Plutocracy Now

[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.

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

If organized labor had not become a shell of its former self over the last three decades, it seems reasonable to assume that middle class wages would have grown at about the same rate as the overall economy-just as they did in the decades following WWII.

"But they didn't, and that meant that every year, the money that would have gone to middle-class wage increases instead went somewhere else.

"This created a vast and steadily growing pool of money, and the chart below gives you an idea of its size.

"It shows how much money would have flowed to different groups if their incomes had grown at the same rate as the overall economy.

"The entire bottom 80 percent now loses a collective $743 billion each year, thanks to the cumulative effect of slow wage growth.

"Conversely, the top 1 percent gains $673 billion.

"That's a pretty close match. Basically, the money gained by the top 1 percent seems to have come almost entirely from the bottom 80 percent."

Over the same three decades financial risk has shifted off government and corporations and onto the already overburdened individual taxpayer.

The recent Wall Street bailout is the biggest and best example so far, but that clock is still ticking.

Plutocracy Now P.4

 

[asterism]

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.

As much as I detest that hateful sentiment, I'm still glad I served this country to defend your right to speak such nonsense.

 

[asterism]

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.

Aren't you rich?

 

[asterism]

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.

So it's not that you don't have enough to be comfortable, it's that someone else has more?

Envy is a very bad basis for policy, and income redistribution by its very nature means those less fortunate get to benefit from the hard work of those more fortunate. Guess where your taxpayer funded pension puts you?

 

[Dot Com]

It wouldn't be as bad if those $200,000,000 xmas bonuses were paid-out for actually doing something that benefits the middle-class of the country.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

"I examine the differential responsiveness of U.S. senators to the preferences of wealthy, middle-class, and poor constituents. My analysis includes broad summary measures of senators’ voting behavior as well as specific votes on the minimum wage, civil rights, government spending, and abortion.

"In almost every instance, senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle-class constituents, while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators’ roll call vote.

"Disparities in representation are especially pronounced for Republican senators, who were more than twice as responsive as Democratic senators to the ideological views of affluent constituents.

"These income-based disparities in representation appear to be unrelated to disparities in turnout and political knowledge and only weakly related to disparities in the extent of constituents’ contact with senators and their staff."

Bartels: Economic Inequality...

If US Senators were apportioned by income instead of geography and the richest 1% of Americans shared a single senator, would you expect subjective or objective rationalizations from the Koch brothers?

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Two years into hope and change and the rich are still getting richer.

Doesn't take a scientist to figure out that what was advertised as a change is really just more of the same. The only difference is unions, foreign investors, and other friends of Obama are getting rich now.

Oh, and Marxism or Populist Ideals and Beliefs, like what you're talking about, is much more corrosive to Democracy then a so-call concentration of wealth.

 

[asterism]

It wouldn't be as bad if those $200,000,000 xmas bonuses were paid-out for actually doing something that benefits the middle-class of the country.

Who got a $200 Million Christmas bonus?

 

[mudwhistle]

It wouldn't be as bad if those $200,000,000 xmas bonuses were paid-out for actually doing something that benefits the middle-class of the country.

Who got a $200 Million Christmas bonus?

Some Fat-cat the Driveby's dreamed up. Everyone knows the Obama Administration sticks up for the little guy. And by that measure, once the little guy is on his side, the Obama Administration has no inclination to make the little guy's lot in life any better.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

In this November 2006 cepr op-ed, Dean Baker connects "free trade" with patent/copyright "protectionism."

"The first part that we should clearly recognize is that much of this trade agenda has nothing to do with 'free trade.'

"A central goal of the neo-liberal trade policy has been to increase patent and copyright protection (as in protectionism) in the developing world.

"This takes money out of the pockets of poor people in the developing world and hands it to the drug companies, the entertainment industry, and Bill Gates.

"This protectionism hurts economic growth and redistributes income upward."

Baker's premise seems to be that "free trade" is mostly a cover to conceal conditions that make it easy to manufacture goods in the developing world and then sell them in the US.

"This has the effect of putting manufacturing workers in direct competition with relatively low-paid workers in the developing world."

'Wonder if Charles and David know?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

As much as I detest that hateful sentiment, I'm still glad I served this country to defend your right to speak such nonsense.

"The Kent State shootings—also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre[2][3][4]—occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970.

"The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5]

"Some of the students who were shot had been protesting against the American invasion of Cambodia, which President Richard Nixon announced in a television address on April 30.

"Other students who were shot had been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance.[6][7]"

 

[asterism]

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.

As much as I detest that hateful sentiment, I'm still glad I served this country to defend your right to speak such nonsense.

"The Kent State shootings—also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre[2][3][4]—occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970.

"The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5]

"Some of the students who were shot had been protesting against the American invasion of Cambodia, which President Richard Nixon announced in a television address on April 30.

"Other students who were shot had been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance.[6][7]"

Link to prove they were "happy?"

Thanks in advance.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't know if any of the Ohio Guardsmen were "happy" about the killings or not. You might want to check with snjmom about that part.

I was living in southern California at that time, and a good friend of mine was in the local Marine Reserves.

On one occasion he told me that members of his unit were hoping civil unrest would come to San Bernardino so they would have a chance to "kill some *******."

I had forgotten the four days of civil disturbances in Kent that led up to the May 4 Massacre. There was widespread rage at that time against Nixon's "incursion" into Cambodia, and some of the hot heads on the left called for "bringing the war home."

The mayor of Kent had declared a curfew after assorted drunks, angered by the mayor's order to close bars early, began tossing beer bottles and obscenities at the Kent police.

By the time the Guard arrived late Saturday night (May 2nd) one of the first sights they saw was the campus ROTC building aflame.

"The arsonists were never apprehended and no one was injured in the fire.[12]

"More than a thousand protesters surrounded the building and cheered its burning. Several Kent firemen and police officers were struck by rocks and other objects while attempting to extinguish the blaze.

"Several fire engine companies had to be called in because protesters carried the fire hose into the Commons and slashed it.[13][14][15]

"The National Guard made numerous arrests and used tear gas; at least one student was slightly wounded with a bayonet...[16]"

"A Gallup Poll taken immediately after the shootings showed that 58 percent of respondents blamed the students, 11 percent blamed the National Guard and 31 percent expressed no opinion.[33]"

Personally, I blamed Nixon and Wall Street.

Kent State Shootings

 

[asterism]

I don't know if any of the Ohio Guardsmen were "happy" about the killings or not. You might want to check with snjmom about that part.

I was living in southern California at that time, and a good friend of mine was in the local Marine Reserves.

On one occasion he told me that members of his unit were hoping civil unrest would come to San Bernardino so they would have a chance to "kill some *******."

Ah. So the basis of your judgement is a guy you knew told you that someone else told him something.

That's some solid basis. Bravo.

I had forgotten the four days of civil disturbances in Kent that led up to the May 4 Massacre. There was widespread rage at that time against Nixon's "incursion" into Cambodia, and some of the hot heads on the left called for "bringing the war home."

The mayor of Kent had declared a curfew after assorted drunks, angered by the mayor's order to close bars early, began tossing beer bottles and obscenities at the Kent police.

By the time the Guard arrived late Saturday night (May 2nd) one of the first sights they saw was the campus ROTC building aflame.

"The arsonists were never apprehended and no one was injured in the fire.[12]

"More than a thousand protesters surrounded the building and cheered its burning. Several Kent firemen and police officers were struck by rocks and other objects while attempting to extinguish the blaze.

"Several fire engine companies had to be called in because protesters carried the fire hose into the Commons and slashed it.[13][14][15]

"The National Guard made numerous arrests and used tear gas; at least one student was slightly wounded with a bayonet...[16]"

"A Gallup Poll taken immediately after the shootings showed that 58 percent of respondents blamed the students, 11 percent blamed the National Guard and 31 percent expressed no opinion.[33]"

Personally, I blamed Nixon and Wall Street.

Kent State Shootings

And not the arsonists. Go figure.

 

[georgephillip]

No war?

No arson.

 

[asterism]

No war?

No arson.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[whitemanwalt]

Every so often, Americans should finish everything they're doing for a minute, and shine upon the nature of their land. Specifically, upon what has traditionally been this country's process property. Was it our capitalist system? No, there are umteen capitalistic countries around the concern and capitalism was not opening formulated by Americans. What about our intensiveness on personal freedom? Cured, erstwhile again, galore countries urge the virtues of immunity and galore groups of fill bed fought for immunity surface before Land was bacillary. Certainly it has been our diverse people and our temperament of all races, genders, intersexual preferences... yeah, justice. Personally, I would say that it was our inscribed Makeup and the representative values embodied within it.

 

[B. Kidd]

Every so often, Americans should finish everything they're doing for a minute, and shine upon the nature of their land. Specifically, upon what has traditionally been this country's process property. Was it our capitalist system? No, there are umteen capitalistic countries around the concern and capitalism was not opening formulated by Americans. What about our intensiveness on personal freedom? Cured, erstwhile again, galore countries urge the virtues of immunity and galore groups of fill bed fought for immunity surface before Land was bacillary. Certainly it has been our diverse people and our temperament of all races, genders, intersexual preferences... yeah, justice. Personally, I would say that it was our inscribed Makeup and the representative values embodied within it.

Do you really sell term life insurance?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Gee, Didn't Obama just do the same thing? Lowered taxes for the rich and create even bigger deficits?

Are you really that stupid? No need to answer, as we all know the answer is yes.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

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.

Name one instance of the US Military shooting citizens in New Orleans.