State Bank of North Dakota.

"Faced with federal inaction and growing local budget crises, an increasing number of states are exploring the possibility of setting up their own state-owned banks, following the model of North Dakota, the only state that seems to have escaped the credit crisis unscathed.

"The 92-year-old Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the only state-owned U.S. bank, has helped North Dakota avoid the looming budgetary disasters of other states.

"In 2009, North Dakota sported the largest budget surplus it had ever had.

"The BND helps fund not only local government but local banks and businesses, by providing matching funds for loans to commercial banks to support small business lending."

Elected Republicans AND Democrats would rather cut their children off at the knees, than engage in real debate about state banks: Because they need Wall Street every day and they only need voters once every 2 - 6 years.

State banking could serve as the thin edge of the wedge to shear voter support from both wings (R&D) of the Wall Street Party.

Ellen Brown

Yeah but isn't part of the reason that ND has done so well come from the fact that its tar oil revenues have propped up that bank?

Not that I'm objecting to state banks, but I doubt they'd have saved places without such an infusion of capital.

 

[georgephillip]

In 1919 North Dakota cut Wall Street off at the knees when it began doing business as the State Bank of North Dakota.

"Faced with federal inaction and growing local budget crises, an increasing number of states are exploring the possibility of setting up their own state-owned banks, following the model of North Dakota, the only state that seems to have escaped the credit crisis unscathed.

"The 92-year-old Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the only state-owned U.S. bank, has helped North Dakota avoid the looming budgetary disasters of other states.

"In 2009, North Dakota sported the largest budget surplus it had ever had.

"The BND helps fund not only local government but local banks and businesses, by providing matching funds for loans to commercial banks to support small business lending."

Elected Republicans AND Democrats would rather cut their children off at the knees, than engage in real debate about state banks: Because they need Wall Street every day and they only need voters once every 2 - 6 years.

State banking could serve as the thin edge of the wedge to shear voter support from both wings (R&D) of the Wall Street Party.

Ellen Brown

Yeah but isn't part of the reason that ND has done so well come from the fact that its tar oil revenues have propped up that bank?

Not that I'm objecting to state banks, but I doubt they'd have saved places without such an infusion of capital.

I'm sure North Dakota's oil revenues haven't hurt the state economically, but there are other states (California and Texas, for example) with more oil and pain.

One of Florida's Democratic gubernatorial hopefuls in the last election has a Ph.D in Economics and campaigned on starting a state bank in that state.

He made the claim that the billions of dollars in interest that currently leaves Florida and flows to Wall Street could be reinvested in ways that would, over time, first reduce and then eliminate the need for state and local taxes.

State banks could provide mortgages at 2% and cap credit card interest at 6%. I had an opportunity last fall to suggest this my State Senator and got the response "Californians want less government; not more."

I'm almost positive Democrats AND Republicans at all elected levels need Wall Street more frequently than they need voters.

State banks could fund high speed rail and universal internet, and, IMHO, kick start an American Industrial Revolution 2.0.

But elected Republicans AND Democrats won't challenge Wall Street or the richest 1% of Americans who fund their campaigns.