Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
One of America’s greatest novels in my opinion is “The Great Gatsby” and I think many literary critics feel the same. If you’re not familiar with it, the short synopsis is that it is the tale of Jay Gatsby, a mysterious figure of self made wealth who arrives on Long Island’s North Shore, known as the “Gold Coast”, back in the “Roaring Twenties”. His life intertwines with Tom and Daisy Buchanan, a “golden” young couple with inherited wealth and the best social pedigrees. The interplay between these three leads to ultimate tragedy for Gatsby and more than a few other characters swept into the social vortex surrounding the Buchanan’s. On the last page of this magnificently crafted book, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the narrator Nick runs into Tom and Daisy who are gaily embarking on a trip to Europe after some cataclysmic events of their causing and he says of them:
“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
Now lest you think I’m about to deliver a polemic about all wealthy people let me disabuse you of that notion. I know and have known many wealthy people who were also exemplary human beings and have my respect and affection. “The Rich” I refer to are people like the Koch Brothers who were born into great wealth and somehow believe they are among the anointed of the world. So strong is that belief that they are willing to do just about anything to maintain their power in this world and their anger at those who oppose them is the “righteous” anger of the permanently entitled. These groups of people generally have fortunes beginning in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Mitt Romney perhaps, and are far removed from the merely wealthy. The see themselves as Aristocrats of the world and in reality they would like to return us to the time of feudalism. In some respects we have returned, when we think of our Justice Department refusing to criminally prosecute banks like HSBC, which has admitted to partaking in clearly illegal activities. The germ for this guest blog came from a link supplied by one of our most prolific commenters. What it shows, I think with great effectiveness, is how the Rich are not like the rest of us and why they need to be stopped before they will destroy us and our country with it.
The article that set me off was linked by a long time regular here and part time defender of Ayn Rand, our own contributor Bron. It comes from an article written in the American Conservative Magazine and is titled: “Revolt of the Rich” by Mike Lofgren. Many Americans are taken in by the political memes generated pitting “liberals” against “conservatives” and by the stereotypes of each position handed down to us via the Mainstream Media. Much of today’s insanity in Washington arose with the election of Ronald Reagan, who ironically would be a Republican moderate, afraid of a primary challenge, in today’s skewed political spectrum. When Reagan won in 1980, his success frightened many of the Democratic Politicians to such an extent that the Right Wing of the Democratic Party assumed control of its “center stage” and there was a rush by many career Democratic politicians to begin to act like moderate Republicans. Then the wise men Democratic Party’s being emulated became Senators Daniel Moynihan, Harry Byrd and Jay Rockefeller. Byrd had been a “Dixiecrat”, Moynihan had worked loyally for Nixon and Jay Rockefeller…..was a Rockefeller. As the Democratic Party rushed to become Republican “Lite” its minions began to recognize that they could gain even more largesse from the Corporate Plutocrats as they moderated their ideals. The truth about politics is that “ideals” in most instances play a secondary role to personal gain and the pleasures of power. This shift “rightward” has proceeded apace for some thirty-two years. Even Democratic Presidential victories have brought us two Centrist two-term Presidents. While I admit I voted for each twice, it was definitely votes for what I saw as the lesser of two evils.
With the political shift rightward and with the infestation of the urgent need to raise massive amounts of cash in order to stay in office, our political leaders have become increasingly beholden to those who are the wealthiest among us. Indeed the evidence shows that the top .01 percent has separated itself from the rest of to such a great degree that to be a millionaire is to be middle class. To be “middle class” is to exist two, or three missed paychecks away from poverty. Even the small business people, who used to be the backbone of this country, are being squeezed by large corporations like Wal-Mart, who are not satisfied with the lion’s share of the market, but want it all.
Most Americans took pride in the Corporate might developed by this country and felt respect for those “Captains of Industry” who had risen to such wealth. This changed for awhile when the “Great Depression” of 1929 ravaged the country and the blinders were lifted off a majority of the people, allowing them to see that the Depression was the fault of these avaricious Plutocrats manipulating our system. As the generation of the Depression aged, those memories of the “hard times” remained vivid. Those memories were passed onto the next generation, of which I was a part. As the years passed though, the memory of the experiences of the “Great Depression” grew dim. Television became the dominant media and Television was always a carefully controlled expression of the views of the Corporations who owned it and the Corporate sponsors that supported it. The Cold War was used to scare our country and pouring half of our national income into the military was not allowed to be questioned, lest one be branded as a traitor. The tables have turned now and it seems that there really are people who could easily be labeled as traitors to this country, only these traitors aren’t some mangy radicals, but those who are the wealthiest and most powerful among us. “Revolt of the Rich” by Mike Lofgren examines this phenomenon:
“It was 1993, during congressional debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement. I was having lunch with a staffer for one of the rare Republican congressmen who opposed the policy of so-called free trade. To this day, I remember something my colleague said: “The rich elites of this country have far more in common with their counterparts in London, Paris, and Tokyo than with their fellow American citizens.”
That was only the beginning of the period when the realities of outsourced manufacturing, financialization of the economy, and growing income disparity started to seep into the public consciousness, so at the time it seemed like a striking and novel statement.” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/
Lofgren goes on to talk about the fact that at the end of the Cold War, many saw the coming decline of the Nation State as many areas would devolve into smaller units representing ethnic, religious and racial ties. Then too he says there were alternate theories that saw the large military powers helpless in the face of local unrest, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. What wasn’t discussed or foreseen was this:
“There have been numerous books about globalization and how it would eliminate borders. But I am unaware of a well-developed theory from that time about how the super-rich and the corporations they run would secede from the nation state.
I do not mean secession by physical withdrawal from the territory of the state, although that happens from time to time—for example, Erik Prince, who was born into a fortune, is related to the even bigger Amway fortune, and made yet another fortune as CEO of the mercenary-for-hire firm Blackwater, moved his company (renamed Xe) to the United Arab Emirates in 2011. What I mean by secession is a withdrawal into enclaves, an internal immigration, whereby the rich disconnect themselves from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well being except as a place to extract loot.”
Lofgren goes on to describe how the super wealthy see themselves above it all even while they may live among us in a vague geographical manner. Anyone who has gone to places that are known haunts of the rich and “fabulous” knows how the gated communities and the private beaches, keep us riffraff far away from the natural treasures of these “spa” areas had that originally drawn people on vacation. Even in Las Vegas, that most “egalitarian” of Cities (if you have the cash), you are precluded from seeing the really wealthy gamble, or amuse themselves.
“Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it, but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; if one owns a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension—and viable public transportation doesn’t even show up on the radar screen. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?
Being in the country but not of it is what gives the contemporary American super-rich their quality of being abstracted and clueless. Perhaps that explains why Mitt Romney’s regular-guy anecdotes always seem a bit strained. I discussed this with a radio host who recounted a story about Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury as well as an executive at Goldman Sachs and CitiGroup. Rubin was being chauffeured through Manhattan to reach some event whose attendees consisted of the Great and the Good such as himself. Along the way he encountered a traffic jam, and on arriving to his event—late—he complained to a city functionary with the power to look into it. “Where was the jam?” asked the functionary. Rubin, who had lived most of his life in Manhattan, a place of east-west numbered streets and north-south avenues, couldn’t tell him. The super-rich who determine our political arrangements apparently inhabit another, more refined dimension.”
Lofgren goes on to discuss how in the past some of this was also true, but he then illustrates using the examples of public education and the military, to differentiate the alienation from our nation felt by the super-rich:
“To some degree the rich have always secluded themselves from the gaze of the common herd; their habit for centuries has been to send their offspring to private schools. But now this habit is exacerbated by the plutocracy’s palpable animosity towards public education and public educators, as Michael Bloomberg has demonstrated. To the extent public education “reform” is popular among billionaires and their tax-exempt foundations, one suspects it is as a lever to divert the more than $500 billion dollars in annual federal, state, and local education funding into private hands—meaning themselves and their friends. What Halliburton did for U.S. Army logistics, school privatizers will do for public education. A century ago, at least we got some attractive public libraries out of Andrew Carnegie. Noblesse oblige like Carnegie’s is presently lacking among our seceding plutocracy.
In both world wars, even a Harvard man or a New York socialite might know the weight of an army pack. Now the military is for suckers from the laboring classes whose sub-prime mortgages you just sliced into CDOs and sold to gullible investors in order to buy your second Bentley or rustle up the cash to get Rod Stewart to perform at your birthday party. The sentiment among the super-rich towards the rest of America is often one of contempt rather than noblesse.
Stephen Schwarzman, the hedge fund billionaire CEO of the Blackstone Group who hired Rod Stewart for his $5-million birthday party, believes it is the rabble who are socially irresponsible. Speaking about low-income citizens who pay no income tax, he says: “You have to have skin in the game. I’m not saying how much people should do. But we should all be part of the system.”
But millions of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes do pay federal payroll taxes. These taxes are regressive, and the dirty little secret is that over the last several decades they have made up a greater and greater share of federal revenues. In 1950, payroll and other federal retirement contributions constituted 10.9 percent of all federal revenues. By 2007, the last “normal” economic year before federal revenues began falling, they made up 33.9 percent. By contrast, corporate income taxes were 26.4 percent of federal revenues in 1950. By 2007 they had fallen to 14.4 percent. So who has skin in the game?”
Honestly, I found the entirety of this article absolutely stunning in its comprehension and comprehensiveness. This is so much more impressive because it is written by a man with impeccable conservative credentials, who was a Republican Congressional staffer among other things. There is so rich a detailing of what has become of most elected Republicans and Conservatives in this country as they became handmaidens to the Plutocratic Elite. This Elite as a group no longer feels connected to the citizens of this country and indeed views them as hindrances, product consumers and/or chattel. Please follow the link above and read the entire article, because wherever you stand on the political spectrum, I think you will find it lays out quite a powerful argument that the Plutocrats are in fact no longer a part, or part of, what we like to think is the American Dream. I will leave you with this:
“This raises disturbing questions for those who call themselves conservatives. Almost all conservatives who care to vote congregate in the Republican Party. But Republican ideology celebrates outsourcing, globalization, and takeovers as the glorious fruits of capitalism’s “creative destruction.” As a former Republican congressional staff member, I saw for myself how GOP proponents of globalized vulture capitalism, such as Grover Norquist, Dick Armey, Phil Gramm, and Lawrence Kudlow, extolled the offshoring and financialization process as an unalloyed benefit. They were quick to denounce as socialism any attempt to mitigate its impact on society. Yet their ideology is nothing more than an upside-down utopianism, an absolutist twin of Marxism. If millions of people’s interests get damaged in the process of implementing their ideology, it is a necessary outcome of scientific laws of economics that must never be tampered with, just as Lenin believed that his version of materialist laws were final and inexorable.
If a morally acceptable American conservatism is ever to extricate itself from a pseudo-scientific inverted Marxist economic theory, it must grasp that order, tradition, and stability are not coterminous with an uncritical worship of the Almighty Dollar, nor with obeisance to the demands of the wealthy. Conservatives need to think about the world they want: do they really desire a social Darwinist dystopia?
The objective of the predatory super-rich and their political handmaidens is to discredit and destroy the traditional nation state and auction its resources to themselves. Those super-rich, in turn, aim to create a “tollbooth” economy, whereby more and more of our highways, bridges, libraries, parks, and beaches are possessed by private oligarchs who will extract a toll from the rest of us. Was this the vision of the Founders? Was this why they believed governments were instituted among men—that the very sinews of the state should be possessed by the wealthy in the same manner that kingdoms of the Old World were the personal property of the monarch?”
Despite my protestations to the contrary, many here through the years have seen me as a raging “Liberal”. I don’t believe that specific economic, political or philosophical theory has all the answers.
My ideals as such only call for a free society that has eliminated poverty and want. I want a society where people are not barred from reaching their utmost potential. Where people can believe, speak and act with freedom from fear of repression, or retribution. In reading Mike Lofgren’s detailed analysis, I find my views are quite close to his. Perhaps in the way he seems to see it, I’m his kind of “true Conservative” after all. I do believe in a market economy, but I also believe that government should have oversight of the “Market” to ensure that it is not co-opted by those who would rig the game. Government is also responsible for infrastructure and protecting us from those who would exploit us by selling inferior and harmful products. Government should handle public education, not “for profit” corporations, or “non-profit” foundations set up by billionaires who are subtly pushing their product and their mindset. Finally Government should be responsible for ensuring the public welfare and ensure that the people have adequate food, shelter and income, so that we don’t have a society where homeless people, many of them military veterans, are left to languish unaided. What do you think? Are these “radical” ideas deviating from our Constitution, or merely a modernization of the Conservative intent of our nation’s Founding Fathers?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/10/selling-out-middle-class-america/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/13/manipulated-america-one-theory-of-how-they-control-us/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/06/american-dream-not-american-reality/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/30/portents-of-the-new-feudalism/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/07/07/mythology-and-the-new-feudalism/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/05/05/what-the/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/10/what-motivates-the-1/
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/18/forget-wall-street-occupy-corporate-boardrooms/
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/17/is-the-american-left-ineffective-in-economics-2/
On this earth no one is created exactly the same…. Each has a different entitlement than the other.. Or should it be phrased, expectation from life.
Excellent article Mike.
I don’t think it matters where it come from or what political party it belongs to. I think it matters that it makes sense for us as a nation and a people. We don’t need to box ourselves in to something, let’s just allow ourselves to think for today.
Fantastic job Mike. I agree that this country has become a servant to the wealthy and the corporations. They own many politicians in both parties as well as the Supreme Court. I do not expect a change until Citizens United is overturned and private money is taken out of politics.
“Finally Government should be responsible for ensuring the public welfare and ensure that the people have adequate food, shelter and income, so that we don’t have a society where homeless people, many of them military veterans, are left to languish unaided.” Mike Spindell
Agreed. And I would include access to basic healthcare in that list.
Documentary ‘A Place At The Table’ Is A Call To Action On Hunger
by Allison Aubrey
March 01, 2013 6:09 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/01/172040074/documentary-a-place-at-the-table-is-a-call-to-action-on-hunger
If one takes Mike’s, Mark’s, and Nal’s articles this morning as a whole one can get a sense of the over riding problem the wealthy and entitled are facing … how to keep the rabble at bay.
Wow! Disengaging from the boob tube and popular magazines re-calibrates the critical thinking process. It becomes easier to pull back the curtain and view the naked wizard. Sadly, you can offer the view on a silver plate and the current masses still think it is Greek math.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/sunday-review/the-holocaust-just-got-more-shocking.html?pagewanted=all Thought you might be interested in this ,Mike, since you have been in discussions with the holocaust deniers that have been posting here. I see that Swartzman made another 213 million this year.
Great article Swarthmore. The numbers are staggering.
Mike S,
True American history is quite interesting.
Nevertheless, it seems like science fiction to those who have been saturated with the propaganda form of American history.
I was reading one of the early works of Professor Prosser, Prosser on Torts, specifically one of the sections on affirmative defenses, which included the defense which only governments can raise when they hurt their own people.
It is called “sovereign immunity.”
Professor Prosser, expressed his puzzlement and amazement at the development of this “affirmative defense.”
He could not fathom how the American people could allow this infection of the old “the king can do no wrong” virus to make its way across the Atlantic from England and reinfect America.
Parasites make up about 1% of the microbial world, as they do in our American Plutocracy.
The 1% among us are parasites and they take no concern whatsoever that what they are doing will destroy their host, an consequently themselves — at least as far as they are members of American society.
Hence, the indications in the Lofgren article (and Mike S’s comments on it in his post) that the 1% are not really of us even though they are in us (like any pathogenic parasitic virus).
Anyway, so I don’t write a comment that is too long, have you noticed any sovereign immunity lately?
Like the banksters, the war criminals, and in short those with the big bucks?
The next virus that mutates once the sovereign immunity virus takes hold is the state secret virus.
Noticed how the Supreme Court said last week that government is immune from inquiry into who they have wiretapped with a secret warrant or no warrant at all?
The nation is infected with something that cannot be voted out of office.
Dredd,
the infection is evidenced by the concept of too big to fail and too big to jail.
Mike Spindell:
you know why? Because we do not have laissez faire. The really rich use government to squash competition just like they did before Gibbons v. Ogden.
If you didnt know, Cornelius Vanderbilt was an up and coming steamship captain who was trying to compete against government granted steamship concessions in New York. I might add that the rich and powerful were using government back then as well. Thomas Gibbons and Cornelius Vanderbilt were partners and wanted the freedom to compete.
As we all know Vanderbilt went on to make a huge fortune but he made it possible for the poor to ride in a steamship. Just like Rockefeller made a fortune but made it possible for the poor to light their houses for pennies vs the expensive whale oil. He probably also saved whales from extinction.
What we have now is a mixed economy that is very heavily influenced by government to the detriment of the common man.
What we need is government out of economics and a return to the ruff and tumble of the free market. That will do more to knock the Koch’s off their pedestal than almost any single thing you can do short of nationalizing their business. But that would turn America into a ghetto overnight, the rich would run like hell and take their money with them.
Personally, if I was rich in this climate, I would have no assets in the US. They would have been sold in 2009 at a loss if necessary and moved to safe havens.
You are never going to hurt the rich, so why not help the rest of the people by making it easy to create and keep wealth?
Blouise,
I think you’re right in point….
Mike,
I have not had time to read for detail, but am bookmarking so I can come back and digest this slowly. Again, you have hit a home run.
You may have seen this book; years ago a therapist wrote about doing psychotherapy with children of the super rich. I cannot remember if it was a psychologist or psychiatrist. He described the psychological makeup of these people. They would miss appointments, without regard to whether it was important or not, but just have their secretary pay full price for the missed session. The feelings of entitlement were there. They appeared to have no ability to understand there were people who had to worry about money. If the subject of people being homeless or without transportation came up, kids of the super rich had a simple solution: “Well, if they don’t have a house or car, they should go buy one.”
We see that with the Walton family. Sam Walton started out with a small variety store in northwest Arkansas. I remember the first Walmart I ever went in. My late mother in law shopped there. It was small and about like a dollar store at the time. One thing I noticed. The staff were more helpful than any store I had ever been in, and there were signs to let you know everything in the store was “Made in America.” At that time, there probably were no more than a couple of dozen Walmart stores, and all of them were in Arkansas.
Sam Walton drove his 1977 Dodge pickup truck everywhere, even after Walmart became a multinational powerhouse. He could have bought any car made in the world and paid cash for it, but he did not want to waste money on something he didn’t need. He preferred jeans, a plaid shirt and a “feed store” baseball cap. He got his hair cut at a local barbershop he had been using back when he was running his single small store. He bought a Cessna twin engine airplane he used to fly around to his stores. He flew himself according to a story I read an an aviation magazine.
Back when I lived in Mississippi, Sam’s Clubs were just taking hold. A Sam’s Club store opened in Jackson (the state capitol), and Mr. Sam himself came to cut the ribbon. The Governor and Mayor came. Sam Walton was dressed like his customers. No Armani suits for him. He seemed to enjoy visiting with the regular folks more than with the dignitaries.
Sam Walton’s kids and grandkids are another story altogether. They were born feeling entitled. That is just a single example of how one wealthy family evolved. That story has played out all over the world.
Thoughtful and timely article. I see my state becoming more be holding to the wealthy than to the majority. I live in Texas and see how cutting school budgets has become a way to ensure the failure of public education and give state money to charter and private schools. I believe this push is strictly to enlarge the fortunes of the wealthy! The Texas legislature no longer works for the people of Texas but to be re-elected. The money has to be taken out of politics or we will be another grand failed experiment as a country!
rafflaw 1, March 2, 2013 at 11:48 am
Dredd,
the infection is evidenced by the concept of too big to fail and too big to jail.
============================================
Indeed.
And let’s add to the modern adage “follow the money” another adage: “follow the immunity.”
Quite telling that they end up at the same place eventually: Plutocracy.
AY,
Pointy-head maybe
http://www.applecrumbles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/conehead.jpg
“Mike Spindell:
you know why? Because we do not have laissez faire. The really rich use government to squash competition just like they did before Gibbons v. Ogden.”
Bron,
While I thank you for the link leading to Lofgren’s article, I would really suggest you re-read it because I don’t think you fully understood it. If the Elite feel as Lofgren says they do, laissez-faire Capitalism is exactly what they want. Unfetter government regulation of their dealings and within a trice we will see a world of monopolized industries controlling each segment of each market, with no incentive to innovate or change, only to increase profits.
Blouse,
She’s always been my hero… Or heroin….
OS:
and if we had a free market, Mr. Sams children would have had to work to keep it.
At the beginning of the 20th century [when we had as close to a free market as we were going to get] they used to say rags to riches to rags in 3 generations. I dont know why people dont understand that a free market is egalitarian at the same time it is merit based. No matter how humble people may be, they can rise.
You make it so the rich have to stay on top of their game to keep money in the family and it is better for all of us. What we have now is some sort of English aristocracy bullsh*t.
Sam Walton’s children couldnt start and run Wal Mart now if their lives depended on it.
“He described the psychological makeup of these people. They would miss appointments, without regard to whether it was important or not, but just have their secretary pay full price for the missed session. The feelings of entitlement were there. They appeared to have no ability to understand there were people who had to worry about money. If the subject of people being homeless or without transportation came up, kids of the super rich had a simple solution: “Well, if they don’t have a house or car, they should go buy one.”
OS,
I haven’t read the book, but my personal experience as a Psychotherapist confirms it. While I didn’t have any super-rich patients, I did have rich patients and yes their sense of entitlement was large, in the manner explained above. It is actually one of the reasons I gave up doing therapy.
Also I still remember my wealthy friend from high school. One day with my car loaded and embarking on a 200 mile round trip to Montauk Point, I asked my friends to chip in for gas money. This one friend, the richest of the lot looked at me surprised and said “Why doesn’t your father get you a credit card like I have?”. I was astonished. My father never could have gotten a credit card for himself, much less give one to me. My friend had no idea of the fact that his life was atypical.
Mike Spindell 1, March 2, 2013 at 12:09 pm
“Mike Spindell:
you know why? Because we do not have laissez faire. The really rich use government to squash competition just like they did before Gibbons v. Ogden.”
Bron,
While I thank you for the link leading to Lofgren’s article, I would really suggest you re-read it because I don’t think you fully understood it. If the Elite feel as Lofgren says they do, laissez-faire Capitalism is exactly what they want. Unfetter government regulation of their dealings and within a trice we will see a world of monopolized industries controlling each segment of each market, with no incentive to innovate or change, only to increase profits.
===========================================
What we have here is a failure to communicate because we are hampered by our concept of government.
Bron, I suggest that Mike S understands that what you call “government” is a layer of the Plutocracy the public generally sees in terms of liberal/democrats vs. conservative/republicans, who inhabit the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches of “government,”
That layer is beyond any shadow of a doubt a charade, facade, or any other form of illusion (“the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain”) you chose to use as a metaphor.
Until we mean the same thing when we say “government” we can’t effectively communicate, because the government we think we see is not the full embodiment, it is a layer of pixels that serve another layer that controls them.
So both of you may be correct in your arguments, because the government layer does and does not do those things you both mentioned, depending on what they are told to do with money or other stimulants.
The Plutocracy is the Epigovernment, while the “government” is its lackey.
Mike Spindell:
No way they want that, it would make it harder for them to exist. And anyway they would still have to follow the law. You cant pollute your neighbor’s well and you cant poison your customer’s hamburger.
The rich need the government for favors.
You might be right and I might be living in some utopia, but if you look at the history of the 19th century, not from a progressive history, but from a wage standpoint, real wages rose between 2 and 3 times during the century. For example, a steak dinner in 1805 would have cost 3 dollars, by 1905 it would have been 1 dollar. You cannot say the same over the last 100 years.
Government and the rich using the government, have sucked the wealth out of the economy.
The federal reserve is what allows them to do it.
As usual you have hit the nail on the proverbial head. The mega wealthy CEO types don’t see themselves as Americans unless they want something from the country and the people who pay taxes like a war or a tax break or a bail out or a shot at at privatized government function like prisons, the Post Office or War Services. Phony philanthropists who refuse to pay fair wages in their own companies or buy American are always talking about the benefit to the poor of the world when they really are talking about the benefit to them of a more subservient poor work force pool that they can dispose of even easier than us.
We have a Supreme Corporate Court, a corporatist in the WH and the best Congress that money can buy. Our government agencies are captured by the industries they are meant to regulate and those that try to do the right thing are defunded. We have “grassroots” movements for “smaller” government that are owned and operated by the corporations or the Kochs. The few people who try to speak up are creamed and demeaned by the corporate stream media. Where are the leaders? We have celebrities but no leaders.
Bron 1, March 2, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Mike Spindell:
No way they want that, it would make it harder for them to exist. And anyway they would still have to follow the law. You cant pollute your neighbor’s well and you cant poison your customer’s hamburger.
The rich need the government for favors.
You might be right and I might be living in some utopia, but if you look at the history of the 19th century, not from a progressive history, but from a wage standpoint, real wages rose between 2 and 3 times during the century. For example, a steak dinner in 1805 would have cost 3 dollars, by 1905 it would have been 1 dollar. You cannot say the same over the last 100 years.
Government and the rich using the government, have sucked the wealth out of the economy.
The federal reserve is what allows them to do it.
=========================================
On second thought you get it too.
I think our exercise is to identify, quantify, and detail the nature of the Epigovernment.
Using “government” engenders misunderstandings because it is a layer that changes like the dunes in the desert from storm to storm.
The Epigovernment is much more stable and persistent, once one can see through “government” into the Epigovernment.
The principles, dissent, and resistance also can become more stable and persistent.
Reblogged this on Randy C White.
Mike Spindell:
“Unfetter government regulation of their dealings and within a trice we will see a world of monopolized industries controlling each segment of each market, with no incentive to innovate or change, only to increase profits.”
The 19th century proves that to be wrong, there were huge innovations and yes the cream did rise to the top but oil competed with electricity and coal and steel competed with wood and then concrete and trains competed with stagecoaches and then automobiles and then planes.
And so it goes when people are free to innovate and prosper. Companies are starting and merging and failing all the time. A free market, contrary to popular belief, is only conducive to a monopoly which provides a good product or service at a good price. I am not sure what the benefit to the consumer is to have 10 companies charging more and providing an inferior product or service vs. one company charging less and providing more.
“But Rockefeller was no autocrat. The standard lesson of Rockefeller’s rise is wrong—as is the traditional story of how it happened. Rockefeller did not achieve his success through the destructive, “anticompetitive” tactics attributed to him—nor could he have under economic freedom. Rockefeller had no coercive power to banish competition or to dictate consumer prices. His sole power was his earned economic power—which was no more and no less than his ability to refine crude oil to produce kerosene and other products better, cheaper, and in greater quantity than anyone thought possible.”
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp
I am a radical. Lenin just wanted to hang the rich, I want worse for them, I want them to have to compete on a level playing field. With no government regulations [which those sons of b*tches write anyway to promote their industry] and only the rule of law to constrain their actions.
“We have celebrities but no leaders.” (Justice Holmes)
Truth!
Bron,
I know we disagree on a lot of economic issues, but you win the Intertoobs today with this:
That is at least part of Mike’s point. I read a science fiction story once about an advanced alien civilization making contact with earth citizens, taking an earthling back to their home planet. When he returned, he wrote of his adventures and the book became a galactic best seller. He discovered that while he earned vast sums on his book sales, he could not bequeath the royalties to his offspring. The aliens told him it was his money but his family did nothing to earn it. One of the things the alien society did was have a 100% inheritance tax on the next generaton. They felt everyone should have an equal chance. There was no prohibition on making as much as one could during their lifetime, but every generation must start over. That was the only tax their government imposed and it was sufficient. Because of the tax structure, that alien civilization was able to provide amply and luxuriously for those who could not care for themselves. An interesting concept.
OS,
Interesting tax concept. The only tax was an estate tax. How could that alien civilization with their advanced mentality agree to a Death tax??
Otteray Scribe 1, March 2, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Bron,
I know we disagree on a lot of economic issues, but you win the Intertoobs today with this:
Sam Walton’s children couldnt start and run Wal Mart now if their lives depended on it.
That is at least part of Mike’s point.
===================================================
This presents somewhat of a conundrum, if we consider what you said of Sam Walton up-thread OS; in this sense:
(The Homeland: Big Brother Plutonomy). Do you think that Sam was doing the Romney, i.e., looking the part, talking the talk, but not walking the walk?
I watched on TV last night a show describing a fully furnished mansion that was being offered for rent for $600,000 per month. The mansion was featured in the first Godfather film as the one owned by the movie producer character who ended up with the horse head as a bedfellow.
The host of the show intereviewed the real estate agent who was contracted to rent it out. When asked who would buy such a house, which was for sale also for over 100 million, he said it would be most likely be a mega wealthy foreigner and this would be his fourth or fifth house. He probably would only spend about six weeks per year living there. He wasn’t being arrogant, the agent, but being honest about what he thought would happen. The reporter was dismayed.
While I thought the mansion was certainly nice to look at, all I could think was how such a waste it all was to pay money for something like that, not to mention how hochmut having such a house would be.
Live simply so that others may simply live
If the only gripe I had was that the rich can bequeath or inherit wealth, I would be a very happy camper indeed. If the rich actually paid the same amount of taxes, that is rate of taxes, that I pay I would not gripe. If corporations actually paid those “high” rates they are always complaining about, if billionaires were actually job creators, if jobs actually came with stability, living wages, benefits and health care, I wouldn’t groan. If there actually was a level playing field for workers and employers, consumers and corporations, if each of our votes had the same impact as the other, Inwould be content. BUT, none of this is true or even close to being true. We, that is our government, have allowed corporations to set the tune, write the lyrics and run the whole show and we wonder why we don’t like the outcome. Someone once said in a country where the government is run by the corporations and for the corporations, the humans will perish or at least become slaves to the corporations. inser the Rich or the billionaires for corporations and you have the same result.
Its a mess.
“With no government regulations [which those sons of b*tches write anyway to promote their industry] and only the rule of law to constrain their actions.”
Bron,
I appreciate your sentiments but it would have to be government that enforces the “rule of law”. Don’t you see the dichotomy?
Mike Spindell:
Of course the government has to enforce the rule of law as it should. But many a “government” regulation is written not by congress or even a cabinet level department but by associations for their members benefit.
Do you see the difference? Just because a regulation is in the CFR does not mean it will control industry nor that it was written by government regulators for some real societal benefit.
Dredd,
I never met Sam Walton, although I had several chances, but something else interfered each time. I have a lot of family who still live in northwest Arkansas, so I know a number of people who did know him personally. Going all the way back to when he was a young man, and long before he got rich. What I have been told is that he was able to focus on a goal like a laser. He had a good sense of how to invest money, and he took the old fashioned merchant’s view that the customer always came first. He believed in training his employees well and trying to keep them happy. A happy employee is a loyal employee. They never knew when he would come wandering into one of his stores, wearing work clothes, to visit with them. Sometimes he would buy something, going through the checkout line like anyone else.
From everything I have been able to gather, he stayed so busy and so occupied with running the business, he did not spend a lot of time with his kids. One of the reasons he bought his own airplane and flew it was so he did not have to wait for corporate pilots to get the plane ready when he wanted to go somewhere. Some of the executives who flew with him once refused to fly with him again. He would seldom take time to climb any higher than the legal minimum, and kept the throttles to the firewall. Get there fast, so he could take care of business and not waste time. Unfortunately, most highly successful people are workaholics, and the kids did not get the parental attention they needed growing up. They are not complete persons.
IIRC, the book I mentioned earlier about the therapist who treated kids of the super rich had come to the same conclusion. Maybe not just the super rich, but the super accomplished as well. We can look at Einstein and Ben Franklin as horrible examples of what not to do as a parent.
“Do you see the difference? Just because a regulation is in the CFR does not mean it will control industry nor that it was written by government regulators for some real societal benefit.”
Bron,
Again don’t you see the dichotomy in your logic? You assume a “rule of law” that is written for real societal benefit. Chicken and egg argument that fails to address the need for regulation of the market by government. The bundled mortgage securities that caused the meltdown were not only “legal”, but were examples of a “free market” at work. For the marketplace to be “free and open to competition” laws are needed to assure that state.
OS:
If you had a tax structure now that allowed people to keep more of what they made, we could take good care of people who need help. You increase tax revenue through growth, not by taxing more.
I would like to tax the sh*t out of everyone, make em pay billions of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes as long as it was less than 15% of what they made.
More money in the economy means more jobs and more economic growth and more taxes. We can do all the alien civilization did, now, in reality if people will give up our current economic belief system.
I would like to see everyone prosperous and without worry about where their next meal is coming from or how they are going to pay the mortgage or whether or not they can afford a terrible illness. The invisible hand can do all of that and it did once and could do it again if given a chance.
We are realizing a small fraction of our countrie’s/people’s actual potential with things the way they are now.
Why not soak the rich? Make em really pay, you progressives are pikers when it comes to taxing the rich, you want 40 or 50% of nothing [they just hide it from you or put it into tax free investments], I want 15% of a big sh*t pot full of cash.
You guys want a whole grape, I want 15% of a big fat watermelon. Stick it to the rich, you lower the tax rate to 10 or 15% and they will work like dogs for you.
Progressives just dont hate the rich enough to stick it to them like they should be stuck. And you will have people lining up to pay you and thanking you for the privilege.
Mike,
I think the thing that Bron is not getting (or accepting) is that he has a trust in the intrinsic goodness of people to do the right thing. Unfortunately, that is not only not the case, but over the years I have observed the financial/insurance sector seems to attract psychopaths. Not all bankers or insurance executives are psychopaths, of course, but enough of them are to create economic and social disasters like Countrywide. Bron is a good man who has difficulty wrapping his head around the fact the world is full of crooks and scam artists and they currently dominate the financial & insurance sector.
Wells Fargo has a track record, according to news stories I have read, of foreclosing and auctioning off private homes that are completely paid for, have no mortgage, and the homeowner has never done business with Wells Fargo in their entire lives. By the time victims of the scam get their case in front of a judge, the sheriff has evicted them and the house is gone at a fire sale price. There are other lenders who have done the same thing. How about all those untold numbers of kids who have been made bank “Vice President” and get paid to create affidavits they have audited the mortgage and find everything in order to begin foreclosures. They just sign without even knowing what they are signing.
That is why we need regulations with teeth, and regulators who are not afraid to enforce the regulations. All too many regulators are former employees or executives in the same businesses they are supposed to regulate. Some of them even get appointed Secretary of the Treasury. Anyone smell home cookin’?
“Mike,
I think the thing that Bron is not getting (or accepting) is that he has a trust in the intrinsic goodness of people to do the right thing. Unfortunately, that is not only not the case, but over the years I have observed the financial/insurance sector seems to attract psychopaths.”
OS,
I agree, through the years Bron has shown he is a good person, capable of empathy with others plights. Perhaps with our career backgrounds and training we are less trusting of people’s motives than Bron.
Let’s just scrap income taxes all together and go to a uniform national sales tax on durable goods and services, exempting food, medical supplies/services, and items for resale. It would eliminate mountains of paperwork and loopholes. Revenue would be collected monthly by the gov’t and not quarterly or annually. Excessive spending results in higher tax payments.
Let people keep what they earn.
The blog is loading slowly which means a lot of traffic …this is a good thing.
Some good news.
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/02/occupy-movement-files-lawsuit-against-every-federal-regulator-of-wall-street/
excerpt:
The organization is suing every Federal regulator that resides in the pocket of Wall Street – which means they are suing every Federal regulator of Wall Street. And, spunky group that they are, they’re naming individuals too. Here’s the rundown: Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Martin Gruenberg, Chairman of the FDIC, Elisse Walter, Chair of the SEC, Gary Gensler, Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Thomas Curry, Comptroller of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Mary Miller, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance at the Treasury, Neal Wolin, Acting Secretary of the Treasury.
Occupy the SEC is serving a valiant public service in bringing this lawsuit. It explains to the court that one of the most critical components of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that was supposed to reform Wall Street has yet to be enacted by the regulators and this is in violation of law. The key component is the Volcker Rule, named after former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, that would prohibit most forms of trading for the house on Wall Street, known officially as proprietary trading.
The lawsuit informs the court that Dodd-Frank required that regulators adopt rules relating to this section “within nine months after the completion of a study by FSOC [Financial Stabilization Oversight Council] relating to the Volcker Rule. The FSOC completed that study in January 2011.” The complaint proceeds to explain that the legislative language “is unequivocal in setting this mandatory deadline, which the Defendants and the agencies under their control have missed.”
To bring a lawsuit of this nature, plaintiffs who have a legitimate stake in the outcome must be named on the suit. Occupy the SEC has wisely selected two individuals, Eric Taylor and Kristine Ekman, who live in Brooklyn and hold insured deposit accounts with two major Wall Street firms. That’s highly relevant because the Brooklyn residences allow this case to be filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District that covers the Wall Street area and lower Manhattan. Wall Street has been getting extremely sweet deals in that District Court for the past two decades, raising concerns as to whether the 99 percent can ever obtain justice there.
OT but related….
http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/news/2013-02-23/apd-infiltrates-occupy-how-many-officers-does-it-take-to-protect-free-speech/
excerpt:
APD Infiltrates Occupy: How Many Officers Does it Take to ‘Protect’ Free Speech?
Lawyer says up to six APD officers involved in watching OA
By Jordan Smith, 11:40AM, Sat. Feb. 23
Rick Reza, aka
Rick Reza, aka “Rick,” shows off his lockbox*
It was the arrest of six members of Occupy Austin during a Houston demonstration in December 2011 that led to the discovery last year that three Austin Police officers had infiltrated the movement. The charges against the protesters have been resolved, but: Were as many as six officers surveilling the actions of local Occupiers?
The Austin protesters were arrested and charged with felony “possession of a criminal instrument” in connection with their use of a so-called “lockbox” – a PVC-fashioned sleeve that allows protesters to link themselves together – during a demonstration in Houston that was part of a nationwide “Occupy the Port” action. As the criminal cases proceeded, the protesters learned that there were three APD officers who had not only infiltrated the group, but who actually built the lockboxes used in the port action. Without the device, which locks protesters together and makes them difficult to separate, the group would have been arrested only on the misdemeanor charge of blocking a roadway, as were other protesters arrested that day.
According to the Austin occupiers, the police – eventually identified as Shannon Dowell (aka “Butch”), Deek Moore (aka “Dirk”), and Rick Reza (aka “Rick”) – were the ones that promoted the decision to create and use the sleeve device, entrapping them into committing a felony.
OS:
yes, there is a problem with morality today. I am not sure it is isolated to the financial sector, it permeates our entire society. Kids think it is ok to go to McDonalds and ask for a water cup and then put soda in it. I know it is pretty tame but it is creating a habit of dishonesty.
And parents today, many I think, allow their children to rule and there are no consequences for bad behavior.
I like to read and study history. There are many in the history profession who hold a view that real history cannot be written until a period of time has passed which emasculates the writer from his own influences conncected to the subject matter. In America we have these so called “Foundations” which exist to foster the good name of JFK or RFK or FDR. Then we have these myths generated that a wealthy family sends the “scion” to Harvard and teaches him how to sail and then the scion is ready to lead the free world.
I predict that a hundred years from now the historians will not have much great to say about FDR, JFK or his brother Bobby. LBJ will look good for his passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Truman will look good for a slew of accomplishments. Prior to Truman you will have to go back to Theodore Roosevelt for a good President. That is three for the 20th Century. Scions– love em and leave em. Guys like the Bushies, Mittster. Jokes. Wise up America. You gotta good President now and all I hear on this blog is Obumbo. He is the real deal.
Darren,
a national sales tax would be regressive and impact the poor and middle class much more than the wealthy.
bettykath,
the Occupy lawsuit link is an interesting one.
Bron, I aqree. Kids don’t know how to behave unless their taught. Many parents are clueless, in their own narcissistic world. My son was no easy one, but he and his sister were taught things like “restaurant voices”. From the volume I hear in restaurants that simple, courteous behavior is not taught much anymore.
Damn! NPR’s Weekend All Things Considered, in discussion about the “sequester” suggests that Obama got his tax increases in the previous “crisis” and now the Republicans are entitled to the entitlement cuts in medicare, etc that make up 50% of the budget (including the deficit – or the debt – my ire interrupted my memory). I guess the wars (funded off-budget) and the rest of the military don’t count.
The beat goes on.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14884-lords-of-disorder-billions-for-wall-street-sacrifice-for-everyone-else
Bettykath:
if you had 3,500,000 dollars to spend, would you mind if some one said you cannot spend 85,000 dollars of it? Or $3,415,000 is your spending spree.
That is the same percentage as the sequestor in relation to the budget. It is a joke.
nick:
restaurants were where I was taught to behave myself. My grandmother made sure of it.
Mike Spindell:
let them fail. They should have been allowed to fail in 2008 and let the market absorb the shock. Had that happened, along with getting rid of Sarbanes Oaxley and Dodd Frank, the economy would be in pretty good shape now.
Bron
Some programs will be seriously hurt. I think you may need to reconsider the percentages, once you understand that:
The cuts are split evenly (by dollar amounts) between the defense and non-defense categories.[note 1] Some major programs like Social Security, Medicaid, federal pay (including military pay and pensions) and veterans’ benefits are exempt. Medicare spending will be reduced by 2% per year versus the planned levels.[3
Thank you for a beautiful piece. It is good to see that there are still people who can write.
Re the lockboxes that bettykath mentions, planned & provided by undercover police, there will never be much justice in America until every policeman that breaks a law pays the penalty for breaking that law, including losing his priviledges of being a police officer in most cases. Not only will police officers & their ordering chiefs & seniors have to be tried for these scams, but anyone coerced into participating by the entrapping police force that is not part of it, should be completely exonerated.
Great article veiled by selective amnesia. Apparently it matters not that priviliged liberals like Soros buy influence or Kennedy, who did nothing to earn his fortune, gets a pass leaving the scene of an accident. Disappointing when the premis is so right but vision tunneled.
Tricksy,
Great strawmen argument. You managed to get total irrelevance, logical fail and red herring all into one sentence. Congratulations.
OS:
Doesnt Tricksy’s statement backup the premise that the rich arent like you me?
Look at JFK during world war II, if his name had be Eric Jones, he would still be in Leavenworth. And if Chappiquidick had happened to Jim Smith, he would still be in jail or maybe just recently paroled.
And not to just bust on democrats, what about the Kochs and their shenanigans? And Bush and his coke habit?
Great post, Mike! Thanks to you and Bron for bringing that article to our attention.
Bron,
The point was that the remark was totally irrelevant to the discussion of politics. If I had to bet, the Ted Kennedy incident had more to do with political connections than wealth, assuming that was why the investigation was handled the way it was. On the other hand, one must be careful of assumptions where small town law enforcement is concerned. Darren may have some insight on this as well. Small town departments do not have the resources to do investigations as thoroughly as larger departments, not that big departments don’t screw up as well.
As far as JFK doing something to get him a Courts Martial, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are referring to him losing his boat, his PT boat was part of a squadron of PT boats. Several other boats had already been lost. The four PT boats in in Kennedy’s part of the squadron were almost motionless with engines at idle to avoid detection when PT-109 was run over by the Japanese destroyer Amagiri. The Amagiri was running at a flank speed of between 23 knots and 40 knots on a dark moonless night. The visibility was so bad they did not see the Amagiri until it was on top of them, and the Amagiri’s lookouts on watch did not see PT-109 until after they felt the impact and heard the crash. Kennedy suffered back injuries in that incident.
As far as the Bush clan, you are right. Laura Welch (Bush) came from a wealthy well-connected Texas family. She ran a stop sign, hitting and killing another teenager when she was seventeen. She was not charged with anything. If that had happened in our area, she would have been charged with involuntary manslaughter in addition to the traffic violation charges. Maybe. Wealth aside, political connections help. A former District Attorney was arrested on a DUI recently, but the charges seemed to somehow go away.
If anyone else had gone AWOL or not shown up for a flight physical during wartime, they would have been hauled up before a Courts Martial, but not George Bush The Lesser. As it is, we cannot even get access to his military records. Dan Rather had his career tattered over a letter, but although the letter was shown to probably be a copy or even forged, none of the parties concerned has ever denied the truth of the content of that letter.
People like as the Koch brothers and Art Pope are in such a different kind of bubble they have no way of relating to people such as you or me. You are right about that. The Koch brothers are the offspring of a wealthy political extremist who helped found the John Birch Society.
As far as George Soros is concerned, he is a man who is extremely rich, but has not forgotten his roots. He lived in abject poverty as a child and young man. He has given billions of dollars to causes he supports. It is believed he was instrumental in using his influence in helping Hungary in its transition from Communism to a free enterprise capitalist system but he stayed out of the spotlight, letting others have the credit. There are other millionaires and billionaires who came from poor backgrounds and have not forgotten that. Not all the super wealthy are alike.
An afterthought: Not all highly influential people are wealthy. And not all wealthy people have a lot of political clout.
OS:
I did not know that about Soros. I know he does not like Fascism and chalked it up to his having lived under it when he was young.
OS:
as for JFK, I have read he violated orders by having his boat in idle. Although he did make up for it. From my knowledge, JFK suffered from back problems before that and, if I remember correctly, had to have his dad pull some strings to get into the Navy.
I personally think, from all I have read, that Teddy got a pass. You or I would have been doing time. At least 2-5 years.
Although I dont disagree that a small town police force could screw the pooch.
I didnt agree with his politics but he seemed like a good man. He took care of JFK’s and RFK’s children and that says a good deal about him as a human being.
That family had a lot of tradjedy, you wonder if they were cursed by their wealth.
“Apparently it matters not that priviliged liberals like Soros buy influence or Kennedy, who did nothing to earn his fortune, gets a pass leaving the scene of an accident. Disappointing when the premis is so right but vision tunneled.”
Tricksy,
I really don’t know where your comment came from except for the possibility that it was some pre-determined outlook in your mind? I was ot defending Democrats, but putting them down for their lack of commitment to their beliefs. Plutocratic “Liberals” are often as bad as Plutocratic “Conservatives”, because for those in the Plutocracy the maintenance of their own power trumps any political idealism.
Perhaps you are not aware that you mention by name only those with whom you differ politically.
Bron,
Soros: 14 y/o Jew living in Budapest in 1944 when the Nazis occupied Hungary. It is not rocket science to figure out why he has no use for fascists or their philosophies.
As for JFK, he did have back problems before joining the Navy, but used his family influence to get him in anyway, and assigned to combat duty. The back problems were not sufficient to flunk him out of boot camp or officer’s training. The collision further injured his back.
There were three PT boats total in the group with PT-109, all with only one engine running at or near idle so as not to give away their positions by leaving wakes. That was standard operating procedure when stalking an enemy that is hard to see. You want to find them before they find you, and leaving a wake makes the boat a target. The radar equipped boats had all discharged their torpedoes and returned to base. The three boats left, including Kennedy’s, did not have radar. After Kennedy’s boat was hit, the other two went after the Amagiri. PT-169 launched two torpedoes that missed the destroyer. PT-162′s torpedoes failed to fire at all. Overall, it was not a good day for the whole PT boat squadron. Several boats lost, and way too many torpedoes failed to function properly. Of the many torpedoes fired, not many hits were seen, despite being in a target rich environment.
At that time in the war, the US was having a lot of technical problems with torpedoes. There were running depth problems and even when targets were hit, way too many failed to detonate.
“Perhaps you are not aware that you mention by name only those with whom you differ politically.”
Tricksy,
Perhaps you are not aware of where I’m coming from politically and are making assumptions about me based upon your own pre-conceived notions of that I believe in any “Ism’s”. You can go to this link to look at my body of work here: http://jonathanturley.org/?s=Mike+Spindell . However, even though there is a lot of it that attacks Republicans, Tea Baggers and Conservatives, that is only because they represent a greater threat today than those Democrats like Clinton and Obama, who really are right wing moderates. Both parties are Corporate/Plutocracy controlled, but one represents not only Corporatism, but also a variety of very bad social policy. The other party with few exceptions are merely wimps.
Otterray, Mr. Soros is heavily involved in short selling and has been responsible for affecting currency in England and Indonesia. In interviews he has admitted to assisting Nazis with confiscation of property owned by Jews. His empire spans the globe, an amazing combination of philanthropy and political manipulation.
I don’t attempt to justify special treatment of the wealthy. Their money buys loyalty and favor, that is fact, regardless of political leaning.
Mike, I admire your dedication and ability.
Unfortunately, I am not able to find solace in the political arena.
Politicians have little interest in problem solving. A needy populace perpetuates the campaign and provides the pulpit.
Otteray scribe wrote:
On the other hand, one must be careful of assumptions where small town law enforcement is concerned. Darren may have some insight on this as well. Small town departments do not have the resources to do investigations as thoroughly as larger departments, not that big departments don’t screw up as well.
~+~
This is a difficult task to put a late 1960′s traffic fatality investigation into question using the filter of contemporary collision reconstruction technologies and methods. But both of you have valid concerns.
Generally, today, if a fatal collision had happened, the most qualified investigator available would have been put in charge. If one was to be found with the local authorities that would have been done by them or else it would have been handed off to the state patrol if the expertese was needed.
Regarding the car leaving the bridge, the inquest was that the senator was driving at least negligently and possibly recklessly. I don’t know how traffic laws were in Mass during the late 1960′s but there might not have been the teeth for reckless driving like it is today if it involves a homicide. DUI laws for example were punished less severely than they are today in general.
If the accident had happened today, the necessary element (using WA law as an example) would have been to prove reckless driving or DUI in order to secure a vehicular homicide conviction. Negligence is not enough under this statute. It clearly would have been a felony hit and run situation since the collision was not immediately reported and a death resulted as a proximate cause of the collision. The felony today would have been clear, but in Mass. back in 1969? I don’t know.
I don’t believe the senator got off completely, it is likely that he got what the law proscribed at the time.
But Bron does mention that if Joe Blow had been charged instead of the senator he might have been punished more harshly. That does happen on occasion and was probably more likely then than now I would venture to say.
tricksy:
“In interviews he has admitted to assisting Nazis with confiscation of property owned by Jews.”
can you provide evidence for that statement? I would like to see the source.
Google it. 60 minutes interview in late 1990′s. I have followed him a long time.
Mike S:
Thanks for saying what needed to be said here, Mike. The world really has two political parties – haves and have nots. Viewed through this prism, all political actions are easily understood as you have so clearly demonstrated.
Bravo!
Tricksy,
I made an error in my earlier comment about George Soros. After looking up the dates, he was only thirteen years old when the Nazis invaded Hungary. Think about that! Thirteen year old kid. He did tell an interviewer, Michael Lewis, about what happened. Lewis wrote:
Explain to me this. How is a very poor thirteen year old going to seize anything? He was pressed into delivering these papers, but his father told him how to warn the Jews what it was about. BFD! Soros was only fourteen when Germany surrendered in the spring of 1945.
It is interesting how the radical right tries to demonize a single man such as George Soros, but somehow is selectively blind to robber barons like the Koch, Bush, Romney, and Pope families.
“I am not able to find solace in the political arena.”
Tricksy,
If I let my truly pessimistic view about the state of humanity run rampant, without holding out any hope, it would blight my life. I prefer to live my life with optimism and do what I can to make things better to allow myself to enjoy the remaining time I have left. You simply can’t let the ba*t*r*ds get you down and let them win unopposed.
Video Showing the Huge Gap Between Super Rich and Everyone Else Goes Viral
By Bruce Watson 03/04/13
http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/Wealth-Inequality-in-America-viral-video-Politizane/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D278339
TRICKSY:
I did, he was 14 or 15 and was staying with the man who was doing it. He may have helped the guy carry a few things but he was a jew hiding from the Nazis with a Catholic friend of his fathers.
He wasnt exactly pawning the silver. I am not a fan of Soros but I am not going to hang that on him.
anonymously posted:
I think that makes a compelling argument for getting rid of the mixed economy we have now which is causing this huge income discrepancy.
Did I mention that during the 19th century, when we had an almost free market, real wages rose between 2 and 3 times. That means a worker buying a steak dinner in 1805 paid 2-3 dollars and by 1905 he was paying 1 dollar. Or another way to look at it, in 1805 it took 3 hours of work to pay for the steak and in 1905 it took 1 hour.
Yes, lets do away with the mixed economy which gives an advantage to the rich and well connected.
Did I mention that most people pay about 35 to 50% of their income to all taxes. That will put a damper on wealth creation.
Bron,
Thanks for the backup. I looked it up. Soros’ birth date was August 12, 1930.
He was 13 when Germany invaded Hungary. He was just 14 when Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945.
What a kid’s relatives or caretaker do is not the fault of the child. That is a good thing, because if you look for skeletons in any family tree, you will always find at least one horse thief.
OS:
Tricksy ought to criticize him for something else, that Nazi crap is just nany nany bo bo.
Bron,
A whole lot of taxes:
“Homeland security’ has received $791 billion since 9/11″
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/01/homeland-security-has-received-791-billion-since-911/
—-
Thursday, Feb 28, 2013 10:30 AM EST
Homeland security offers anything but
The department is a black hole for tax dollars — and its funding could jeopardize our country’s infrastructure
By Mattea Kramer
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/28/tk_5_partner_4/
Excerpt:
Perhaps the strangest part of homeland security operations may be this: there isno agreed-upon definition for just what homeland security is. The funds Washington has poured into the concept will soon enough approach a trillion dollars and yet it’s a concept with no clear boundaries that no one can agree on. Worse yet, few are asking the hard questions about what security we actually need or how best to achieve it. Instead, Washington has built a sprawling bureaucracy riddled with problems and set it on autopilot.
And that brings us to today. Budget cuts are in the pipeline for most federal programs, but many lawmakers vocally oppose any reductions in security funding. What’s painfully clear is this: the mere fact that a program is given the label of national or homeland security does not mean that its downsizing would compromise American safety. Overwhelming evidence of waste, duplication, and poor management suggests that Washington could spend far less on security, target it better, and be so much safer.
Meanwhile, the same report that warned in early 2001 of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil also recommended redoubling funding for education in science and technology.
In the current budget-cutting fever, the urge to protect boundless funding for national security programs by dismantling investment essential to this country’s greatness — including world-class education and infrastructure systems — is bound to be powerful. So whenever you hear the phrase “homeland security,” watch out: your long-term safety may be at risk.
Bron,
“Did I mention that during the 19th century, when we had an almost free market, real wages rose between 2 and 3 times. That means a worker buying a steak dinner in 1805 paid 2-3 dollars and by 1905 he was paying 1 dollar. ”
Did the Americans–circa 1805–eat those big beef dinners at Ye Olde Steakhouse and Martini Bar?
Otterly, you mistakenly apply today to yesterday. It was not uncommon for the child at age 12 to be out on his own in society. Responsibility was demanded.
Elaine:
No, it was called Howe’s Steakhouse and Independence Tavern. Yorktown had the first one, which opened in 1789. It was a theme steakhouse based on the Revolution.
The Benedict Arnold was a 4 oz sirloin and cost $20 bucks.
The King George was a fat wiener in a bun.
tricksy:
that is BS, a young child does not have a fully developed brain at 14.
Soros has much to be criticized for, find something real.
Bron,
Thanks!
Tricksy,
Human biology and anatomy has not evolved THAT much in seventy years. The brain is not fully developed at age 13. That is why we have juvenile courts. Keep talking. You have now established that your knowledge of anatomy and human development is on a par with your knowledge of what it was like to live under Nazi occupation in 1944. That is to say, virtually none.
Otterly, your world is different from mine. I said nothing about the brain, but I speak from life experience. My father and his siblings were working before age 12 to help support their family, poor country bumpkins. My husband’s father was on his own at age 9 when he crossed the river to enter Iran to escape the Bolshevick revolution. If you look at history you will find this not uncommon.
It may please you to know this will be my last post.
The Alinsky tactics are unpleasant, tactics you would condemn in others, and their is no value on open exchange of ideas.
You are content to pat one another on the back like good ole’ boys.
I expected more from the blog of someone of Mr. Turley’s stature.
Thanks for the experience.
Tricksy,
First of all, the Otteray is a place. You may think you are being somehow cute, but instead your pettiness is showing. It is a Cherokee word. Want to explain to the descendants of the survivors of the Trail of Tears how their language is something to make juvenile jokes about?
Point the second. The brain is the organ that controls all thought, emotion and behavior. The brain of a child is not fully developed, which is why we have laws to protect children. A child of 13 in 1944 was no different in emotional and maturity development then than now.
Point the third. How would you like to be held responsible at your present age for the actions of the people you lived with when you were a kid? Not yourself, but the people you were living with at the time? Consider you were staying with a family not even your own as a matter of survival, not knowing when the Gestapo would come knocking as they did for hundreds of thousands of other families. Ask yourself, what would you do to keep from being sent on a one way trip to a concentration camp?
http://io9.com/5988056/why-the-holocaust-was-even-worse-than-we-thought
How about demonstrating some maturity in ability to carry on a logical and mature discussion instead of name calling and demagoguery. This is a law blog, not Junior High School.
Tricksy,
If you really believe in what you are writing about, don’t let us stop you from expressing your view. We may not like it or think it is unsupported, but calling them Alinsky tactics is way off base.
Pretty much every boy 14 and older in Germany back then was required to be enrolled in the Hitler Youth. Not much of a choice there given the consequences.
“We’re taking volunteers..you, you and you.”
This is just part of a movie named Der Untergang. The scene is Berlin just as the Russians are advancing. It is a good representation of youthfull innocence about to be lost.
tricksy:
I have seen Alinsky tactics used here but not on you. All anyone has asked you to do is support your position. You have failed to do so. I do not like George Soros and would love to spread a truth about him being a Nazi thug, it would be great but there isnt enough evidence to convict him of that crime.
I have asked you to provide information and you say google it, so I did and I found the “evidence” on a website which was against Soros.
There are many things Soros can be criticized for but not that.
And by the way, you should read Alinsky, he had some wonderful ways of getting people to change. Having blacks shop at Marshal Field and then return all of the merchandise was a classic as was having a restroom sit in at O’Hare duing peak times.
Bron,
Some users wander in here from other blogs and think they can toss out a few unsupported claims without being challenged. When they are challenged, they resort to the tactics of the childish and intellectually lazy. They end up making a few seventh grade type comments, then pick up their marbles and leave in a huff. Cannot seem to wrap their head around being asked to defend their position by actually, you know, doing some cognitive heavy lifting.
Another thing, most of these types seem to not grasp the simple principle that people can disagree without being disagreeable. Friends can get away with teasing and it not coming across as an insult. Way too many people never master that social skill.
tricksy:
I dont agree with Alinsky’s economics but he made some necessary changes in Chicago. The idea that blacks were only fit to be janitors at Marshall Field was outrageous and Alinsky changed that and more power to him for doing so.
Had it not been for people like Alinsky, we might not have had people like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Ben Carson in the public arena championing their ideas. And what a poverty that would be.
And as far as working when your husband was 12, big fluking deal, most people over 50 worked odd jobs and cut grass, washed dishes, caddied, shoveled snow, flipped hamburgers during the summer and after school. And it was extra income the parents did not have to provide to the child.
Tricksy,
My maternal Grandfather came to the U.S. at age 11, alone. He began in the linen trade on the lower East Side of Manhattan and became a success, fathering nine children in the process. So what? The fact that necessity forces some children to have to fend for themselves early doesn’t mean that an abridged childhood doesn’t leave scars. My grandfather was a rather difficult person to be with and a harsh parent. He ruled his children through fear, which is excusable given that his own childhood was nasty and abrupt. He died a relatively wealthy man, but his angry temperament lost customers and kept his business from what it could have been. One of the characteristics that scientists attribute towards making humanity rise to the top of the food chain was an extended childhood that allowed children to mature under more benign conditions than most mammals. I would not cast aspersions on Soros for what he did at 13 and 14, under those wretched conditions.
As for Sol Alinsky, I think you should learn a little more about the man: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/28/who-in-hell-is-saul-alinsky/
Finally, it is your choice whether you want to leave or stay. I must say that those who disagreed with you did so civilly and brought their facts refuting you. That is what discussion is about and you would then refute theirs in turn if you can. Otherwise, without an interchange of points of view, all we would be doing is in effect yelling out our opinions, while keeping our hands firmly against our ears, refusing to hear other viewpoints. This unfortunately is what passes for debate today on TV and its result has not been good.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2013/03/04/what-the-combined-wealth-of-all-1426-billionaires-could-do/
smom:
we could also run the government for about 1.5 years and then poof no more jobs. So 5+ trillion dollars doesnt do much at all in the long run.
You can say what you want about the Kochs but how many jobs do you think their company supports? Not direct employment but indirect employment.
Koch Industries Warns 45,000 Employees Of ‘Consequences’ If They Don’t Vote For Republicans
By Rebecca Leber on Oct 15, 2012 at 11:30 am
Charles and David Koch
The Koch brothers’ $60 million pledge to defeat President Obama — along with their political network’s $400 million spending — make them two of the most influential conservatives this election.
Not content with their unprecedented influence in politics, the Kochs have also taken to influencing the votes of their employees. According to In These Times, Koch Industries sent 45,000 mailers to employees at Koch subsidiary Georgia Pacific, urging votes for Romney and other conservative candidates. The letter warns ominously of “consequences” for the workers if Republicans lose.
The Koch mailer is one of several recent examples of executives warning that employees may lose their jobs if Republicans do not win in November. Here is an excerpt of the letter:
While we are typically told before each Presidential election that it is important and historic, I believe the upcoming election will determine what kind of America future generations will inherit.
If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills. bron, It looks like they have around 50,000 employees including contractors.
Mike S.:
I just now got around to reading your excellent post. It is almost casually terrifying, and timely. Eric Holder’s comments a couple of days on the problem of “too big to jail” ties in nicely with your topic. Those who occupy the top of the wealth pyramid become sovereign person-states, virtually untouchable by the law and without allegiance to anything beyond economic alliances.
I know this website gives quality depending articles or reviews and
additional material, is there any other web site which provides these
things in quality?