"Whatever the Issue, the Rich Guys Win"

[georgephillip]

Mr. H.

GEorge is talking about the economic system.

Your inspiring stories about how heroically you might or might not have done are entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

And your ad hominen attacks on George are likewise unwarranted and pointless.

Maybe you ought to limit your thoughts to addressing the issues, rather than taking it upon yourself to insult people.

Let me try try to sum the above up for you.

GROW THE FUCK UP.

Thank you in advance for sticking to the topic.

I know. My apologies. I got really drunk. Now I'm really hung over.

Even when you're drinking you landed some clean shots.

You're right about many of us, myself in particular, being unwilling to risk failure. In my case, I'm beginning to believe I never fully made the connection that failure often produces wisdom more often than success. Especially if that success is underwritten by society or government.

Some of this may be framing.

Dean Baker's Conservative Nanny State lays it out better than I can:

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.

"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors.

"They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."

"This issue is very much at the center of determining who wins and who loses in the modern economy.

"If government policies ensure that specific types of workers (e.g. doctors, lawyers, economists) are in relatively short supply, then they ensure that these workers will do better than the types of workers who are plentiful.

"It is also essential to understand that there is direct redistribution involved in this story.

"If restricting the supply of doctors raises the wages of doctors, then all the non-doctors in the country are worse off, just as if the government taxed all non-doctors in order to pay a tax credit to doctors.

"Higher wages for doctors mean that everyone in the country will be forced to pay more for health care.

"As conservatives fully understand when they promote policies that push down wages for large segments of the country’s work force, lower wages for others means higher living standards for those who have their wages or other income protected."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From William Greider's "The End of New Deal Liberalism":

"Society faces dreadful prospects and profound transformation. When both parties are aligned with corporate power, who will stand up for the people?

"Who will protect them from the insatiable appetites of capitalist enterprise and help them get through the hard passage ahead?

"One thing we know for sure from history: there is no natural limit to what capitalism will seek in terms of power and profit.

"If government does not stand up and apply the brakes, society is defenseless.

"Strangely enough, this new reality brings us back to the future, posing fundamental questions about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that citizens and reformers asked 100 years ago.

"Only this time, the nation is no longer an ascendant economic power.

"It faces hard adjustments as general prosperity recedes and the broad middle class that labor and liberalism helped create is breaking apart...

"One key dynamic of the twentieth century was the long- running contest for dominance between democracy and capitalism.

"The balance of power shifted back and forth several times, driven by two basic forces that neither corporate lobbyists nor timid politicians could control: the calamitous events that disrupted the social order, such as war and depression, and the power of citizens mobilized in reaction to those events.

"In those terms, both political parties are still highly vulnerable-as twentieth-century history repeatedly demonstrated, society cannot survive the burdens of an unfettered corporate order."

ZCommunications...

That must be why Meg Whitman is now the governor of California.

Meg326(her ranking on the Forbes 400 list) got "Moonbeamed."

With the possible exception of Diane Feinstein there isn't another California Democrat who could have won that election.

Meg will likely do better next time, and Jerry Brown's White House ambitions may open the door for her.

She lost, even though she spent more money than anyone in history. She was not the only big spender to loose last year, which proves that the rich guy does not always win. This makes your whole thread a fail, yet you sit there and still think you made some kind of point.

 

[georgephillip]

"Whatever the issue, the rich guys win" was how a friend of William Greider who doesn't follow politics summed up the happenings of the last two years.

"...Obama has set himself up to make many more 'compromises' in the coming months; each time, he will doubtless use the left as a convenient foil.

"Disparaging 'purist' liberals is his way of assuring so-called independents that he stood up to the allegedly far-out demands of his own electoral base. This is a ludicrous ploy, given the weakness of the left.

"It cynically assumes ordinary people not engaged in politics are too dim to grasp what he's doing.

"I suspect Obama is mistaken.

"I asked an old friend what she makes of the current mess in Washington. 'Whatever the issue, the rich guys win,' she responded.

"Lots of people understand this-it is the essence of the country's historic predicament."

ZCommunications

 

[Meister]

From William Greider's "The End of New Deal Liberalism":

"Society faces dreadful prospects and profound transformation. When both parties are aligned with corporate power, who will stand up for the people?

"Who will protect them from the insatiable appetites of capitalist enterprise and help them get through the hard passage ahead?

"One thing we know for sure from history: there is no natural limit to what capitalism will seek in terms of power and profit.

"If government does not stand up and apply the brakes, society is defenseless.

"Strangely enough, this new reality brings us back to the future, posing fundamental questions about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that citizens and reformers asked 100 years ago.
"Only this time, the nation is no longer an ascendant economic power.

"It faces hard adjustments as general prosperity recedes and the broad middle class that labor and liberalism helped create is breaking apart...

"One key dynamic of the twentieth century was the long- running contest for dominance between democracy and capitalism.

"The balance of power shifted back and forth several times, driven by two basic forces that neither corporate lobbyists nor timid politicians could control: the calamitous events that disrupted the social order, such as war and depression, and the power of citizens mobilized in reaction to those events.

"In those terms, both political parties are still highly vulnerable-as twentieth-century history repeatedly demonstrated, society cannot survive the burdens of an unfettered corporate order."

ZCommunications...

Well that figures you would use such a unbiased source as this gentleman. He's a journalist for "The Nation" periodical, one of the oldest in the nation.

The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. The periodical, devoted to politics and culture, is self-described as "the flagship of the left."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation

 

[kiwiman127]

From William Greider's "The End of New Deal Liberalism":

"Society faces dreadful prospects and profound transformation. When both parties are aligned with corporate power, who will stand up for the people?

"Who will protect them from the insatiable appetites of capitalist enterprise and help them get through the hard passage ahead?

"One thing we know for sure from history: there is no natural limit to what capitalism will seek in terms of power and profit.

"If government does not stand up and apply the brakes, society is defenseless.

"Strangely enough, this new reality brings us back to the future, posing fundamental questions about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that citizens and reformers asked 100 years ago.
"Only this time, the nation is no longer an ascendant economic power.

"It faces hard adjustments as general prosperity recedes and the broad middle class that labor and liberalism helped create is breaking apart...

"One key dynamic of the twentieth century was the long- running contest for dominance between democracy and capitalism.

"The balance of power shifted back and forth several times, driven by two basic forces that neither corporate lobbyists nor timid politicians could control: the calamitous events that disrupted the social order, such as war and depression, and the power of citizens mobilized in reaction to those events.

"In those terms, both political parties are still highly vulnerable-as twentieth-century history repeatedly demonstrated, society cannot survive the burdens of an unfettered corporate order."

ZCommunications...

Well that figures you would use such a unbiased source as this gentleman. He's a journalist for "The Nation" periodical, one of the oldest in the nation.

The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. The periodical, devoted to politics and culture, is self-described as "the flagship of the left."
The Nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm glad it's only the left that uses ideological friendly resources.

 

[Meister]

From William Greider's "The End of New Deal Liberalism":

"Society faces dreadful prospects and profound transformation. When both parties are aligned with corporate power, who will stand up for the people?

"Who will protect them from the insatiable appetites of capitalist enterprise and help them get through the hard passage ahead?

"One thing we know for sure from history: there is no natural limit to what capitalism will seek in terms of power and profit.

"If government does not stand up and apply the brakes, society is defenseless.

"Strangely enough, this new reality brings us back to the future, posing fundamental questions about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that citizens and reformers asked 100 years ago.
"Only this time, the nation is no longer an ascendant economic power.

"It faces hard adjustments as general prosperity recedes and the broad middle class that labor and liberalism helped create is breaking apart...

"One key dynamic of the twentieth century was the long- running contest for dominance between democracy and capitalism.

"The balance of power shifted back and forth several times, driven by two basic forces that neither corporate lobbyists nor timid politicians could control: the calamitous events that disrupted the social order, such as war and depression, and the power of citizens mobilized in reaction to those events.

"In those terms, both political parties are still highly vulnerable-as twentieth-century history repeatedly demonstrated, society cannot survive the burdens of an unfettered corporate order."

ZCommunications...

Well that figures you would use such a unbiased source as this gentleman. He's a journalist for "The Nation" periodical, one of the oldest in the nation.

The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. The periodical, devoted to politics and culture, is self-described as "the flagship of the left."
The Nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm glad it's only the left that uses ideological friendly resources.

The source I used was Wiki.....you really want to go out on a limb and call that a right leaning source?

 

[kiwiman127]

Well that figures you would use such a unbiased source as this gentleman. He's a journalist for "The Nation" periodical, one of the oldest in the nation.

The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. The periodical, devoted to politics and culture, is self-described as "the flagship of the left."
The Nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm glad it's only the left that uses ideological friendly resources.

The source I used was Wiki.....you really want to go out on a limb and call that a right leaning source?

I heard Wiki was funded my the American Middle Class hating Koch brothers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Meister]

I'm glad it's only the left that uses ideological friendly resources.

The source I used was Wiki.....you really want to go out on a limb and call that a right leaning source?

I heard Wiki was funded my the American Middle Class hating Koch brothers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You heard, huh? That's it...you heard?

 

[Ropey]

I heard is better than Wiki?

I dunno about that. I wouldn't go with either as solid evidence but in a most significant research between the two?

I'll go with Wiki over "I Heard".

Until something better comes along

 

[georgephillip]

What's wrong with profit?

Lets say it's true. And that the rich guy wins no matter what. Is that because he has money or does he have money because he has learned how to profit even from his setbacks?

Some do not make much of a living. They do not like profit because they make so little.

George has admitted that he has worked low end jobs all his life.

So it is understandable...

He's bright enough (even if horribly obsessed with hate of reality) so it likely is because of his attitude. When he tries for better paid work, likely his personality comes out and they fire him, that is if he even makes it through the hiring process.

Floor sweepers do not get asked what they think very often. The higher up one goes on the profit chain, the more they articulate their thoughts.

You see George's articulated here.

Would you hire that mind? Even if that mind is able to use logic, he uses that logic to decry pretty much everything.

I would not have him around staff of mine. Too much malevolence. Look at his questions to others.

Not his posts, not his answers even. Look at his personal questions and wonder if you would want a staff member to ask you those questions?

No, he makes a poor bed to sleep in and then sleeps poorly all the whilst blaming the poor sleep externally.

His bed. Not ours...

Your observation about floor sweepers applies fairly closely in my case. In the mid 1970s my only source of income was a minimum wage janitorial route. I would load all my cleaning supplies in my car and spend 8-10 hours per night cleaning 4-5 different businesses.

At that time a single job like mine enabled me to afford a brand new one bedroom apartment and maintain a six year-old car. The apartment rented for $175 a month and gas was less than half what it is today.

That same apartment in 2011 rents for at least ten times as much and gasoline shows no signs of ever selling for what it did in '75-'75.

There have been record productivity gains during the last forty years that have mostly gone to the richest Americans. Some of their profits are recycled into Republican and Democratic campaign coffers to elect politicians whose principle loyalty is to enhance the wealth of those who fund their campaigns.

Finally, I expect that many of us, even those my age, may live long enough to see this get much worse before it ever gets better. Questions we would never think of asking each other if we were in the same room have to be addressed if we expect to understand our roles in the age old struggle between democracy and capitalism.

 

[kiwiman127]

I heard is better than Wiki?

I dunno about that. I wouldn't go with either as solid evidence but in a most significant research between the two?

I'll go with Wiki over "I Heard".

Until something better comes along

I've never been known to make things up, just to be funny.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Whatever the issue, the rich guys win" was how a friend of William Greider who doesn't follow politics summed up the happenings of the last two years.

"...Obama has set himself up to make many more 'compromises' in the coming months; each time, he will doubtless use the left as a convenient foil.

"Disparaging 'purist' liberals is his way of assuring so-called independents that he stood up to the allegedly far-out demands of his own electoral base. This is a ludicrous ploy, given the weakness of the left.

"It cynically assumes ordinary people not engaged in politics are too dim to grasp what he's doing.

"I suspect Obama is mistaken.

"I asked an old friend what she makes of the current mess in Washington. 'Whatever the issue, the rich guys win,' she responded.

"Lots of people understand this-it is the essence of the country's historic predicament."

ZCommunications

If the rich guy always wins then Meg Whitman is governor of California, and Jack Abramoff is walking around free.

 

[georgephillip]

From William Greider's "The End of New Deal Liberalism":

"Society faces dreadful prospects and profound transformation. When both parties are aligned with corporate power, who will stand up for the people?

"Who will protect them from the insatiable appetites of capitalist enterprise and help them get through the hard passage ahead?

"One thing we know for sure from history: there is no natural limit to what capitalism will seek in terms of power and profit.

"If government does not stand up and apply the brakes, society is defenseless.

"Strangely enough, this new reality brings us back to the future, posing fundamental questions about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that citizens and reformers asked 100 years ago.
"Only this time, the nation is no longer an ascendant economic power.

"It faces hard adjustments as general prosperity recedes and the broad middle class that labor and liberalism helped create is breaking apart...

"One key dynamic of the twentieth century was the long- running contest for dominance between democracy and capitalism.

"The balance of power shifted back and forth several times, driven by two basic forces that neither corporate lobbyists nor timid politicians could control: the calamitous events that disrupted the social order, such as war and depression, and the power of citizens mobilized in reaction to those events.

"In those terms, both political parties are still highly vulnerable-as twentieth-century history repeatedly demonstrated, society cannot survive the burdens of an unfettered corporate order."

ZCommunications...

Well that figures you would use such a unbiased source as this gentleman. He's a journalist for "The Nation" periodical, one of the oldest in the nation.

The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. The periodical, devoted to politics and culture, is self-described as "the flagship of the left."
The Nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you agree with his October 2008 assessment of the impending passage of Wall Street's bailout?

"(T)his is a very revealing moment in American democracy. We’re seeing the real deformities and power alignments that govern issues like this, particularly the financial system. (A)ll of the power centers in politics and finance and business are discredited by these events.

"(W)e had this moment Monday (September 29, 2008) when, for complicated political reasons, a majority in the House rose up and said no. (O)f course...the broad public...regards this bailout as a swindle and backwards.

"(The public wonders 'w)hy are you giving all this money to the people who caused this crisis and taking the money from the public assets of the victims?'"

Are you clear on why almost all Republicans AND Democrats, conservatives and liberals, gave billion$ to those who caused the crisis by stealing the public assets of the victims?

William Greider - Wiki

 

[georgephillip]

"Whatever the issue, the rich guys win" was how a friend of William Greider who doesn't follow politics summed up the happenings of the last two years.

"...Obama has set himself up to make many more 'compromises' in the coming months; each time, he will doubtless use the left as a convenient foil.

"Disparaging 'purist' liberals is his way of assuring so-called independents that he stood up to the allegedly far-out demands of his own electoral base. This is a ludicrous ploy, given the weakness of the left.

"It cynically assumes ordinary people not engaged in politics are too dim to grasp what he's doing.

"I suspect Obama is mistaken.

"I asked an old friend what she makes of the current mess in Washington. 'Whatever the issue, the rich guys win,' she responded.

"Lots of people understand this-it is the essence of the country's historic predicament."

ZCommunications

If the rich guy always wins then Meg Whitman is governor of California, and Jack Abramoff is walking around free.

If rich guys don't win all the time why aren't hundreds of Wall Street bankers facing charges of stock or control fraud?

 

[georgephillip]

The Rich Get Richer

"The nation's income and wealth gap increased in the past decade.

"Executives and other highly-paid professionals now receive more than one-third of all pay in the United States, according a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security data (subscription required).

"The base pay of employees whose income was above the Social Security wage cutoff -- now $106,800 -- increased 78 percent, or by almost $1 trillion, from 2002 to 2007.

"During the same period, income for workers increased just 24 percent."

The Rich get richer...

For a good introduction to how the rich use government to stay rich and grow richer, see Dean Baker's "The Conservative Nanny State."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Whatever the issue, the rich guys win" was how a friend of William Greider who doesn't follow politics summed up the happenings of the last two years.

"...Obama has set himself up to make many more 'compromises' in the coming months; each time, he will doubtless use the left as a convenient foil.

"Disparaging 'purist' liberals is his way of assuring so-called independents that he stood up to the allegedly far-out demands of his own electoral base. This is a ludicrous ploy, given the weakness of the left.

"It cynically assumes ordinary people not engaged in politics are too dim to grasp what he's doing.

"I suspect Obama is mistaken.

"I asked an old friend what she makes of the current mess in Washington. 'Whatever the issue, the rich guys win,' she responded.

"Lots of people understand this-it is the essence of the country's historic predicament."

ZCommunications

If the rich guy always wins then Meg Whitman is governor of California, and Jack Abramoff is walking around free.

If rich guys don't win all the time why aren't hundreds of Wall Street bankers facing charges of stock or control fraud?

I don't know, could it be because what they did is not illegal?

 

[georgephillip]

You think?

"Nobody from Lehman, Merrill Lynch or Citigroup has been charged criminally with anything. No top executives at Bear Stearns have been indicted.

"All former American International Group executives are running free. No big mortgage company executive has had to face the law.

"How about someone other than the Fabulous Fab [7] at Goldman Sachs? How could the Securities and Exchange Commission merely settle with Countrywide’s Angelo Mozilo [8] -- and for a fraction of what he made as C.E.O.?

"The world was almost brought low by the American banking system and we are supposed to think that no one did anything wrong?

Where Are the...

 

[whitehall]

From William Greider's "The End of New Deal Liberalism":

"Society faces dreadful prospects and profound transformation. When both parties are aligned with corporate power, who will stand up for the people?

"Who will protect them from the insatiable appetites of capitalist enterprise and help them get through the hard passage ahead?

"One thing we know for sure from history: there is no natural limit to what capitalism will seek in terms of power and profit.

"If government does not stand up and apply the brakes, society is defenseless.

"Strangely enough, this new reality brings us back to the future, posing fundamental questions about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that citizens and reformers asked 100 years ago.

"Only this time, the nation is no longer an ascendant economic power.

"It faces hard adjustments as general prosperity recedes and the broad middle class that labor and liberalism helped create is breaking apart...

"One key dynamic of the twentieth century was the long- running contest for dominance between democracy and capitalism.

"The balance of power shifted back and forth several times, driven by two basic forces that neither corporate lobbyists nor timid politicians could control: the calamitous events that disrupted the social order, such as war and depression, and the power of citizens mobilized in reaction to those events.

"In those terms, both political parties are still highly vulnerable-as twentieth-century history repeatedly demonstrated, society cannot survive the burdens of an unfettered corporate order."

ZCommunications...

"When both parties are aligned with corporate power, who will stand up for the people"? Corporations ARE the people. Anyone can incorporate. Every pension in America is invested in corporations. Corporations R us. A better question is "when both parties are aligned with federal power, who will stand up for the people"? Did you Stalinist dummies know that the Constitution was created to limit federal power and not expand it?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you consider a corporation a person or immortal being?

Do you blame corporations or the constitution for the Flash Crash?

Are you stupid enough to believe corporations r us?

 

[editec]

Here's the thing, Geroge.

You fight an uphill battle because we ALL lack the language to describe the true nature of the shamocracy.

If you complain about capitalists, you are branded a communist

If you complain about corporations, people tell you that anybody can incorporate.

If you complain about the rich, people ask you who is rich? and why do you have class envy?

You see you (we) lack the words needed to DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM that doesn't come with a propaganda designed counter EPITHET with which you can be branded and therefore dismissed from consideration (by fool and knaves) .

You've no doubt noted that when you try to get into specifics, the topic very quickly turns from your point to YOUR FLAWS.

You become the issue at hand.

That is basically because the people you are seeking to engage in discussion do not have the gravitas to understand what you are asking them to consider, or in some very rare cases, they know perfectly well what you're saying and they will either avoid the issue or set out on their character assassination routines to shut you down.

Those few here that disagree with you and CAN and WIL engage you in the TOPIC?

Cherish those people.

An adherent to the musings of people like Ayn Rand who is also not given to taking the low road when debating these issues is rarer than hens' teeth.

There's some right wing reality based players here worthy of praise. That's in large part why I come here.

Most of the folks here that disagree by being disagreeable? Well sport I suspect the 30 point rule is in effect, and that you or I will never reach them because what reaches them is not facts or logic but emotionalism.

And the value system that drives you to arrive at you POV is exactly the opposite of the value system drives them to have theirs.