DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on October 09, 2011, 12:11:56 PM
-
Herman Cain Move Protests To the White House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7y07nfMCRA#)
-
No Herman , there is good reason for the protest to remain on Wall street.
The Protesters will find Pennsilvania Avenue much less hospitable and less tolerant than Wall Street.
-
They are protesting on Wall Street because that is where the problems of joblessness originate. Business is sitting on piles of money and will not hire, which means that there is a limited supply of customers who can afford more goods and services.
Assholes like Cantor (actually, the ones who financed Cantor's election) are the ones who are causing the problem, by refusing to do anything.
Electing Republicans will not cause the situation to improve, because their only remedy is cutting taxes, which they falsely believe will raise revenues.
-
They are protesting on Wall Street because that is where the problems of joblessness originate. Business is sitting on piles of money and will not hire, which means that there is a limited supply of customers who can afford more goods and services.
Assholes like Cantor (actually, the ones who financed Cantor's election) are the ones who are causing the problem, by refusing to do anything.
Electing Republicans will not cause the situation to improve, because their only remedy is cutting taxes, which they falsely believe will raise revenues.
Much more jobs, much more employment come from small business, not big corporations or Wall Street! It's the small businesses in America, like a 7/11 store, the plumbing business with 8 plumbers, the Dentist office with 12 employees, the UPS store with 3 employees, the small movie theater operation, winder washers, roofers, jewelry stores, restaurants, Ace Hardware franchises, karate studios, all the small businesses in strip malls, etc, NOT, I repeat NOT Dupont, or 3M or Wall Street.
Herman Cain is the only candidate with the balls to say what I (and the rest of Conservatives) want to hear a presidential candidate say & believe.
I predict the Herman Cain will move Conservative voters to his camp, thus he will lead the pack, and will be the nominee, and at the very least he will be the VP for the Republican Party.
-
They are protesting on Wall Street because that is where the problems of joblessness originate. Business is sitting on piles of money and will not hire, which means that there is a limited supply of customers who can afford more goods and services.
Assholes like Cantor (actually, the ones who financed Cantor's election) are the ones who are causing the problem, by refusing to do anything.
Electing Republicans will not cause the situation to improve, because their only remedy is cutting taxes, which they falsely believe will raise revenues.
Wall Street is a convenient boogeyman.
The real problem is the current tax systems which encourages lobbying and pitting one group against the other and the constant ebb and flow of purchasing advantage. The government is up for bid. And that is the fault of the government not businesses large and small.
So when you advocate taxing millionaires you are no better than a K street lobbyist.
We need a flat tax . You earn more you pay more but you don't pay a higher percentage.
-
They are protesting on Wall Street because that is where the problems of joblessness originate. Business is sitting on piles of money and will not hire, which means that there is a limited supply of customers who can afford more goods and services.
Assholes like Cantor (actually, the ones who financed Cantor's election) are the ones who are causing the problem, by refusing to do anything.
Electing Republicans will not cause the situation to improve, because their only remedy is cutting taxes, which they falsely believe will raise revenues.
Wall Street is a convenient boogeyman.
The real problem is the current tax systems which encourages lobbying and pitting one group against the other and the constant ebb and flow of purchasing advantage. The government is up for bid. And that is the fault of the government not businesses large and small.
So when you advocate taxing millionaires you are no better than a K street lobbyist.
We need a flat tax . You earn more you pay more but you don't pay a higher percentage.
9-9-9
-
They are protesting on Wall Street because that is where the problems of joblessness originate.
Henhouses are where the problems of egglessness originate.
-
They are protesting on Wall Street because that is where the problems of joblessness originate.
Henhouses are where the problems of egglessness originate.
XO reminds me of that guy with black hair parted in the middle with a small mustaches back in the 40's that blamed Jews for all problems so his group came up with the Final Solution to fix the problem.
-
Cain doesn't get that Wall Street OWNS Washington, so he's effectively telling the demonstrators to deal with the monkey instead of the organ grinder. The demonstrators at least knows where the problem originates and have decided to deal with it there.
The American voter today has absolutely no way to vote against the banks or the financial industry generally, as Chris Hedges says here:
Hedges: No way in US system to vote against banks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz5RxhahHK0#)
Thus, the occupation of Wall Street, outside of the whole phony spectacle of "electoral" politics and "democratic elections."
We are witnessing the first real pre-revolutionary steps of the masses, which IMHO will be ruthlessly snuffed out by the forces of the ruling class (police and/or National Guard) if they don't first "spontaneously" (i.e., with a little surreptitious help from the organs of state security) self-destruct. The true benefit of the exercise will be to serve as a lesson, the lesson for future generations of revolutionaries that "nicely-nicely" just doesn't work.
Paraphrasing one of my favourite Lenin quotes, "Things will have to get a lot worse before they can become better." But I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that they will (get a lot worse) - - that's a given. The whole house of cards is starting to come apart.
-
Cain doesn't get that Wall Street OWNS Washington, so he's effectively telling the demonstrators to deal with the monkey instead of the organ grinder. The demonstrators at least knows where the problem originates and have decided to deal with it there.
The American voter today has absolutely no way to vote against the banks or the financial industry generally, as Chris Hedges says here:
Hedges: No way in US system to vote against banks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz5RxhahHK0#)
Thus, the occupation of Wall Street, outside of the whole phony spectacle of "electoral" politics and "democratic elections."
We are witnessing the first real pre-revolutionary steps of the masses, which IMHO will be ruthlessly snuffed out by the forces of the ruling class (police and/or National Guard) if they don't first "spontaneously" (i.e., with a little surreptitious help from the organs of state security) self-destruct. The true benefit of the exercise will be to serve as a lesson, the lesson for future generations of revolutionaries that "nicely-nicely" just doesn't work.
Paraphrasing one of my favourite Lenin quotes, "Things will have to get a lot worse before they can become better." But I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that they will (get a lot worse) - - that's a given. The whole house of cards is starting to come apart.
Wall Street doesn't make law. Cain is correct about protesting 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Going to the front of the WH tells everybody in Congress we know where the problem lies. All the lawmakers have to do is make laws that work, that they will abide by, and deals with the problems. Changes to tax law, dealing with corruption, bribery, and other crimes by Congress will go a long way in fixing the probes with Wall Street; and since Wall Street can't do what Congress does then clearly the problem is with Congress not Wall Street.
Here's my question for you. If Wall Street broke laws and were criminal then do you expect them to arrest themselves? Obama's justice Department, FBI, ATF, CIA and the BFD should have been all over Wall Street like flies on shit and they should all be in jail by now. Obama & Congress are the guilty criminal parties.
-
The American voter today has absolutely no way to vote against the banks or the financial industry generally
I'm not sure that is true.
Wall Street may have tremendous influence over Washington, but i am not convinced that publicly traded corporations are responsible for the unemployment levels in this country. I would suspect that the vast majority of employees work for sole proprietorships or llc's.
IE small businesses.
Good to see you . Hope you are well.
-
<<Wall Street doesn't make law. Cain is correct about protesting 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Going to the front of the WH tells everybody in Congress we know where the problem lies. All the lawmakers have to do is make laws that work, that they will abide by, and deals with the problems. Changes to tax law, dealing with corruption, bribery, and other crimes by Congress will go a long way in fixing the probes with Wall Street; and since Wall Street can't do what Congress does then clearly the problem is with Congress not Wall Street.>>
The problem is precisely that Wall Street DOES make law - - through their hundreds of lobbyists, their campaign funding of candidates over and under the table, and the Congressmen and Senators that they have bought and paid for. In your view, and Cain's as well, Congress is independent of Wall Street. In my view, Hedges' view and the demonstrators' view, special interests (including but not limited to Wall Street) have bought and paid for Congress. That's what I meant when I said that Wall Street OWNS Washington.
THAT'S why the demonstrators have occupied Wall Street, to dramatize their POV, which is that Wall Street owns Washington. To go to the White House instead, as Cain suggests, would serve only to dramatize Cain's POV, that Wall Street does NOT own Washington. Why on earth would the demonstrators want to dramatize Cain's POV when they have their own POV, diametrically opposed to Cain's, to dramatize?
-
The reason Wall Street can buy DC is because current law gives DC politicians something to sell.
Change the law. End of story.
-
<<Wall Street doesn't make law. Cain is correct about protesting 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Going to the front of the WH tells everybody in Congress we know where the problem lies. All the lawmakers have to do is make laws that work, that they will abide by, and deals with the problems. Changes to tax law, dealing with corruption, bribery, and other crimes by Congress will go a long way in fixing the probes with Wall Street; and since Wall Street can't do what Congress does then clearly the problem is with Congress not Wall Street.>>
The problem is precisely that Wall Street DOES make law - - through their hundreds of lobbyists, their campaign funding of candidates over and under the table, and the Congressmen and Senators that they have bought and paid for. In your view, and Cain's as well, Congress is independent of Wall Street. In my view, Hedges' view and the demonstrators' view, special interests (including but not limited to Wall Street) have bought and paid for Congress. That's what I meant when I said that Wall Street OWNS Washington.
THAT'S why the demonstrators have occupied Wall Street, to dramatize their POV, which is that Wall Street owns Washington. To go to the White House instead, as Cain suggests, would serve only to dramatize Cain's POV, that Wall Street does NOT own Washington. Why on earth would the demonstrators want to dramatize Cain's POV when they have their own POV, diametrically opposed to Cain's, to dramatize?
Then you should be happy that the Tea Party has come around.
-
The reason Wall Street can buy DC is because current law gives DC politicians something to sell.
Change the law. End of story.
Change the law, then follow the laws. End of story.
-
Cain is a blowhard. He is either playing dumb or he is dumb,
-
Cain is a blowhard. He is either playing dumb or he is dumb,
you forgot to mention he has cancer too.
-
<<I'm not sure that is true. [that U.S. voters have no way to vote against the banks and the financial industry generally]>>
I'd be happy to argue the point with you, but only after I'm reassured that you listened to the Hedges video I linked to - - he makes the point so well and so convincingly that I'd just be repeating what he's already said if you hadn't watched it.
<<Wall Street may have tremendous influence over Washington, but i am not convinced that publicly traded corporations are responsible for the unemployment levels in this country.>>
The demonstrators' grievances against the big corporations are not limited to causing unemployment. A large part of the grievances seem to consist of allegations of reckless mismanagement, gambling and/or speculation, leading to insolvency, leading to bail-outs; war-mongering, leading to huge deficits, leading to "belt-tightening," leading to public-sector layoffs (bad in themselves) leading to demand-side weaknesses leading to private-sector layoffs; and failure to produce any meaningful health-care reform, leading to more government subsidization of the insurance industry and the needless waste of hundreds of billions of dollars. I'm sure there are other grievances that I just can't think of right now. There seems to be a fundamental belief that due to pandering to the corporate sector, the public Treasury is bare, leading to or threatening curtailment of public health, welfare, education and social security benefits that effectively represent a transfer of national wealth from "the people" (a.k.a. the 99%) to the corporations and their fat-cat owners.
But even limiting the grievances to "the unemployment levels in this country," I think one of the most obvious culprits you could look for would be the free trade agreements, including those still in the pipeline, that push American workers into a race to the bottom against the poorest and most exploited workers on the planet. The demonstrators seem to believe that it was corporate America that pushed for these treaties and that they have resulted in an unmitigated disaster for the American working class. The decline of the working class purchasing power of course would have a ripple effect on the supply side of the equation.
<<I would suspect that the vast majority of employees work for sole proprietorships or llc's.
IE small businesses. >>
This seems to be in line with what I have been reading too. But why would small businesses be immune to a loss of purchasing power in the working class? Why would they be immune to the declining value of the dollar internationally? When big business lays off, do you think small business starts to hire? I don't have figures on this, but I'd think that a sinking economy causes across-the-board layoffs, not just Fortune 500 layoffs.
<<Good to see you . Hope you are well. >>
Thanks. I'm well.
-
Nice to see you here again, Michael. Glad to hear you are well.
-
A large part of the grievances seem to consist of allegations of reckless mismanagement, gambling and/or speculation, leading to insolvency, leading to bail-outs; war-mongering, leading to huge deficits, leading to "belt-tightening," leading to public-sector layoffs (bad in themselves) leading to demand-side weaknesses leading to private-sector layoffs; and failure to produce any meaningful health-care reform, leading to more government subsidization of the insurance industry and the needless waste of hundreds of billions of dollars.
2 questions:
Why aren't they in jail?
Why did Congress give them the money?
If that is what the protesters are there for then I am with them!
-
<<Wall Street doesn't make law.>>
Well if they don't, you better write 'em right away and tell them that all the billions they've been spending on lobbyists and donating to campaigns and paying to hookers and hotels and airlines for these bozos was a total waste. I'm sure they'll be furious when they find out.
<<Cain is correct about protesting 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Going to the front of the WH tells everybody in Congress we know where the problem lies. >>
No, it would tell everybody in Congress that Cain and the other lying scumbags like him have once more fooled a whole bunch of idiots into believing that the problem is with the monkey and not with the organ-grinder.
<<All the lawmakers have to do is make laws that work, that they will abide by, and deals with the problems.>>
ROTFLMFAO. If "laws that work" mean laws that benefit the 99% rather than the corporations that suck up bail-outs as a reward for bad bets, that lay off thousands of workers so that production can be off-shored, etc. etc., you have to ask yourself this question: WHY on earth would legislators who are bought and paid for by corporations and special interests suddenly decide to vote for laws that go directly against the interests of those corporations and special interests? Why? If they are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, perks and benefits annually, why on earth would they ever want to piss off their benefactors? Why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
<<Changes to tax law, dealing with corruption, bribery, and other crimes by Congress will go a long way in fixing the probes with Wall Street; and since Wall Street can't do what Congress does then clearly the problem is with Congress not Wall Street. >>
Think about it, Kramer. Why would legislators who are in Wall Street's pocket do any of the things you are suggesting? And if they were so inclined, why haven't they done so before now?
<<Here's my question for you. If Wall Street broke laws and were criminal then do you expect them to arrest themselves? Obama's justice Department, FBI, ATF, CIA and the BFD should have been all ov>>
The problem starts with your word, "If . . . "
I am not claiming that Wall Street DID break any laws. (They may have broken some laws we don't know about and covered it up, and the FBI, etc., may have been told by their bosses to look the other way, but that's a whole different issue, which we don't need to get into at this point.)
So here's my question to you: if everything that Wall Street has done up till now is legal, and nothing that they have done is illegal, and yet they have, through recklessness, greed and or neglect, caused the loss of trillions of dollars to ordinary citizens, how is it that no laws were ever drafted that WOULD have prevented these outrages from occurring? How is it that the ONE law that might have prevented the worst of their outrages (Glass-Steagall) was repealed? Doesn't the absence of oversight legislation and the repeal of Glass-Steagall indicate to you that these developments (which brought no advantage to Congress and unlimited financial advantages to Wall Street) were in reality dictated by Wall Street to the corrupt legislators who they had bought and paid for?
-
<<The reason Wall Street can buy DC is because current law gives DC politicians something to sell. >>
"The current law" doesn't suddenly give politicians something that they can sell. ANY law-maker in ANY society at ANY time in history has had and always will have something to sell. Since laws by necessity impose limits or obligations on individuals, presumably for the benefit or relief of other individuals, the law-maker by the very exercise of his or her legislative function will benefit some citizens and infringe upon others, which of course gives the law-maker "something to sell." You can't point to a single legislature in the history of the world in which legislators had nothing to sell, if they were so minded.
<<Change the law.>>
You tell that to your Congressman or Senator. Who are they going to listen to? You or their biggest donors? (Of course, I'm assuming here that you're NOT their biggest donor.)
<<End of story.>>
The REAL end of story is that as long as you have representative democracy, you have the opportunity for special interests to bribe the elected representatives. When you combine that with a near-total control of those same special interests over the media and the judiciary, you've got a lock on power that nothing, and I mean nothing, except a People's Revolution, is ever going to dislodge. I really hope you watched the Chris Hedges link I posted. He lays it all out for you. It's unanswerable.
-
<<Nice to see you here again, Michael. Glad to hear you are well.>>
Thanks, XO. Glad you're still fighting the good fight.
-
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsta9jMs5R1r25y9yo1_500.jpg)
I am retired on Social Security and my wife, who is 63, suffers from MS and four other incurable diseases. She can’t get Medicare or health insurance. She was in and out of the hospital five times during April-June of this year, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills. She is now in a nursing home, confined to bed. We certainly can’t afford this care, but we were able to apply for Medicaid by liquidating all of our savings, investments, and life insurance policies. I have an MBA and a PhD and have been a director of a successful design firm, I but have been forced into a desperate situation by CORPORATE GREED. We are the 99%
From the we are the 99% tumblr (http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/).
You read his story. Explain how corporations are responsible for his plight?
BTW when you talk about special interests corrupting the the governments of this nation are you also referring to unions?
-
BTW i listened to Hedges. He is wrong about tea party.
It isn't an organization that boogeymen like the Koch brothers can control. It's an idea.
-
<<2 questions:
<<Why aren't they in jail?>>
It's basically a defect in the existing legislation, IMHO. Leaving aside for the moment any possible misdemeanours or felonies that we don't know about, the laws are drafted in ways that make it virtually impossible to prove criminal wrong-doing. This of course is no accident - - the legislators who draft the laws are corrupt, receiving many kinds of benefits, cash included, from the special interests and the corporations. They want to appear tough on corruption to the voters at home and want even more to draft legislation that WON'T piss off those who are greasing their palms. Ideally, the legislation will look and sound like tough anti-corruption law, but the donors won't be too pissed off because they know how badly their corrupt legislators need to LOOK tough to the folks at home, and are happy if they know that the law really has no teeth, something that the folks at home, who aren't lawyers, have no way of knowing, but the corporations and special interests have a very clear understanding of because of the legions of lawyers in their employ.
<<Why did Congress give them the money?>>
Well, if you're talking about the TARP program and the bank bail-outs, I think a lot of the legislators were genuinely panicked and really believed that without a massive bail-out, the country would slide into a massive depression that would rival that of 1933, so they rushed to approve the overall AMOUNT of the bail-out. From there I kind of lost track of the money trail. Who got what, and why, I really don't know. The big boys got a lot of public scrutiny but when the smaller pay-outs went to the smaller institutions, I don't know what the real story was. The question I ought to look into was how was the panic created and stoked? My recollection is that some very highly placed Bush administration officials, formerly in charge of Wall Street firms, were stoking the panic, but I'm sure that by now there are detailed books out on the subject which any public library would have that could give a much better account of the panic than I ever could.
<<If that is what the protesters are there for then I am with them!>>
The protestors are out there for a wide variety of reasons, some of which you would probably agree with, others not. IMHO, although I didn't talk with any of them while I was in New York, from what I've seen and read, a lot of them are there because they don't believe in the electoral system any more. They think that anyone, Republican or Democrat, who is part of the system, is a part of the problem. Although it seems pretty clear to me that if they refuse to participate in the election, either as organizers, activists or voters, that it will be the Democratic Party which will lose the most from their inaction. Overwhelmingly. And that's OK with me. I want to see Obama go down so badly that I don't care anymore who will win.
-
...
-
*snicker*
-
<<BTW i listened to Hedges. He is wrong about tea party.
<<It isn't an organization that boogeymen like the Koch brothers can control. It's an idea. >>
LOL. My bad. I shoulda added a caveat because I KNEW you'd object to his tea-party take. He had a lot of reasons for characterizing TPs as fascists, not just Koch brothers funding. He went through a whole litany of TP positions on many issues and in his opinion (which I mostly agreed with) those positions were mostly fascist positions.
I was more interested in Hedges' view of how the super-rich have an unbreakable lock on power within the existing system and why the American voter will never be able to vote against the banks and the financial institutions. I thought he explained that very well, and made a virtually irrefutable argument for it.
-
I was more interested in Hedges' view of how the super-rich have an unbreakable lock on power within the existing system and why the American voter will never be able to vote against the banks and the financial institutions. I thought he explained that very well, and made a virtually irrefutable argument for it.
I disagree with his assessment. Being the optimist that i am , this whole system of cronycapitalism and corruption can be turned around in an election cycle or two. Right thinking voters simply need to remain focused on the economy and economic issues.
-
<<Right thinking voters simply need to remain focused on the economy and economic issues. >>
Yeah, that'll happen. Right-thinking voters were warned about the military-industrial complex in Ike's farewell address in 1960, and in the intervening half-century did absolutely jack-shit to shake it off. But now, with media ownership concentrated in fewer hands than ever before in American history, the sheeple are going to suddenly spring to life, find incorruptible politicians to represent them and "throw the bums out," ushering in a new era of honesty and devotion to the public weal in American governance.
It's a straight-line declining graph, BT - - we're already at a point where the President can start wars without even a fig-leaf of Congressional authorization and order the assassination of American citizens based on anonymous "designations" by nameless bureaucrats - - with barely a peep of protest in the MSM - - and you STILL can't figure out where all this is heading? You really are an optimist, aren't you?
-
Cain (get the name: he is Cain, not Abel) has a 999 tax plan.
999 of 666 upside down, This dude may well be the AntiChrist,
-
<<You read his story. Explain how corporations are responsible for his plight?>>
The corporations which always lobbied against health-care reform (primarily the insurance industry) are responsible for his plight. If he lived in Canada, he wouldn't be in any "plight." Corporations and the politicians they kept in their pocket are responsible for this guy's plight.
<<BTW when you talk about special interests corrupting the the governments of this nation are you also referring to unions?>>
Oh God no! Unions represent the working men and working women of the nation. The only "special interests" they lobbied for are those which affect millions of Americans even today - - the 40-hour work week, the abolition of child labour, workplace safety, fair minimum wage . . . if that's the "corruption" of "special interests," you'd better pray for more corruption and more special interests.
-
<<Right thinking voters simply need to remain focused on the economy and economic issues. >>
we're already at a point where the President can start wars without even a fig-leaf of Congressional authorization and order the assassination of American citizens based on anonymous "designations" by nameless bureaucrats - - with barely a peep of protest in the MSM
Thanks for helping to reinforce my point about the MSM bias, Tee. And good to see you and Brass. Let's hope we can all be civil with each others' disagreements. I'll do what I can, and attempt reciprocate appropriately
-
But now, with media ownership concentrated in fewer hands than ever before in American history, the sheeple are going to suddenly spring to life, find incorruptible politicians to represent them and "throw the bums out," ushering in a new era of honesty and devotion to the public weal in American governance.
That's last years paradigm. Anthony Wiener wasn't brought down by the MSM. He was brought down by the internet.
-
I was in NYC when the whole Wiener thing went down. He was front-page headline news in the NY Post every fucking day for at least seven, probably 10 or 11 days. He was ridiculed unmercifully, which led to the backroom boys in the Party telling him he had to go. He became radioactive, in large part due to the non-stop media ridicule.
But pack attacks on the odd politician who suddenly becomes vulnerable due to a sex scandal is not the way the MSM exercises its power. If they had to wait for a sex scandal to occur before falling on a politician and tearing the guy apart, their influence would be very limited.
The power of the MSM in choosing the legislators lies in who gets access and how they're treated. Rick Perry, Bachmann, etc. got star treatment in the MSM even as Ron Paul whipped their asses in polls. The MSM treated Dr. Paul as a nonentity, the others were built up as real contenders on the basis of -- next to nothing, not even their numbers against Paul's numbers.
I see the power of the MSM as more or less determining the field of candidates, then the voters can choose between the Tweedle Dums and Tweedle Dees of the two parties, and guys who really could make a difference, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinic, are sidelined into obscurity. Guys like Herman Cain - - ridiculous morons, actually, clowns who spout absurdities and childish simplifications - - they get a lot of attention in the media, treated as if they were serious and intelligent persons with real solutions to real problems, and anyone who doesn't see it Wall Street's way is marginalized and sidelined as "extreme," "radical," etc., if not worse.
-
I was in NYC when the whole Wiener thing went down. He was front-page headline news in the NY Post every fucking day for at least seven, probably 10 or 11 days. He was ridiculed unmercifully, which led to the backroom boys in the Party telling him he had to go. He became radioactive, in large part due to the non-stop media ridicule.
The NY Post was just repeating what the bloggers and tweeters were digging up. The MSM was busy buying Wieners story that he had been hacked and or set up.
As far as the unions go, their devils deal with politicians will likely be responsible for the bankruptcy of California and Illinois.
-
The corporations which always lobbied against health-care reform (primarily the insurance industry) are responsible for his plight. If he lived in Canada, he wouldn't be in any "plight." Corporations and the politicians they kept in their pocket are responsible for this guy's plight.
I am retired on Social Security and my wife, who is 63, suffers from MS and four other incurable diseases. She can’t get Medicare or health insurance. She was in and out of the hospital five times during April-June of this year, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills. She is now in a nursing home, confined to bed. We certainly can’t afford this care, but we were able to apply for Medicaid by liquidating all of our savings, investments, and life insurance policies.
Looks to me like his problem is with the government.
-
<<The NY Post was just repeating what the bloggers and tweeters were digging up. The MSM was busy buying Wieners story that he had been hacked and or set up. >>
1. A lot of stuff that's dug up by hackers and tweeters never makes it into the MSM or if it does get in, it lives and dies for a day. It's printed once, for form's sake, and allowed to "blow over." It was the Post's decision to keep this thing front-page day after day after day.
2. Bloggers and tweeters may have dug out the "penis photo" posts, but Post reporters and others kept the story front-page with junk stories that ought to have been squibs deep inside the paper, if not just non-stories - - stuff about Huda, the Wiener's wife, Huda's pregnancy, Huda's job, Wiener's apartment going on and off the market, getting sold, Wiener's new home, Wiener pleading with supporters for his job - - an avalanche of inconsequential bullshit, all front-page.
3. The MSM didn't "buy" Wiener's story about a set-up, they reported it. It sold papers and kept the story alive till the shit hit the fan, at which point they didn't need it any more and even Wiener gave it up.
4. Sex scandals are a sub-genre of political stories for the MSM. At the point where the scandal breaks or is too wide-spread to be ignored, exploitation sells papers like hotcakes and political objectives become pushed to the background in the rush to pump up the bottom line. At that point the politician, even a pro-Zionist hack like Wiener, becomes damaged goods, of no use to anyone any more and kind of gets thrown to the wolves without regard to all his past services to his paymasters. It's not personal, it's business. Again, if you want a real indication of the media's power in "electing" a pro-corporate, pro-war-machine legislature, you need to look at media access in the first instance, and the kind of fawning coverage they give to their picks, for example how an idiot like Cain is treated respectfully as if he really had something important to say.
<<As far as the unions go, their devils deal with politicians will likely be responsible for the bankruptcy of California and Illinois. >>
Yeah, right, and Proposition 13 has absolutely nothing to do with it.
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/732e297d.jpg)
-
Sticking a stupid addendum to their sign does not change the fact that people who are willing to work cannot find jobs, while bogus mortgage peddlers are still raking in the big bucks on Wall Street.
Wall Street supports the Republican'ts that have prevented President Obama from doing anything. It is entirely appropriate that the demonstrations be held in Wall Street.
And I agree, Cain is just a loudmouthed simpleton who is currently demonstrating just how incompetent he is.
Imagine some guy with ZERO experience in any elected office trying to get rid of the home mortgage interest deduction and hundreds of loopholes in Congress to enact his simpleton 999 tax plan.
According to Cain, only NEW goods are taxed at 9%. So you buy a NEW car, you pay $1800, PLUS state sales tax on a $20,000 car. But there is no tax on a used car. Now imagine that you are a creative dealer wanting to make a sale. What is a "used" car. All you would have to do is declared it "used". Just like they do with demos and such.
How about a 9% tax on a new house? That is sure to really get the construction industry booming, isn't it?
Cain is a simpleton, and not one with a full deck. His plan would never get passed, and instead of the rather measured tones of Obama, we would be hearing the blowhard blather of this old fool on a daily basis.
-
BT, looks like Prof. Jeffrey Sachs is an optimist, just like you:
http://www.truth-out.org/jeffrey-sachs-occupy-wall-street/1318196532 (http://www.truth-out.org/jeffrey-sachs-occupy-wall-street/1318196532)
Well, I don't agree, but I still hope you guys are right.
CU4, the sign totally misrepresents the demonstrators' demands, which have nothing to do with the teabaggers and everything to do with the rich. Also, they aren't just demanding that the rich pay more, they're also demanding that the rich stop buying off the law-makers and give the government back to the people.
-
CU4, the sign totally misrepresents the demonstrators' demands, which have nothing to do with the teabaggers and everything to do with the rich. Also, they aren't just demanding that the rich pay more, they're also demanding that the rich stop buying off the law-makers and give the government back to the people.
=============================
An excellent point!
-
An excellent point!
yeah sure Mikey makes an "excellent point".
Ha...I've seen interviews with these half-wits camped on Wall Street
and many of them cant even answer what they are protesting for
tell me XO if Mikey's point is "excellent"
how does Mikey know the sign "misrepresents their demands"
if many of the protesters don't even know what their demands are themselves?
this protest is a sham....i am sure to coordinate as the election year nears
the American People may not be thrilled about everything that is going on
but they sure don't wanna buy the nonsense these losers are selling
capitalism may not be perfect
crony capitalism is what we have arrived at due to large government
most all the bribes, donations, corruption centers around BT's point
government is too powerful
government has way too much power
so corrupt people wanna "buy" that power
the solution is to take power away from the govt
then the crony capitalist wont have power to buy from govt
-
Obviously the sign misrepresents the protestors' demands because nowhere in the original sign does it mention the teabaggers, either as filthy or squeaky-clean, nor does it demand that the teabaggers pay for their needs. The sign itself was a mere statement of their unfulfilled needs, needs that in any decent country (Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Norway) would never have gone unmet in the first place.
The last part of the post is hilarious - - of course, if you took away all the powers of the government, the legislators would have nothing to sell. The corporations would have free rein to continue polluting the shit out of the environment, make phony loans to people who don't have a hope in hell of repaying them, package the phony loans and sell them to bigger banks and financial institutions for a healthy profit, bribe the rating agencies to look the other way, con the insurance companies into insuring the bondholders against defaults that were sure to arise, and loot the Treasury of all it holds to make up for all their losses when the whole teppel schmaltz comes down on their heads in the end, as they always knew it would. Capitalism! Free markets!! No government!!! No wonder you support Uncle Tom, err, I mean Herman Cain. He's nailed it!!!
-
CU4, the sign totally misrepresents the demonstrators' demands, which have nothing to do with the teabaggers and everything to do with the rich. Also, they aren't just demanding that the rich pay more
Despite the FACT that they ALREADY PAY MORE
-
CU4, the sign totally misrepresents the demonstrators' demands, which have nothing to do with the teabaggers and everything to do with the rich. Also, they aren't just demanding that the rich pay more
Despite the FACT that they ALREADY PAY MORE
How much is enough? Are you rich if you make between $200,000 - $250,000 per year?
-
<<Despite the FACT that they ALREADY PAY MORE>>
Pay more than they're already paying is what I meant. Obviously, they don't even pay their fair share, as Warren Buffet admits. His fucking housekeeper paid more taxes than he did. But whatever they pay, fair share or not, it is obviously not enough. The real issue is not how much they already paid, it's how much CAN they pay?
Well, at least the demonstrators get it, even if you don't. Professor Sachs gets it, but you probably didn't even bother to look at the link I posted.
Bottom line is, the demonstrators want the rich to pay more, and you don't. Well, don't worry, since all the candidates in the race have been bought and paid for by the rich, you'll be "vindicated" in the coming elections and they (the demonstrators) won't.
-
LOL....only to the hardcore left is acknowledging that they do indeed pay more, but its still not their "fair share". Pretty scary world to consider where the government gets to dictate how much you're allowed to earn, if its not deemed "fair"
Cain's looking better and better everyday, if this is the stance the left wants Obama to really hang his hat on
-
<<How much is enough? Are you rich if you make between $200,000 - $250,000 per year?>>
Personally I think 250K is a good cut-off line, kinda generous IMHO, but best to err on the side of generosity in these matters - - for an average family of four with an income of over 250K, it's hard for me to see any real pain there if the taxes go up another 10% per annum.
Of course, philosophically, we could debate this thing forever - - why 250K and not 240K, what if they got fourteen kids all with special needs, etc.? In the real world, you just gotta draw a line somewhere and hope that other programs at the federal, state or local level will catch the folks who fall outside the usual parameters. To me, $250K seems a good place to draw that line.
-
<<Despite the FACT that they ALREADY PAY MORE>>
Pay more than they're already paying is what I meant. Obviously, they don't even pay their fair share, as Warren Buffet admits. His fucking housekeeper paid more taxes than he did. But whatever they pay, fair share or not, it is obviously not enough. The real issue is not how much they already paid, it's how much CAN they pay?
Well, at least the demonstrators get it, even if you don't. Professor Sachs gets it, but you probably didn't even bother to look at the link I posted.
Bottom line is, the demonstrators want the rich to pay more, and you don't. Well, don't worry, since all the candidates in the race have been bought and paid for by the rich, you'll be "vindicated" in the coming elections and they (the demonstrators) won't.
Speaking of paying a fair share of taxes, there are plenty of people that pay no income taxes what-so-ever. Since the 'rich' already pay a sizable amount of the taxes paid (and they are far fewer in numbers than the not so rich)why not have people like the ones protesting pay more tax or even some tax, since by them being there protesting they aren't rich? The Anarchists got there somehow, they appear to have decent cloths, they are eating well so they must have some sort of income. I suggest they pay more than they are paying in taxes. And since there are large masses of them that outnumber 'rich' people if everyone of them paid an additional 25% tax all of their problems would be over and they could have free healthcare and other government benefits. That way, as the demand, the government will take care of them, from cradle to grave, so they don't have to worry about it anymore.
-
<<LOL....only to the hardcore left is acknowledging that they do indeed pay more, but its still not their "fair share". Pretty scary world to consider where the government gets to dictate how much you're allowed to earn, if its not deemed "fair">>
I wasn't fixated on "fair," which I only mentioned in passing. As I said (or tried to) the real issue is how much they CAN pay. There's nothing scary about the government dictating how much of my earnings I get to keep, that's par for the course in just about any government on earth that levies taxes of any kind. "Scary" is a government that can have its citizens blown to bits without due process of law, merely on the basis of some hidden document signed by some anonymous bureaucrat, in blatant defiance of that country's own constitution.
<<Cain's looking better and better everyday, if this is the stance the left wants Obama to really hang his hat on>>
"The left" as far as I'm concerned wants Obama to be sitting in the same jail as GW Bush, waiting to be put on trial for their lives on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the meantime, and back in the real world, I don't give a shit what happens to Obama, win or lose. If he has to lose to Herman Cain, so be it. Whatever else Cain may be at this point in time, he's not a war criminal and he's not a common murderer. Unfortunately, can't say as much for Obama or for his predecessor in office.
-
<<How much is enough? Are you rich if you make between $200,000 - $250,000 per year?>>
Personally I think 250K is a good cut-off line, kinda generous IMHO, but best to err on the side of generosity in these matters - - for an average family of four with an income of over 250K, it's hard for me to see any real pain there if the taxes go up another 10% per annum.
Of course, philosophically, we could debate this thing forever - - why 250K and not 240K, what if they got fourteen kids all with special needs, etc.? In the real world, you just gotta draw a line somewhere and hope that other programs at the federal, state or local level will catch the folks who fall outside the usual parameters. To me, $250K seems a good place to draw that line.
Since you like running numbers why not figure out a 9-9-9 plan? The rich still pay more.
-
<<Speaking of paying a fair share of taxes, there are plenty of people that pay no income taxes what-so-ever. Since the 'rich' already pay a sizable amount of the taxes paid (and they are far fewer in numbers than the not so rich)why not have people like the ones protesting pay more tax or even some tax, since by them being there protesting they aren't rich? The Anarchists got there somehow, they appear to have decent cloths, they are eating well so they must have some sort of income. I suggest they pay more than they are paying in taxes. And since there are large masses of them that outnumber 'rich' people if everyone of them paid an additional 25% tax all of their problems would be over and they could have free healthcare and other government benefits. That way, as the demand, the government will take care of them, from cradle to grave, so they don't have to worry about it anymore.>>
Looks and sounds to me like most of those demonstrators are unemployed. When you figure out how to levy an "income tax" on people who have no income, please get back to me. From where I stand, 25% of zero is still zero.
-
Looks and sounds to me like most of those demonstrators are unemployed. When you figure out how to levy an "income tax" on people who have no income, please get back to me. From where I stand, 25% of zero is still zero.
The 9-9-9 plan or a Flat Tax would work well for the unemployed because they get out of paying payroll taxes. This should be even more of a reason for the losers to support it.
Is the protesters goals more revenues to the government (since a Flat Tax or the 9-9-9 Plan would bring in more cash) or class warfare and destroying Capitalism their real goals? I tend to believe the later. I wonder if the protesters might be concerned about having to pay tax on their underground pot sales. Fuck them!
-
I wonder if the protesters might be concerned about having to pay tax on their underground pot sales. Fuck them!
===============
No doubt they would tell you that the feeling is mutual.
-
I wonder if the protesters might be concerned about having to pay tax on their underground pot sales. Fuck them!
===============
No doubt they would tell you that the feeling is mutual.
No doubt if it comes down to them or me they will be going down first! There are a whole lot of people like CU4 and myself out there and we religiously practice the 2nd Amendment. Do you ever wonder why it's #2 and not #18?
-
BT, looks like Prof. Jeffrey Sachs is an optimist, just like you:
http://www.truth-out.org/jeffrey-sachs-occupy-wall-street/1318196532 (http://www.truth-out.org/jeffrey-sachs-occupy-wall-street/1318196532)
Well, I don't agree, but I still hope you guys are right.
CU4, the sign totally misrepresents the demonstrators' demands, which have nothing to do with the teabaggers and everything to do with the rich. Also, they aren't just demanding that the rich pay more, they're also demanding that the rich stop buying off the law-makers and give the government back to the people.
Mikey i'll reply to your post and Sachs remarks this evening, when more time is available.
BTW Illinois doesn't have a proposition 13 yet they are as bankrupt as Cali.
-
<<LOL....only to the hardcore left is acknowledging that they do indeed pay more, but its still not their "fair share". Pretty scary world to consider where the government gets to dictate how much you're allowed to earn, if its not deemed "fair">>
I wasn't fixated on "fair," which I only mentioned in passing. As I said (or tried to) the real issue is how much they CAN pay.
What business is it of you at what anyone else can and can't pay? What business is it of anyone's, so long as they're paying EQUALLY, as in they ALREADY DO PAY THEIR FAR SHARE, SINCE THEY ALREADY PAY MORE
There's nothing scary about the government dictating how much of my earnings I get to keep, that's par for the course in just about any government on earth that levies taxes of any kind.
There's everything scary at the idea of the America that was founded, one based on freedom, is removed, and replaced with one that mimics the movie, V for Vendetta. Sorry, not going to happen here
-
<<BTW Illinois doesn't have a proposition 13 yet they are as bankrupt as Cali. >>
With or without a Prop 13, they have CHOSEN not to increase taxes or not to increase them sufficiently. This whole thing about states being "bankrupt" is bullshit. What it means usually is that given a choice between raising taxes on the rich or discontinuing benefits to the poor, the choice is almost invariably made in favour of the people who shower them with money, trips, hookers and parties, rather than benefitting the poor.
-
<<What business is it of you at what anyone else can and can't pay?>>
Once you concede that the government has a right to levy taxes, then it's the government's business what anybody can or can't pay, because they don't want to waste their time cooking up taxation plans that can't be paid. If I'm a citizen of a democratic country, then it becomes my business as well, so that I can determine for myself if my elected government representatives are cooking up tax plans that make sense or not.
<<What business is it of anyone's, so long as they're paying EQUALLY, as in they ALREADY DO PAY THEIR FAR SHARE, SINCE THEY ALREADY PAY MORE>>
I believe that the Supreme Courts of both of our countries have approved in principle of the graduated income tax, meaning an income tax whereby top earners pay more than bottom earners. In so doing, the courts would have implicitly rejected that proposition that the only legitimate income tax is the flat tax. It is the government's prerogative, not only to establish a graduated income tax, if it sees fit, but also to set the gradient at any level they want.
<<There's everything scary at the idea of the America that was founded, one based on freedom, is removed, and replaced with one that mimics the movie, V for Vendetta. Sorry, not going to happen here>>
When America was founded, nobody had ever heard of an income tax, let alone a graduated income tax. Since the Supreme Court has decided that income taxes do not constitute an unjustifiable restriction on anyone's freedom - - you are free to stop earning money at any point where you determine that your earnings are being unfairly taxed - - there's nothing at all scary about a government taxing your income at either a flat or a graduated level. The "Sorry, not going to happen here" part I just don't understand - - it already IS happening and has been for longer than you've been alive on earth.
-
No doubt if it comes down to them or me they will be going down first! There are a whole lot of people like CU4 and myself out there and we religiously practice the 2nd Amendment. Do you ever wonder why it's #2 and not #18?
============================================
Because someone thought if it first, of course.
So now we know that you plan to SHOOT any demonstrators who answer your telling them FUCK YOU by shooting them dead.
Make sure that are not pregnant, or you will be charged with murder twice.
-
The "Sorry, not going to happen here" part I just don't understand - - it already IS happening and has been for longer than you've been alive on earth.
Not the V for Vendetta outcome the left is trying to push us towards. Socialism-lite's door was opened with Obmination care. We're currently looking to defund then shut that door down come 2012
-
<<BTW Illinois doesn't have a proposition 13 yet they are as bankrupt as Cali. >>
With or without a Prop 13, they have CHOSEN not to increase taxes or not to increase them sufficiently. This whole thing about states being "bankrupt" is bullshit. What it means usually is that given a choice between raising taxes on the rich or discontinuing benefits to the poor, the choice is almost invariably made in favour of the people who shower them with money, trips, hookers and parties, rather than benefitting the poor.
Mikey you have been gone for a while. Take the time to research what is happening in Illinois as far as taxes go, vis a vis pension obligations that the state took on and just doesn't have the money to meet. Then do some research and see who paid the lobbyists who produced the above average health and pension plans in exchange for a guaranteed voter base. Then tell me that only corporations are capable of rigging the system. Then rinse and repeat to varying degrees across the remaining 49 states.
-
Cain doesn't get that Wall Street OWNS Washington, so he's effectively telling the demonstrators to deal with the monkey instead of the organ grinder. The demonstrators at least knows where the problem originates and have decided to deal with it there.
The American voter today has absolutely no way to vote against the banks or the financial industry generally, .....
nor much reason to.
What is the relationship between the American investor and the American voter? Large overlap isn't there?
Some of the recent trouble we have had financially stems from regulations and otherwise meddeling by Washington to ease credit terms for the poor.
As it turns out there is some part of the poor that really shouldn't be given credit and can't realise for itself when the point of overextention has occured. With less regulation and less expectation for rescue by Unckle Sam ,banks with foolish loan policys would live and die by Darwinistic survival of the fittest rather than Washingtonian survival of the whineyest.
-
<<BTW Illinois doesn't have a proposition 13 yet they are as bankrupt as Cali. >>
With or without a Prop 13, they have CHOSEN not to increase taxes or not to increase them sufficiently. This whole thing about states being "bankrupt" is bullshit. What it means usually is that given a choice between raising taxes on the rich or discontinuing benefits to the poor, the choice is almost invariably made in favour of the people who shower them with money, trips, hookers and parties, rather than benefitting the poor.
Mikey you have been gone for a while. Take the time to research what is happening in Illinois as far as taxes go, vis a vis pension obligations that the state took on and just doesn't have the money to meet. Then do some research and see who paid the lobbyists who produced the above average health and pension plans in exchange for a guaranteed voter base. Then tell me that only corporations are capable of rigging the system. Then rinse and repeat to varying degrees across the remaining 49 states.
If he did this he'd be shocked or NOT. He would find out that some states and local governments do accounting like Enron. He would find out that a lot of people should go to jail and he would also find out that unions are a bigger threat to this nation than Wall Street.
But hey, he's an admitted Communist, and the unions are are Communists, so don't expect them to admit their part in this economic collapse.
-
Who in the United States is responsible for creating jobs , or distributeing jobs to people who need jobs?
In my opinion this is ultimately the responsibility of the individual who wants to work, no other person or agency is really competant to ensure that it happens without tyrany and history demonstrates that even with the power of a tyrany it is a hard thing to accomplish.
If each of us applys for every job that we can, we will collectively apply for every job there is , and have reason to create a job for ourselves if no suitable job already exists .
The government may facilitate this or not , but they cannot accomp;ish it.
-
MT!
Wow, it is good to see you, your cogent wrongheadedness is exactly what this site needs .
-
<<Mikey you have been gone for a while. >>
My brain was in cold storage all that time, BT.
<<Take the time to research what is happening in Illinois as far as taxes go, vis a vis pension obligations that the state took on and just doesn't have the money to meet.>>
Uh-huh. "Just doesn't have the money to meet." Some cold alien force just freezes the governor's hand every time he tries to sign a bill that the Legislature presented to him, raising the taxes to meet his state's pension obligations to his state's workers.
<<Then do some research and see who paid the lobbyists who produced the above average health and pension plans in exchange for a guaranteed voter base.>>
Let me guess, BT - - Evil union leaders escaped from the gates of Hell into America the Beautiful and immediately began their nefarious machinations to ensure that their lazy, parasitic, good-for-nothing "workers" would be awarded pensions and other benefits for their years of sloth, laziness, negligence, sabotage and incompetence in the service of the state.
<<Then tell me that only corporations are capable of rigging the system. >>
Why on earth would I want to tell you anything as stupid as that? Even I could rig the fucking system. What I will tell you instead is that corporations can rig and have rigged the system time and time again, ripping off the taxpayers and the citizens of the country for hundreds of billions, probably by now trillions, of dollars, at the same time as they foment wars, pollute the fucking earth, rob the poor and the sick through their multiple insurance scams, Obamacare included, sub-prime mortgage scams, savings-and-loan scams, and on and on and on.
But I'll tell ya what - - you don't see or don't want to see what the fucking corporations have done and are doing, and personally I don't think you ever will. None so blind as those who will not see. So why don't you and your like-minded friends pick out a few particularly heinous union headquarters and go occupy them, demanding an end to all the evils that they are responsible for? I'm sure that somewhere in Ohio there's a union headquarters that's responsible for all of the state's fiscal problems. Sit down in the street right under their windows and try to convince your fellow Americans that this union is responsible for more wastage and theft of taxpayer money than all the corporations in the country.
Meantime, the Occupy Washington and Occupy Wall Street and all their allied movements will continue on with their occupation campaigns blaming Wall Street and corporate America for all the things they've been blaming them for so far. IMHO, the crash of too-big-to-fail firms and resultant bail-outs, the wars of the military-industrial complex, the housing bubble crash, the sub-prime mortgage loan disasters, the savings and loan scandal (my God, does anyone still remember? corporate fraud and theft go on so continuously that the older scams just fall into the memory hole while the new ones take their place!) the caving in to insurance industry lobbies for Obamacare, for tax breaks on the rich, etc. etc. will somehow ring a little truer than your ridiculous complaints about the "fraud" committed by providing workers with pensions and the "inability to pay" by a state that doesn't seem able to raise its taxes.
<<Then rinse and repeat to varying degrees across the remaining 49 states. >>
No, in the case of California, I don't think I'll sweep Prop 13 under the rug as you seem to want to do, I think I'll assign to it its proper share of the blame (100%) for the mess that they're in, and for any other state, I'd be very surprised if they have any different reason than Illinois does if they're in financial straits - - as always it'll be the greed and the criminality of the corporations and businesses of the state primarily, crooked state legislators secondarily and probably just the same kind of general incompetence and foolishness that I'd expect when politicians chase corporations for campaign funds and media endorsements and then you expect these bought-and-paid-for ass-holes to perform a proper stewardship of the people's interests. Unions have to look out for their members and I don't see anything outrageous in working men and women getting decent pensions. I DO see something outrageous in insurance company CEO's getting $8 million annual salaries when their companies are constantly in court for ripping off the sick and the dying who they were supposed to cover.
As long as you have corporate flunkeys indebted to corporations and corporate-owned media for campaign support, so long will you have mismanagement and incompetence, to say nothing of actual criminality, in the state legislative bodies.
-
Fortunately i never made the claim that corporations have not used their wealth to purchase influence. It's called rent seeking.
What i did claim is that unions are guilty of the same thing.
And no i don't see the need to picket a union headquarters and let them know that i am wise to their game. What i will do is support state representatives and state executives who also realize that the public sector benefits package are unsustainable and urge that they carry through with their reforms.
Oh and i don't believe that corporations deserve the right to be treated as individual citizens, nor do i equate their money as speech. Ditto unions.
You might find this link illuminating re: Illinois.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0112/Illinois-tax-increase-why-lawmakers-passed-66-percent-income-tax-hike (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0112/Illinois-tax-increase-why-lawmakers-passed-66-percent-income-tax-hike)
-
<<nor much reason [for the American voter] to [vote against the banks and the financial institutions].>>
Oh. Then I guess there's no real need for the banks and the financial industry to invest so heavily in campaign financing, is there? Or in lobbying. I guess they don't realize that they're just wasting their money.
<<What is the relationship between the American investor and the American voter? Large overlap . . .?>>
No, I wouldn't think so. Not at all. Most Americans DON'T have investments, many of those who do have only small amounts in mutual funds, the amount of bank or financial institutional holding in the funds probably amounting to double-digit figures at most. But since you raised the subject, maybe you have some numbers you'd like to tell me about.
<<Some of the recent trouble we have had financially stems from regulations and otherwise meddeling by Washington to ease credit terms for the poor.>>
Really? Then maybe you could tell me where in the regulations or "meddling" it is written that home loans have to be made to people who have no realistic prospects of repaying them?
While you're at it, maybe you could tell me where in the regulations or meddling it is written that the banks and financial institutions who make these shit loans are required to bundle hundreds of them together into pools of mortgage obligations and sell them as triple-A securities to other banks and financial institutions?
Maybe while you're at it, you could tell me where in the regulations or meddling it is written that the banks and financial institutions who sold these shit loans as triple-A to other banks also at the same time were required to purchase insurance in the form of credit default swaps against defaults on the now-securitized shit loans?
Maybe while you're at it, you could also tell me where in the regulations or meddling it is written that the rating agencies whose job it was to rate the securitized shit loans gave them all triple-A ratings despite massive defaults in documentation affecting up to 50% of the loans in some bundled portfolios?
The "conservative" explanation for the sub-prime mortgage fiasco is hilarious. It starts with the relaxation of federal rules on single-family home mortgage loans and then totally ignores the avalanche of corporate criminality and fraud that follows - - the bundling and securitization of the loans, the mysterious failure of ALL rating agencies to detect the shit-nature of the bundles, the sale of the shit-loans simultaneously with the purchase of credit default swaps (insurance against default by the seller of the securities.)
<<As it turns out there is some part of the poor that really shouldn't be given credit and can't realise for itself when the point of overextention has occured. >>
LOL. I really don't think that you understand much about the mortgage industry. Mortgages are a product and they are SOLD just like any other product is sold - - that is to say, the lending institution pays a commission to a salesman (broker) to find a borrower who will borrow money from the lending institution. Every lending institution has a "basket" - - a certain amount of funds on hand that has to be lent out as mortgage loans within a fixed period of time. If the institution can't loan out all the funds in its "basket" within the time frame, it's in trouble. So there's always a search for qualified borrowers, and the pool of qualified borrowers at any time is of a fixed size. The salesmen or brokers from each institution fan out into the neighbourhood looking for borrowers. But due to the shitty economy, the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs, there weren't too many borrowers who could service the loans. Enter the "variable rate" or "balloon" mortgage - - in order to empty their "baskets," the lenders began offering variable rate mortgages - - start with 0.01% interest, or even NO interest, or even NO PAYMENTS for a year, house prices will rise, the economy will get better, you'll get a job in a year; in a year, the rates will go up, you'll need to pay money but by then you'll have it. The sucker takes the loan and buys the house and signs the mortgage.
What is in it for the bank? They've got an "asset," the loan itself. As long as it's on paper and not in default (how can it be in default when the poor dumb schmuck doesn't even have to make a fucking payment for a year?) this is a saleable asset. What was in it for the mortgage salesman or broker? Commission. He got his commission paid right off the top (probably by the borrower, otherwise just written into the mortgage and paid by the lender) and as soon as the mortgage was signed, before it could possibly go into default.
The bank then "bundles" the shit mortgage with hundreds of other shit mortgages and now has something to sell to another bank for ready cash. If the whole bundle goes bad, as it inevitably will when the first payments start falling due, the bank doesn't want to get sued by the institution that purchased the bundle, so it buys a "credit default swap" from an insurance company insuring it against the default. Everyone makes money - - the lending bank, the buying bank, the salesman of the mortgage and the insurance company insuring the bundle. The poor dumb schmuck now has a home -- for a while. The shit hits the fan when the first mortgage payments start to come due. Due to the massive scale of the fraud even the insurance companies can't pay up to cover the losses. Banks are going under, insurance companies are going under, homes are being foreclosed . . .
This goes a lot deeper than loosened restrictions on borrowing - - the active fraud and criminality was from the banks, the insurance companies and the rating companies. They were all betting on something they never should have bet on - - the ability of penniless schmucks to pay mortgages that rapacious lenders had conned them into using the illusion of the "variable rate" mortgage and traditional salesmanship.
A whole sector of the banking and lending industry was responsible for the disaster, not just the legislators who loosened the restrictions on borrowing. That just provided the opportunity for the fucking crooks to jump on the bandwagon and take in a shitload of money as long as they could.
<<With less regulation and less expectation for rescue by Unckle Sam ,banks with foolish loan policys would live and die by Darwinistic survival of the fittest rather than Washingtonian survival of the whineyest.>>
Do you not understand that it was BECAUSE of less regulation that the whole teppel schmaltz was allowed to build up in the first place? Lending had to be MORE tightly regulated (prohibiting a lot of the shit loans) not less regulated if the disaster was to be avoided.
I didn't even get into the deregulation of banking that made the disaster even worse, i.e. the erasure of the distinction between investing and deposit banks. Some of the banks like Goldman Sachs that got into the purchasing of sub-prime "bundles" were originally investment firms, but due to deregulation were also allowed to take in deposits. In effect depositors who deposited with Goldman Sachs were stripped of the protection that was formerly enjoyed by all bank depositors. If the bank took deposits it couldn't buy speculative securities like the "bundled" shit loans. Now the restrictions were gone, thanks to deregulation - - Goldman Sachs was free to take in savings deposits, but it was also free to speculate in crazy derivatives and securitized shit loans. All of a sudden, the depositors' money wasn't so safe any more - - it had been exposed to the risks of the investment side of Goldman Sachs. What the banking and lending industry needs is obviously MORE and not less regulation so that savings are no longer subject to investment risks (unless the depositor wants to take his savings and invest them.)
-
<<Who in the United States is responsible for creating jobs , or distributeing jobs to people who need jobs?>>
LOL. Do you see any jobs being created in the U.S.A.? I don't. I see millions of jobs that were destroyed. So I think your question should be re-phrased: Who in the United States is responsible for destroying jobs or taking away jobs from people who need jobs?
That's actually a pretty easy question to answer. Look up "Free Trade" and see which legislators voted for it. When it became the law of the land, America began to lose jobs. Trade with China lost a lot of American jobs. Factories closed down here, factories making the same stuff opened in China. Gee, who's responsible for THAT?
I read somewhere that about 50% of Chinese companies exporting into the U.S.A. are partly owned by Americans. Do you think . . . that the corporations that USED to make stuff in the U.S.A. just closed down their factories and opened up in China with Chinese partners so they could benefit from lower wages and less safety and health regulation in the workplace? Nah, stupid idea - - they would have been way too loyal to their American workers to even think of it. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
<< In my opinion this is ultimately the responsibility of the individual who wants to work, no other person or agency is really competant to ensure that it happens without tyrany and history demonstrates that even with the power of a tyrany it is a hard thing to accomplish.>>
Right, we wouldn't want tyranny now, would we? That would mean that the government could torture and kill its own citizens without due process of law . . . but wait a minute! The government already CAN torture and kill its own citizens without due process of law. So, um, we wouldn't want tyranny , right, definitely not. We'll stick with 20% unemployment. Thanks for asking though.
<<If each of us applys for every job that we can, we will collectively apply for every job there is , and have reason to create a job for ourselves if no suitable job already exists .>>
I think it's happening now. The problem is, applying for every job you can, so is everyone else applying for every job they can - - doesn't seem to have much of an effect on the overall employment rate, though, does it? But I like the idea of creating a job for myself. I wanna be . . . a brain surgeon. Would you like to volunteer as my first patient?
<< The government may facilitate this or not , but they cannot accomp;ish it.>>
Waaaal, let's not be too harsh on the government. On the positive side, we've all seen what they CAN do, especially when they're bought and paid for by Wall Street: they can make millions of American manufacturing jobs disappear overseas to the lowest-paid and most exploited workers on the planet; they can take billions of dollars of your money every year and give it away to their "ally," Israel, an "ally" which strangely enough has never sent troops to fight in any of your wars, but HAS succeeded in earning the undying hatred of a billion Muslims for the U.S.A., they can give carte blanche to Wall Street firms and the banking industry to make billions from fraudulent home mortgage "loans" which they know can never be repaid, and then hand over hundreds of billions more to those same firms so that they can repeat their fraudulent schemes in new formats over and over again till the money runs out again and they need to ask for more, they can lie the country into pointless wars of unprovoked aggression that ultimately cost trillions of dollars, and help to jack up the deficit to dizzying new heights . . . boy, your corporate-owned government can do LOTS of neat stuff, even if it can't really create jobs. Never underestimate the power of a corporate-controlled, Wall-Street-controlled "democratically elected" U.S. government. It's the shizzle.
-
Huh? I replied to this and now the reply is gone. Oh, well, I'll reply in shorter form:
<< i never made the claim that corporations have not used their wealth to purchase influence. It's called rent seeking. >>
Good. So far, we agree.
<<What i did claim is that unions are guilty of the same thing. >>
Agreed.
<<And no i don't see the need to picket a union headquarters and let them know that i am wise to their game. >>
The suggestion that you do so was purely sarcastic, meant to show that while the Occupy! movement has correctly identified and targeted the source of the problem, you are off somewhere in the left field of irrelevancy, making ridiculous comparisons between the relative petty meddling of the unions in state government with the disastrous effect of the financial and banking industries corrupting the federal government and fleecing the Treasury out of hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions actually counting the cost of the wars it foments.
You're under attack by a wolverine and a mosquito. While you prefer to focus on the mosquito, the Occupy! movement is correctly focused on the wolverine.
<<What i will do is support state representatives and state executives who also realize that the public sector benefits package are unsustainable . . . >
Unsustainable my ass. They are very sustainable with a relatively small tax increase.
<< . . .and urge that they carry through with their reforms.>>
Translation: that they break their word to their pensioned employees and cancel a deal previously inked. Well, I hope if those welchers and cheats ever pull shit like that, that their workers and pensioners sue their fucking ass off, and get them impeached and jailed as well. Good luck widdat.
<<Oh and i don't believe that corporations deserve the right to be treated as individual citizens, nor do i equate their money as speech. Ditto unions. >>
I'm with you on the corporations, not so sure on the unions. Haven't seen all the arguments pro and con for them.
<<You might find this link illuminating re: Illinois. >>
Yeah, thanks. Reminded me of a condominium board. The roof suddenly springs multiple leaks and has to be replaced, but there's nothing left in the "contingency" fund. The pension benefits to the state's workers are found to be "unsustainable." In the case of the condo board, it's a no-brainer - - raise the monthly common expenses by whatever it takes and for how long as it takes and fix the fucking roof. The owners will bitch but that's life. The State of Illinois seems to have done a similar thing in similar circumstances -- raise some taxes, in one case from 3% to 5%. BFD. Even with the raises, the article itself says, Illinois taxes remain among the lowest in the nation. Where's the beef?
http://www.csmonito (http://www.csmonito)
-
Yeah, thanks. Reminded me of a condominium board.
States are not condominium boards. And states that find themselves massively in debt to the tune of 78 billion dollars in Illinois case need to look at the reason for the debt, why the funding mechanisms in place did not work, why the obligations were undertaken in the first place and if the funds were diverted to whom and why.
Simple stewardship of the public purse.
-
<<States are not condominium boards.>>
I just noted the similarity of the situations. Sudden discovery of big problem. Cut expenses or raise money? Decision.
<<And states that find themselves massively in debt to the tune of 78 billion dollars in Illinois case need to look at the reason for the debt, why the funding mechanisms in place did not work, why the obligations were undertaken in the first place and if the funds were diverted to whom and why. >>
Absolutely. We agree. Why are we having this discussion? Do all of those things. But fix the fucking roof. Pay the fucking pension. If there was any wrongdoing in procuring the pension plan, for sure check out the recourse available, including cancellation, but the article didn't indicate to me that there was any wrongdoing involved.
<<Simple stewardship of the public purse. >>
yep.
-
states that find themselves massively in debt to the tune of 78 billion dollars in Illinois case need to look at the reason for the debt, why the funding mechanisms in place did not work, why the obligations were undertaken in the first place and if the funds were diverted to whom and why.
Simple stewardship of the public purse.
Not to mention the abuse of the tax payer, when not looking at all the above 1st. Just raise taxes...whalaa, everything fixed?? Taxes in CA are arguably the highest in the country already, and the left's answer.....higher taxes?
I think not
-
MT perhaps you didn't know .
Prop 13 is people power, it is one of the most democratic laws in the nation, by its origin.
-
<<Prop 13 is people power, it is one of the most democratic laws in the nation, by its origin.>>
I didn't say it was undemocratic, I believe it's the primary reason why California's all fucked up. There is no account of the state's financial woes that doesn't devote a lot of ink to Prop 13. It was a fucking disaster for all concerned. And foreseen as such from its inception.
-
<<Prop 13 is people power, it is one of the most democratic laws in the nation, by its origin.>>
I didn't say it was undemocratic, I believe it's the primary reason why California's all fucked up. There is no account of the state's financial woes that doesn't devote a lot of ink to Prop 13. It was a fucking disaster for all concerned. And foreseen as such from its inception.
at least most of us can afford to our property taxes because they are not priced completely out of most homeowners abilities. $3,800 a year is still doable for me. If not for Prop 13 I'd be living on the street by now.
-
How do you know how much your taxes would have gone up without Prop 13?
And couldn't you apply for a program of tax relief whereby the portion of the taxes you can't afford to pay can just be added as an encumbrance to your title, payable when you sell or die?
-
How do you know how much your taxes would have gone up without Prop 13?
And couldn't you apply for a program of tax relief whereby the portion of the taxes you can't afford to pay can just be added as an encumbrance to your title, payable when you sell or die?
don't know and don't care at this point. fuck the state of california!
-
Wow. Never heard THAT before. I still remember when it was everyone's dream to live there. It had magic.
-
Not any more....thank you Liberals and Democrats
-
<<Prop 13 is people power, it is one of the most democratic laws in the nation, by its origin.>>
I didn't say it was undemocratic, I believe it's the primary reason why California's all fucked up. There is no account of the state's financial woes that doesn't devote a lot of ink to Prop 13. It was a fucking disaster for all concerned. And foreseen as such from its inception.
This is one of the troubles with people power, getting government to take it seriously.
If Daddy puts your allowance at a limit you should not spend more than daddy allows.
California politicians have been like naughty children thinking that if they spent the money anyway the people woudl pay the money any way!
This needs to be placed right on the neck of the freespending politicians who ignored the limit the people placed on them.
-
I think plane's got a very simplistic view of Prop 13 and "people power." Prop 13 is not an example of "people power," but of "people malleability." The vote for Prop 13 was influenced heavily by a slick and well-funded campaign which produced a narrow victory for the proposition at the polls. Had the campaigns for and against Prop 13 been equally funded, Prop 13 would have died at the ballot box.
Prop 13 is actually a textbook example of what the OWS movement is protesting - - government of the rich, for the rich and by the rich. It was a godsend for the rich of California and a disaster for the people. The limitations on spending were unrealistically restrictive and the consequences are apparent all over the state.
To all those who think that a modern state government can function and provide a full range of services that people in this century have come to expect from their government in any civilized community, yet not expect to have to pay for these services the current going prices: wake up, people!!! There's no free lunch!!! The state is YOUR state and it runs on money, not on hot air. Tax the rich!
-
You are in severe paradox MT.
How can you believe in "people malliability" and also beleive in "revolution"?
Manipulators eschew revolutions for some reason?
-
<<How can you believe in "people malliability" and also beleive in "revolution"?>>
No paradox at all, plane, but it's a good question. Because the people are malleable, it's easy to get the masses through various devices (religion in the old days, MSM now) to ignore their own best interests.
Revolution is not made by the proletariat as a whole but by small, class-conscious, tightly disciplined revolutionary vanguards, who need to counteract whatever stupefiant the ruling class is currently using to drug the minds of the masses, and they then need to educate the masses as to the realities of the class war, enlist the enlightened members of the proletariat and finally to bring about the revolution. In the past the main agent of the vanguard element was the Communist Party - - they attracted the best and the brightest (and also the most courageous) because they had a theory and a plan, party discipline and (I'm coming to see this more clearly now) amazingly intelligent, resourceful, far-seeing people of great judgment and vision. I might be coming around to Thomas Carlyle's "Great Man" theory of history, because you have to wonder, where are the Lenins and Trotskys of today? Probably they were the kind of individual who, like Winston Churchill in the capitalist world, comes along but rarely, maybe only once in a lifetime, once in a hundred years.
Anyway the key concept to grasp is a malleable people often fooled by the ruling class but producing a vanguard that breaks free of the stupefiant (in Marx's day, it was religion, the so-called "opiate of the people") and takes the necessary steps to throw off the ruling class and bring the "People's Revolution" through to completion.
-
How would you convince anything like the brightest that Comunism actually works?
A century of earnest experiment produced a lot more misery and death than real Communism.
I think it firmly established that Communism is only approximated under severe tyrany and has no potential for realisation of its grand promise.
Or do we need another century of earnest experiment?
-
Although the Occupy Oakland protesters have not yet decided on a unified set of goals, they are holding committee meetings and a larger general assembly daily to develop a strategic plan of action to end what they call the corporate corruption of the country’s elite. No single leader or organization runs these meetings, which one protester referred to as a “community tribunal.” Participants put forth amendments and proposals on issues such as creating new subcommittees and addressing housing for the protesters, either reaching consensus or “blocking” decisions.
http://blog.sfgate.com/inoakland/2011/10/11/%e2%80%9c99-percent%e2%80%9d-protesters-occupy-oakland%e2%80%99s-ogawa-plaza/ (http://blog.sfgate.com/inoakland/2011/10/11/%e2%80%9c99-percent%e2%80%9d-protesters-occupy-oakland%e2%80%99s-ogawa-plaza/)
Time is ripe for the Communists to show up, these people are at their most malliable.
Unfortunately for communism in general , only idiots are left to believe in it.
Unfortunately for the reat of us idiots are not in short supply.
-
Although the Occupy Oakland protesters have not yet decided on a unified set of goals, they are holding committee meetings and a larger general assembly daily to develop a strategic plan of action to end what they call the corporate corruption of the country’s elite. No single leader or organization runs these meetings, which one protester referred to as a “community tribunal.” Participants put forth amendments and proposals on issues such as creating new subcommittees and addressing housing for the protesters, either reaching consensus or “blocking” decisions.
http://blog.sfgate.com/inoakland/2011/10/11/%e2%80%9c99-percent%e2%80%9d-protesters-occupy-oakland%e2%80%99s-ogawa-plaza/ (http://blog.sfgate.com/inoakland/2011/10/11/%e2%80%9c99-percent%e2%80%9d-protesters-occupy-oakland%e2%80%99s-ogawa-plaza/)
Time is ripe for the Communists to show up, these people are at their most malliable.
Unfortunately for communism in general , only idiots are left to believe in it.
Unfortunately for the reat of us idiots are not in short supply.
Plane think of it this way. There's us the workers and them the lazy bums that don't want to work. We are working our tails of supporting the lazy losers so when do we have time to do much more than work. On the other hand the lazy bums have all sorts of spare time to attend union thuggery events and other liberal/communists events in order to push their cause. These people are so stupid that they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Soon all of us will be screwed.
-
The Lumpenproletarians who believe in gasbag crackpot blowhards like Cain are at least as ignorant as those maoist students waving their Little Red Books.
-
The Lumpenproletarians who believe in gasbag crackpot blowhards like Cain are at least as ignorant as those maoist students waving their Little Red Books.
At least Cain isn't a former Cocaine addict like Obama. Plus he mother wasn't a slut either.
-
Cain could be more dangerous to this country than Obama ever could be, but he is a flash in the pan and will sink into the ooze of oblivion twice as fast as Ross Perot. Twenty years ago, they were giving Perot a possibility of being president. Now people don;t know if he is still alive.
Watch Cain vanish even faster.
-
I suppose we could tweek that to make it even that more accurate...
The Lumpenproletarians who believe in gasbag crackpot blowhards like Obama are at least as ignorant as those maoist students waving their Little Red Commie Books.
And nothing could be more dangerous to this country than a radical Socialist running it. So sad that not only does he not have a majority of the electorate supporting his efforts, but apparently no longer has the support of even a Senate Majority of Democrats
-
<<How would you convince anything like the brightest that Comunism actually works?>>
Easy. I'd send 'em to China.
<< A century of earnest experiment produced a lot more misery and death than real Communism.>>
Well, a lot of that was capitalism at its finest. WWI, for example, a war between capitalist powers for greed and empire. WWII, starting with the anti-communist Hitler, bankrolled by the capitalists of the world to defeat communism in Germany, who then invaded the USSR, causing tens of millions of innocent deaths. No, plane, it was not "earnest experiment" but out-of-control capitalism that caused - - and is still causing (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) - - most if not all of the carnage of this century and the last.
<< I think it firmly established that Communism is only approximated under severe tyrany and has no potential for realisation of its grand promise.>>
What's "firmly established" is that the Soviet Union has broken apart. What's not "firmly established" is the how and why of that break-up, the role of capitalism subversion and deceit in that break-up, the role of opportunism, careerism and greed, etc. We don't know WHY the USSR broke up. Similarly we don't know to what extent the quasi-capitalist features of today's China are permanent or to what extent they will be expanded or to what degree communist principles still underlie the current system there.
What else is now "firmly established" is the failure of capitalism, not only in the U.S.A. but in Europe as well, the deadly rapacity of its thirst for cheap raw materials in the Third World and the counterproductivity of its imperialism. For the U.S.A., the worst is still to come. As bad as the failure of capitalism appears now, in five years from now, you'll see just how bad it really is.
<<Or do we need another century of earnest experiment?>>
It seems pretty obvious to most Americans at this point in time that you do need to try something new.
-
Europe is a spectrum of socialism, with Greeks being very socialist and Germans being quite capitalist.
The level of socialism in a nation corresponds directly with the amount thay need to be rescued by the Germans.
What happened to the USSR is no mystery either, they owed more loans to Germany than they could repay with a centurys production, when they couldn't pay the intrest anymore why should Germany continue to make loans?
-
<<The level of socialism in a nation corresponds directly with the amount thay need to be rescued by the Germans.>>
That is a ridiculous oversimplification. Ireland was one of the LEAST socialist nations in the EU, with one of the lowest, if not the lowest, rates of corporate tax in the EU, and its economy also needed an international rescue. China's "level of socialism" I would say is pretty high, so according to your theory, the Germans will have to bail it out anytime now.
<< What happened to the USSR is no mystery either, they owed more loans to Germany than they could repay with a centurys production, when they couldn't pay the intrest anymore why should Germany continue to make loans?>>
That is also an oversimplification, leaving out a lot of unanswered questions. Up until 1989 or thereabouts, they owned and occupied almost half of Germany, then they let it all go and they wind up INDEBTED to it so deep that they can't pay the fucking interest on the loan? How in the hell did this happen? The damage that Germany caused to the U.S.S.R. couldn't be repaid in a hundred years. Germany and its fascist allies (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, et al.) were responsible for the damage AND lost the war. They were all ocuupied by the U.S.S.R. and wouldn't have repaid their war obligations when suddenly the U.S.S.R. pulls out? This is total fucking bullshit, plane, there is obviously more to the story than meets the eye.
One of the pieces to the puzzle lies in something I read a while back but did not pursue - - that the U.S. had promised the U.S.S.R. that if it pulled out of Eastern Europe, no military alliances would be formed between the U.S.A. and the former People's Republics. This obviously would have been a lie because now some of them are NATO members, the U.S.A. has "secret" bases in Bulgaria and Romania, and Russia is being surrounded by U.S. bases. The U.S.A. was obviously prepared to lie to get the Russians out of Eastern Europe. What else were they prepared to do? I would guess at a minimum, bribery and subversion, their usual first resort. This is why I say I do not really know the real reason behind the collapse of the USSR. My gut feeling is that the USA had a lot more to do with this than is commonly known.
-
There is much more to it than will ever meet your eye , because you are not looking.
West Germany made massive loans to East Germany and to the USSR from the middle Seventys till the last years before collapse.
Communism never kept up with its boastfullness with anything like effectiveness , eficency and production.
Why is running half the world not enough?
The greatest famines of all human history were in communist times and places.
Giving to each according to his need was never anything but poetry.
-
<<How would you convince anything like the brightest that Comunism actually works?>>
Easy. I'd send 'em to China.
Oh really?
Rated at 91st in the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)
Thats something to be proud of after thousands of years? Ha!
Many Chinese earn 80 cents an hour
Others may earn $200 a month.
Millions of Chinese earn $1500 a year.
And that's the shining example of success?
Pitiful!
-
China has existed for thousands of years, it is true. COMMUNIST China has existed only since 1948. In the mere 63 years that Communist China has existed, they have progressed further and faster than any other country has progressed in the history of the world to date. For that, only communism can take the credit.
You quoted figures, figures which are mostly meaningless - - you quoted earnings with no reference whatsoever to what those earnings could buy. Using the same logic, I could quote the earnings of Germans during the inflationary period of the Weimar Republic to prove that they were the wealthiest people in the history of the world - - a mailman was earning millions of marks every day - - but it cost millions just to buy a loaf if bread. They were impoverished, not rich. But one-sided looks at one-sided statistics just give a one-dimensional meaningless view of the achievements of the Communist Revolution.
Everything has to go back to 1948 to get a measure of their achievements - - by that yardstick NOBODY has ever made such progress.
By any and every measure, Chinese today are farther ahead of where they were 63 years ago than any other people on earth. Infant mortality declining, literacy up, famine (which had plagued China for four thousand years) abolished, public health up, roads, railways, manufacturing, up. There's no point in listing all of the progress they made. The overall stats, GDP, increase rate in GDP, exports, trade balances, military power, weaponry, electronics, regional and even global influence, all up, up and up.
Your stats are meaningless. Yes, I'd take that person to China - - you draw your own conclusions from your meaningless stats, and others with eyes to see will know at once what communism has accomplished for China.
And then I'd take the same guy back for a tour of the USA - - the millionaires homes and the homeless in the streets, the foreclosures, the unemployment, the deaths from lack of health insurance, the corporations earning billions while student loan balances cripple graduates who have no way of repaying them. I'd bring the guy here after he's seen the triumphs of communism so that he can see the other side of the coin - - the failure of capitalism.
-
Don't forget the period between 59 and 63 when the Chineese were less prosperous than during the Japaneese occupation.
Most of the progress you are bragging about didn't happen while Mao was alive.
China today has a lot of millionaires, it will not be long before there are more Chineese millionaires than American.
The key of course was to totally drop the useless and counterproductive parts of Communism like insisting on equality of economic result .
China has poor people still , but thanks to abandoning the tenants of Marx they are not starving as much as they used to.
Call it Communism if you must , what makes it a success is what communism isn't.
-
<<Don't forget the period between 59 and 63 when the Chineese were less prosperous than during the Japaneese occupation.>>
The progress we see today is the final result of all the years of communism, mistakes and misfortunes factored in. What system on earth doesn't have temporary set-backs, misfortunes, mistakes? But only ONE came out ahead. If my horse wins a race, he wins a race - - no point saying, "don't forget the point between the 2nd and 3rd quarter-mile when he was behind three other horses."
<<Most of the progress you are bragging about didn't happen while Mao was alive.>>
Mao played his role and then made way for other good Communists to play theirs. Mao wasn't the only Communist, you know. It's like saying that much of the progress of the Jewish people didn't happen when Moses was alive. It's more of a "do what you can and then pass on the baton." I love Chairman Mao and I honour him for his great role in the war and the Revolution, but like everyone he made mistakes too; in the fire of war and Revolution he emerged victorious, one hell of an accomplishment, and without which none of the later triumphs could have followed. Many people participated, but the guiding line in all their actions was, and remains today, the fundamental principles of Marxist-Leninist thought, adapted wisely to changing circumstances.
<< China today has a lot of millionaires, it will not be long before there are more Chineese millionaires than American.>>
I think the time will come for them to eliminate either the millionaires or their fortunes to prevent them from buying up the government as happened unfortunately in the USA. And I think they're in a much better position to do that than the US is today, because the Party still exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat, whereas the rich in the US have bought up not only the two political parties but also the judiciary and the MSM. The US will never shake them off, China will do so when it needs to do so. Even Russia has taken on its oligarchs - - one by one, they are landing in jail and their fortunes, to the extent that the Russian government can get their hands on them, are being taken back in the name of the people.
<<The key of course was to totally drop the useless and counterproductive parts of Communism like insisting on equality of economic result .>>
While retaining a tight control over the amount of the inequality of result AND maintaining the principle of state ownership of the means of production.
China faces future problems but so does the USA. But China is still trending up, and the USA is still trending down.
<<China has poor people still , but thanks to abandoning the tenants of Marx they are not starving as much as they used to.>>
". . . not starving as much as they used to." or "they eat a helluva lot better than they used to." What is this comment but a variation on the glass is half empty or the glass is half full? However you want to put it, the difference between China now and China in 1948 is like night and day, and communism is what made the difference possible. The progress made by China between 1948 and now outstrips any progress made by any other country on earth in the same period. China sooner than you think will outstrip the US military in both technology and firepower and the US can't do a God-damn thing about it. It's just something that is going to happen and something that the US is just going to have to suck up. And it's all due to the interplay of two factors: you are going down because capitalism has failed and China is going up because communism has succeeded.
<< Call it Communism if you must , what makes it a success is what communism isn't.>>
Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat through its vanguard the Communist Party, as well as state ownership of the means of production. The means by which China has won its success is no more an abandonment of communism than Lenin's adoption of the NEP was in the 1920s, or Fidel's temporary adoption of the "mercados libres" in the 1980s. One of the strengths of communism is its adaptability and willingness to experiment with new systems some of which work and some of which don't. The US, since the rich bought out both political parties, was even afraid to experiment with health-care systems, let alone systems of production and distribution. You're ossified and you're fucked, both.
-
Everything Mao did was a mistake from the point of view of those who had to starve to death during his learning period.
Did you miss that I mentioned that the Chineese had greater prosperity under Japaneese occupation than under Chairman Mao for practicly two decades?
Calling Mao a success under any terms than the Aggrandisement of Mao himself is rediculous.
When the Chineese tire of their Millionaires we will welcome them and the Chineese can return to starving , but covering up the starvation.
By the Way, if you ever need a liver , you can probly buy the best in China.
-
<<Everything Mao did was a mistake from the point of view of those who had to starve to death during his learning period.>>
Mao's greatest acccomplishment was leading the Revolution to victory and for the first time in centuries freeing China from foreigners and their puppets. Every success that followed was built upon that primary liberation.
<<Did you miss that I mentioned that the Chineese had greater prosperity under Japaneese occupation than under Chairman Mao for practicly two decades?>>
It's all relative and I don't trust those figures either. What kind of prosperity is it when some fucking Jap can throw a Chinese baby up in the air and catch him on the point of a bayonet? Anyone who can refer to "prosperity" under the Japanese occupation is just sick.
<< Calling Mao a success under any terms than the Aggrandisement of Mao himself is rediculous.>>
I just called him a success under the terms of liberating China from foreign control and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in China, the fundamental conditions for the current rise of that country, and there is absolutely nothing ridiculous about it.
<<When the Chineese tire of their Millionaires we will welcome them and the Chineese can return to starving , but covering up the starvation.>>
You're not the only one who can make ridiculous predictions, plane. When the second American revolution breaks out, we here in Canada will NOT take in the refugees, since we'll know them for the parasitic blood-sucking crypto-fascists that they are.
<<By the Way, if you ever need a liver , you can probly buy the best in China.>>
What happened, Israel ran out of Palestinians?
-
<<Everything Mao did was a mistake from the point of view of those who had to starve to death during his learning period.>>
Mao's greatest acccomplishment was leading the Revolution to victory and for the first time in centuries freeing China from foreigners and their puppets. Every success that followed was built upon that primary liberation.This was equally true of Hitler untill 1944.
<<Did you miss that I mentioned that the Chineese had greater prosperity under Japaneese occupation than under Chairman Mao for practicly two decades?>>
It's all relative and I don't trust those figures either. What kind of prosperity is it when some fucking Jap can throw a Chinese baby up in the air and catch him on the point of a bayonet? Anyone who can refer to "prosperity" under the Japanese occupation is just sick.
For all that this is true and perfectly tipical of the Japaneese occupation , they were not as harsh on the people as Mao. How are you not sick? Mao established strong food exports simultainious with the greatest famine of all human history, his greatest skill seems to have been coercion and covering the truth.
.
<< Calling Mao a success under any terms than the Aggrandisement of Mao himself is rediculous.>>
I just called him a success under the terms of liberating China from foreign control and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in China, the fundamental conditions for the current rise of that country, and there is absolutely nothing ridiculous about it.
Mao did for Tibet what Tojo did for the Philipines. What Mao did for China is akin to what Tojo did for China but on a much larger scale. What is the advantage of his being Chineese himself? Does being Chineese give license to kill Chineese? Chinas progress since Maos death is inspirational of wonder, if Mao had died a
<<When the Chineese tire of their Millionaires we will welcome them and the Chineese can return to starving , but covering up the starvation.>>
You're not the only one who can make ridiculous predictions, plane. When the second American revolution breaks out, we here in Canada will NOT take in the refugees, since we'll know them for the parasitic blood-sucking crypto-fascists that they are..You must mean a third revolution, the second went badly for my people in spite of Canadian assistance. Thanks anyway. If the OWS croud attempts rebellion they will discover that they do not amount to 1% and that very few of us think that class warfare is a good idea. China needs its millioniares , they are a part of the end of famine. For who is it unfortunate,, that they are millionaires in US dollars?
<<By the Way, if you ever need a liver , you can probly buy the best in China.>>
What happened, Israel ran out of Palestinians?
I didn't even know that Isreal was using capitol punishment. If they are, they will have to work hard to match China which leads the world in this catagory too. Is the Isreali policy on organ harvest and sale at auction as progressive as is Chinas?
Yes ,there is some capitolism that even I don't like.
-
China has existed for thousands of years, it is true. COMMUNIST China has existed only since 1948.
Yes but that's not the point.
The larger point is the country has existed for thousands of years & the people still live a pitiful life.
Most Chinese are still poor in 2011.
The only reason the life for the average Chinese has improved is because some freedom
has been realized when China decided to introduce a market system enabling free enterprise
and business to take hold.
You think it's an accident? as soon as China opened up allowing some freedoms
& business unheard of during Mao and BOOM....the economy takes off and incomes rise.
And as time marches on and China becomes more and more free, more democratic,
more and more capitalist the more the people of China will see even greater rises
in quality of life. The quicker China can be like the top performers (Capitalist&Democratic)
in the Human Development Index the better off their people will be.
You can pretend the internationally recognized Human Development Index is
"meaningless" but the standards of living for those on the list in the Top 20 is
astounding and guess what? NONE of them are Communist!
The 2010 Human Development Report :
1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Sweden
4. Netherlands
5. Germany
6. Switzerland
7. Ireland
8. Canada
9. Iceland
10. Denmark
11. Finland
12. United States
13. Belgium
14. France
15. Czech Republic
16. Austria
17. Spain
18. Luxembourg
19. Slovenia
20. Greece
-
CU4,
NOBODY can turn around the accumulated problems of 4,000 years in a country the size of China in 63 years. Nobody.
The index of human development can't measure things like hope, pride and optimism. It can't measure satisfaction, except from the materialistic POV of a spoiled Westerner who thinks the square footage of his apartment or the horsepower of his car are measures of his "development." But a Chinese peasant, working hard every day on his collective farm to build socialism has a spirit and a purpose that you aren't going to find in the slums of America, among its unattended sick and its jobless, among all of the people left out of the society of wealth and greed. China is building a society where all can share in the benefits, and however painfully slow the process may appear, when compared to the levels of development attained after hundreds of years of capitalism, who gives a shit?
No other society on earth has reached the scale of development that China has reached under communism in the same 63 -year span. The leap from where they were then to where they are now could not have been accomplished under any other system but communism.
And where are they headed now? The US is fucked, my friend. Capitalism has failed there, just as it has failed in Europe. You think that your situation is bad now? LMFAO. The shit still hasn't hit the fan. Five years from now, the whole house of cards will really have blown apart. And where will China be then? Still struggling with all those poverty rates you mentioned, but every year by every material index available, still climbing that slope - - as in the past, so in the future, more and more engineers graduated (already more than the USA can produce,) more cars, more housing, more and better jobs - - what's really funny is that even as their primary export markets collapse, their domestic market - - yes, all those folks living in poverty in China that you think is their weakness - - that domestic market will still be there for them to satisfy.
Don't be fooled by whatever "freedom" or "capitalism" the Party has allowed to date. It's all got its place in the Party's plans. Just like Lenin's New Economic Policy ("NEP") in the 1920s, sometimes the economy needs some capitalist practices, then for limited purposes those practices will be allowed, when those purposes (quick-start factory development) are realized, the NEP shuts down.
It's not a perfect or fool-proof system. Nothing is. Nothing can be. I'm still trying to come to grips with what happened in the USSR - - the biggest political catastrophe of the 20th century. Millions of good revolutionary communist lives lost in building and defending the system, the greatest military victory in the history of the world, only in the end to see it all pissed away with a few pen-strokes. How did it happen? What went wrong? These are my fears for China - - the evil wrecking crews of the capitalist world, always looking for ways to kill or sabotage or weaken the march of socialism, the forces of greed versus the forces of altruism, and so many times in the past, the forces of greed win out in the end. Because they are persistent and relentless, they never sleep. Will the same fate befall China? Honestly, I don't know. But so far, it looks like they are doing great and it is capitalism that is destroying itself in both Europe and the U.S.A.
-
NONE of them are Communist!
=======================
You mean none of them IS Communist. NONE is singular.
But, much more importantly, none EXCEPT for the US lacks universal health care, and NONE is anything like as reactionary as any of the candidates the Republicans have running for President. France, the Scandinavian nations, Germany, Slovakia, Benelux, Germany and several others have all had Socialist governments for varying amounts of time. To attribute their success entirely to capitalism is simply inaccurate.
China was a Third-World country in 1950, mostly devastated by war and the Japanese occupation. Chinese village society has ALWAYS been collectivist. And Confucius and the T'ao were powerful and philosophies that merged with Communism. China has some minorities, but they were never as divided as those of the old Russian Empire. The coastal part of China is becoming quite developed, and not entirely due to Capitalism, either. The Chinese are more conformist than most Europeans, and you get rebellion mostly when people are hungry. The current Communist rulers if China have managed to merge revolutionary China with some degree of capitalism, and since they can suppress unions and dissent rather easily so long as they keep the boom going, they have a lot less dissent than they would in any of the 20 developed nations you mention.
-
Well said!
I'm not sure about the origin or development of village collectivism in China, but by the time of the Revolution there had certainly developed a village landlord class (not unlike Viet Nam) which was to some degree an active counter-revolutionary force or factor. In Viet Nam, they were alternately placated and rebuffed, as changing circumstances required. In China, I believe that they (village landlords) took a more active counter-revolutionary role, and ultimately had to be liquidated.
As far as Confucianism goes, I can easily see where it would fit into the authoritarian side of the Chinese CP, but Taoism? I'm thinking of my Taoist hippie friends now - - can't see how "go with the flow" is going to fit in with Communist discipline and materialism, when the time comes to dam that river or level that mountain. Where do you see Taoism in the New China?
-
Where do you see Taoism in the New China?
Well, not in hydroelectric projects, but the government proposes a program, and most Chinese seem to "go with the flow" unless it deliberately affects them. There was some resistance to the Three Gorges Project, because it dislocated hundreds of thousands of people, but to build it in the USSR and dislocate the same number of people would have been possible only under Stalin. Khruschev and Brezhnev Putin could never have pulled it off.
-
Thanks, got it. I was thinking of Taoism in the CP leadership rather than amongst the people.
-
I would not say the CP is T'aoist at all. But they do count on T'aoist conformity: the CP sets the flow, and the people go along with it.
I recall a Chinese film I saw several months ago where three city kids were sent to the Three Gorges area to learn from and teach locals. Then they return after 30 years have passed, just as the water is rising, and talk with the locals, who are preparing to move. One of the city kids becomes a concert violinist, another a bureaucrat. It sort of showed the attitude of at least some of the locals in that area to the project, which was not rebellious, but not all that optimistic, either. It was called Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress. Netflix has it.
-
Thanks, I'll check it out. I've got Netflix, but haven't used it for awhile. Was actually thinking of cancelling my subscription. I've seen all the films I wanted to see with them, and they only had about 40% of the ones I was looking for anyway.
-
If the paradgn is how the government handles the people , then I shall always have reason to pity the Chineese who are aflicted with a domineering government.
Our own government is in a harness and the people are supposed to hold the reigns, every bit that this proper relationship gets reversed is a step twards the more primitive government (top down) we had as colonies.
Thomas Jefferson and Voltaire had it right, mankind is made up of individuals, all systems that pretend otherwise are fraudulent. Society serves individual needs , government serves individual needs and the consent of the governed is the prerequsite of legitamacy for any government.
-
they can suppress unions and dissent rather easily so long as they keep the boom going, they have a lot less dissent than they would in any of the 20 developed nations you mention.
well of course there is less dissent when you don't have freedom
but lack of dissent due to the barrel of a gun looking @ you is not a good thing
China will never reach it's full potential until is free/democratic/capitalistic
It's no accident..whatever their specific histories... that NONE in the Top 20 are Commies!
-
It's no accident because capitalism has been around for centuries and the first communist government only since the end of WWI, within living memory.
No country other than China can show the kind of progess we've seen there from 1948 to the present by any reasonable metric you choose, whether it's GDP, number of engineers graduating yearly, increase in military power, export markets, balance of trade, etc. Without the success of the Communist Revolution, China would be where it's been for hundreds of years, feudal, under the thumb of foreign imperialists and exploited unmercifully by foreign capitalists.
At the very same time, anyone who has followed the rise and decline of the USA since the end of WWII, can only be impressed, if he's reasonable and impartial, at the total failure of capitalism even in the wealthiest country in the world.
I don't think capitalism's over . . . yet. IMHO, it's just on its last legs. It can limp along for a few years more, but it'll need a police state to preserve itself even a decade or so after that. I figure from now to the end, you've got about as much time as the Third Reich had, maybe even a few years less.
-
China will never reach it's full potential until is free/democratic/capitalistic
It's no accident..whatever their specific histories... that NONE in the Top 20 are Commies!
Nor are any even close to being mostly capitalist.
At the present time, the coastal part of China is developed or rapidly becoming so, but the interior is still very Third Worldish. Whether China ever becomes fully developed depends on obtaining energy and raw materials to do so. This is more important than the "freedom" of the people from government oppression.
One individual's voice counts for a rather a lot in Costa Rica, where one is one in three million. It is 100 times less influential in the US, where it is one in three hundred million. But in China the individual's voice is four times fainter than in the US.
There are distinct disadvantages to a country having 1.2 billion people.
What might be true in a nation of 1.2 billion "Christians4LessGovernment" is probably NOT true for a nation of 1.2 billion Chinese.
In China, it is customary to see an entire village out in a rice paddy, replanting rice together, happily singing traditional songs. They do it now, and they did it 100 years and 500 years ago. I can't imagine an American village turning out to work in such a way or even having anything like such a collectivist attitude. And that attitude did not come from the Communists, either: it has been around for centuries.
-
<<I can't imagine an American village turning out to work in such a way or even having anything like such a collectivist attitude.>>
Sure you can. Think barn-raisings. Think quilting bees. Think clam digs and clam roasts. It's very American, just not lately.
-
<<I can't imagine an American village turning out to work in such a way or even having anything like such a collectivist attitude.>>
Sure you can. Think barn-raisings. Think quilting bees. Think clam digs and clam roasts. It's very American, just not lately.
The American bit of it is that the activity is volenteer.
The principal can be applied anywhere, we don't hold a patent.
-
It's no accident because capitalism has been around for centuries and the first communist government only since the end of WWI, within living memory.
No country other than China can show the kind of progess we've seen there from 1948 to the present by any reasonable metric you choose, whether it's GDP, number of engineers graduating yearly, increase in military power, export markets, balance of trade, etc. Without the success of the Communist Revolution, China would be where it's been for hundreds of years, feudal, under the thumb of foreign imperialists and exploited unmercifully by foreign capitalists.
At the very same time, anyone who has followed the rise and decline of the USA since the end of WWII, can only be impressed, if he's reasonable and impartial, at the total failure of capitalism even in the wealthiest country in the world.
I don't think capitalism's over . . . yet. IMHO, it's just on its last legs. It can limp along for a few years more, but it'll need a police state to preserve itself even a decade or so after that. I figure from now to the end, you've got about as much time as the Third Reich had, maybe even a few years less.
Only selective blindness can explain your opinion.
Japan was burnt to the ground in 1945 and became the worlds second largest economy in twenty years with 1/45000 the resorces availible to China.
Russia and China have been hobbled in development by Communism , capitolist nations both free and tyranical outpaced the sorry progress that comitted Communists brag about.
Germany went from the Weimar Wreck to the Facist machine in less than ten years so freedom and fairness was not apparently a necessacery component.
But from my stand point ,whether the standard of living is high or low the nations that don't feature freedom are pityfull.
I wouldn't move to Cuba if it would tripple my buying power.
I have had friends who contracted to work in Saudi Arabia, they make very good money and come home to enjoy it.(and breathe)
I know one guy that was offered a job maintaining air force one for the Shah of Iran, he was going to live in a manse , draw a rediculously large paychecke and have servants care for him constantly, catch was that he had to give up his American citizenship. He couldn't do it.
-
<< Japan was burnt to the ground in 1945 and became the worlds second largest economy in twenty years with 1/45000 the resorces availible to China.>>
That's a gross oversimplification there. Being burnt to the ground is not all bad for an industrialized country. The work force is still there and the plant can be rebuilt all new from the ground up, giving a terrific advantage to the owners. I remember the story of a German engineer whose factory was being stripped by the Red Army for war reparations to the USSR. The heart and soul of the plant was this gigantic press, which the workers wanted to surround to prevent the Soviets from physically removing it. The engineer told the workers, "Don't be stupid. The most modern presses are ten times superior to that old piece of junk." They let the Russians take the old press, got a brand new one instead and presumably wound up much the better for it.
China had the problem of feeding a billion people. They had problems of fighting the Japs and then the KMT, whereas for the Japs, once the war was over, it was over. They had to fight America in the Korean War, which the Japs never had to do. I respect what the Japanese did after the War - - they got a lot of help from the US, the Chinese got a lot of hostility and war from the US, which was obviously trying as hard as possible to isolate them and make them fail. So you really just compared apples and oranges. If you still can't recognize the gigantic achievements of the Chinese Communist Party and the achievements of the Revolution in China, we just have to agree to disagree. You are bent on pissing on their parade only because they are communist and your irrational prejudices do not permit you to see the superiority of the communist system over capitalism even when it is staring you right in the face.
-
Sure you can. Think barn-raisings. Think quilting bees. Think clam digs and clam roasts. It's very American, just not lately.
Yeah, we all used to be Amish. It is not something that would ever happen here now.
-
You obviously haven't worked on a Habitat for Humanity build.
-
I realize that there is some degree of cooperative volunteer charitable effort in this country, but what I was referring to was an everyday workplace tradition practiced by the entire village society, in which everyone participates, not just volunteers and not in an effort to please Jesus.
Chinese society has always been more cooperative than competitive. There are advantages to competition, and there are advantages to collectivism as well. It is a matter of balance. Finland seems to be one place that has such a balance.