There is a chilling report out from the Federal Reserve that the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That returns American families to the wealth level of 1992.
The biggest hit were the middle class families. The wealthiest families actually saw a slight rise. The median for credit card debt did not materially change, however. Much of this decline is due to the decline in home values which remains the biggest investment for most families. Forty-seven percent of citizens do not pay taxes income taxes and 87 percent of those earn less than $20,000 a year.
These figures are remarkable since they parallel the Great Depression but we have not seen the same degree of displacement or social or political upheaval as a result. There are different theories from better public welfare programs to a new political dynamic with many lower and middle class families supporting either the Tea Party or GOP. It may also be that many families have experienced the decline but continue to hold on to their homes so that the diminishing in wealth does not manifest as sharply in their lives. Whatever the cause, the reduction in wealth has not produced a comparative political backlash that I can see.
Source: Washington Post
Indigo Jones…..
I think Dredd was out walking and slipped and fell into the dogshit. Why else would he be so angry?
Is he mad for losing the argument? He can’t even keep track of my arguments versus your ones.
Poor man, I had some respect for him, no really I did. But now?
Not much at all. Have even stopped reading when he hopped into the manure stack and grabbed the hayfork.
Best he get back to his amygdala, which is fascinating, and his symbiontic microbes in our bodies, which is also fascinating.
The Constitution and society are not his best or even worse side. It is tragic.
Agreed?
What a laugh he is.
Poor Dredd. Got two more disdains to add to his long list.
Wonder how long it is? Too long apparently.
Can I dish out the shit. You betcha. started when I was seven and never stopped. He is a piece of cake. So many openings he leaves for attack. Whooeee!
Beddy bye for me. Gotta get up tomorrow. It’s one AM now.
See you soon for more fun and games with sensible people like CLH and Shano, and no one named and no one forgotten as we say in Sweden.
shano 1, June 13, 2012 at 6:37 pm
…
The question is, what is to be done when all this wealth is concentrated in the hands of people that are completely disconnected from the lives of average people (like Bloomburg)- how does one end the sort of corruption that is causing so much pain and misery? Is revolution in the street the only way to try to create balance in the economy?
=================================
Where we are now is the result of confusing “then” with “now”, like those who supported the King did back “then” and have all the way til “now.”
Our forefathers gave us a very decent chance to ________, but we failed, so we now have ______, which is not then.
But it really doesn’t matter if we don’t know the difference.
Rich people have more power than poor people, and they use that power to get what they want — which is, normally, more wealth and more power. Across America, politicians invariably reflect the views of their richest constituents. And the Federal Reserve, too, appears to have been captured by the rich: It seems much more worried about the specter of possible future inflation (which might be bad for the rich) than it is about the tragedy of present-day unemployment (which is calamitous for today’s jobless)…. This is now a country run by the rich, for the rich. And nothing in either of these books gives me reason to believe that there’s any hope of changing that.
Whatever the founders imagined or meant, what we have now is the rich getting more and more power and wealth. They can no longer stay invisible on their host as parasites.
Some founders predicted this. The question is, what is to be done when all this wealth is concentrated in the hands of people that are completely disconnected from the lives of average people (like Bloomburg)- how does one end the sort of corruption that is causing so much pain and misery? Is revolution in the street the only way to try to create balance in the economy?
My responses in the above reply were not in bold. This comment corrects that.
Dredd 1, June 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Indigo Jones 1, June 13, 2012 at 5:11 pm
@Dredd
“The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the opulent from the rest.”
I never offered that quote, Idealist did. And he only said he had seen it before, attributed to Madison, not the Constitution.
You have a problem with reading comprehension.
——————————————————————————–
You have a problem with comprehension, period.
I did not say you offered it, I said it was “your argument”.
If that isn’t your argument, then say the purpose of the constitution is not to protect the opulent.
Let Idealist707 know, out in the open, because so far he has been misled.
—————————————————–
As far as your legal hermeneutics are concerned
1) I’m not arguing a case in court, I’m dealing with verifiable history
An argument in court would be better for you.
It would not be shadow boxing at home in front of the “me good” mirror, rather it would have a healthy dose of reality in it.
A good shit kicking will get a lot of rat shit out of the eyes and ears.
—————————————————–
As far as your legal hermeneutics are concerned
…
2) The Constitution as a legal document did not replace or supercede the Federalist papers
Like I said, just quote the Federalist papers in a court when unambiguous constitutional text is the issue, and a good shit kicking will happen and do you some needed good.
—————————————————————–
3) The Federalist papers are a recognized authority in Constitutional interpretation From Wikipedia:
“Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.”
I am really happy Wikipedia likes the Federalist Papers, but where do they show up when there is no ambiguity?
Like I said, there is another good shit kicking that will do you some good.
————————————————————-
4) If you’re going to talk about a law and what the law means, unless you’re advocating something like “activist judges” you have to understand what the law meant TO THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT IN THE WORDS THEY USED. Otherwise, you’re not talking about the law anymore. THIS IS A BASIC HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC ISSUE.
Jefferson remarked of the cabal among the speculators at the Constitutional Convention:
“the ultimate object of all this is to prepare the way for a change, from the present republican form of government, to that of a monarchy, of which the English constitution is to be the model. That this was contemplated in the Convention is no secret, because it’s partisans have made none of it. To effect it then was impracticable, but they are still eager after their object, and are predisposing every thing for it’s ultimate attainment. So many of them have got into the legislature, that, aided by the corrupt squadron of paper dealers, who are at their devotion, they make a majority in both houses.”
I am waiting for you to quote the Constitution. You have quoted everything except car salesmen and the constitution.
You must like getting a shit kicking.
————————————————————————————
Now again, as I discussed above, Jefferson, in discussing the conflict of interest among the Founding Fathers, noted:
“had these persons withdrawn, as those interested in a question ever should, the vote of the disinterested majority was clearly the reverse of what they made it.”
Once they ratified the constitution, what went before was of no legal significance.
Man, you are one of those folks who tries to wiggle out of contracts like a friggin lizzard.
The tail keeps on wigglin even though it has been cut off.
———————————————————————–
THE COUP WAS IN 1787.
All the “We the People” stuff is BS. The Founding Fathers themselves knew that their plans would never be supported by the laboring masses. That’s why they talk again and again about the pitfalls of democracy.
Your position has no historical, logical, or moral substance, ALL YOU HAVE NOW IS YOUR WILLFUL IGNORANCE.
And that wasn’t an ad hominem, it was a description.
——————————————————————————-
Ok, run for office.
You are beyond psychopath.
Indigo Jones 1, June 13, 2012 at 5:11 pm
@Dredd
“The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the opulent from the rest.”
I never offered that quote, Idealist did. And he only said he had seen it before, attributed to Madison, not the Constitution.
You have a problem with reading comprehension.
——————————————————————————–
You have a problem with comprehension, period.
I did not say you offered it, I said it was “your argument”.
If that isn’t your argument, then say the purpose of the constitution is not to protect the opulent.
Let Idealist707 know, out in the open, because so far he has been mislead.
—————————————————–
As far as your legal hermeneutics are concerned
1) I’m not arguing a case in court, I’m dealing with verifiable history
An argument in court would be better for you.
It would not be shadow boxing at home in front of the “me good” mirror, rather it would have a healthy dose of reality in it.
A good shit kicking will get a lot of rat shit out of the eyes and ears.
—————————————————–
As far as your legal hermeneutics are concerned
…
2) The Constitution as a legal document did not replace or supercede the Federalist papers
Like I said, just quote the Federalist papers in a court when unambiguous constitutional text is the issue, and a good shit kicking will happen and do you some needed good.
—————————————————————–
3) The Federalist papers are a recognized authority in Constitutional interpretation From Wikipedia:
“Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.”
I am really happy Wikipedia likes the Federalist Papers, but where do they show up when there is no ambiguity?
Like I said, there is another good shit kicking that will do you some good.
————————————————————-
4) If you’re going to talk about a law and what the law means, unless you’re advocating something like “activist judges” you have to understand what the law meant TO THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT IN THE WORDS THEY USED. Otherwise, you’re not talking about the law anymore. THIS IS A BASIC HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC ISSUE.
Jefferson remarked of the cabal among the speculators at the Constitutional Convention:
“the ultimate object of all this is to prepare the way for a change, from the present republican form of government, to that of a monarchy, of which the English constitution is to be the model. That this was contemplated in the Convention is no secret, because it’s partisans have made none of it. To effect it then was impracticable, but they are still eager after their object, and are predisposing every thing for it’s ultimate attainment. So many of them have got into the legislature, that, aided by the corrupt squadron of paper dealers, who are at their devotion, they make a majority in both houses.”
I am waiting for you to quote the Constitution. You have quote everything except car salesmen and the constitution.
You must like getting a shit kicking.
————————————————————————————
Now again, as I discussed above, Jefferson, in discussing the conflict of interest among the Founding Fathers, noted:
“had these persons withdrawn, as those interested in a question ever should, the vote of the disinterested majority was clearly the reverse of what they made it.”
Once they ratified the constitution, what went before was of no legal significance.
Man, you are one of those folks who tries to wiggle out of contracts like a friggin lizzard.
The tail keeps on wigglin even though it has been cut off.
———————————————————————–
THE COUP WAS IN 1787.
All the “We the People” stuff is BS. The Founding Fathers themselves knew that their plans would never be supported by the laboring masses. That’s why they talk again and again about the pitfalls of democracy.
Your position has no historical, logical, or moral substance, ALL YOU HAVE NOW IS YOUR WILLFUL IGNORANCE.
And that wasn’t an ad hominem, it was a description.
——————————————————————————-
Ok, run for office.
You are beyond psychopath.
@Dredd
“The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the opulent from the rest.”
I never offered that quote, Idealist did. And he only said he had seen it before, attributed to Madison, not the Constitution.
You have a problem with reading comprehension.
As far as your legal hermeneutics are concerned
1) I’m not arguing a case in court, I’m dealing with verifiable history
2) The Constitution as a legal document did not replace or supercede the Federalist papers
3) The Federalist papers are a recognized authority in Constitutional interpretation From Wikipedia:
“Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.”
4) If you’re going to talk about a law and what the law means, unless you’re advocating something like “activist judges” you have to understand what the law meant TO THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT IN THE WORDS THEY USED. Otherwise, you’re not talking about the law anymore. THIS IS A BASIC HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC ISSUE.
Jefferson remarked of the cabal among the speculators at the Constitutional Convention:
“the ultimate object of all this is to prepare the way for a change, from the present republican form of government, to that of a monarchy, of which the English constitution is to be the model. That this was contemplated in the Convention is no secret, because it’s partisans have made none of it. To effect it then was impracticable, but they are still eager after their object, and are predisposing every thing for it’s ultimate attainment. So many of them have got into the legislature, that, aided by the corrupt squadron of paper dealers, who are at their devotion, they make a majority in both houses.”
Now again, as I discussed above, Jefferson, in discussing the conflict of interest among the Founding Fathers, noted:
“had these persons withdrawn, as those interested in a question ever should, the vote of the disinterested majority was clearly the reverse of what they made it.”
THE COUP WAS IN 1787.
All the “We the People” stuff is BS. The Founding Fathers themselves knew that their plans would never be supported by the laboring masses. That’s why they talk again and again about the pitfalls of democracy.
Your position has no historical, logical, or moral substance, ALL YOU HAVE NOW IS YOUR WILLFUL IGNORANCE.
And that wasn’t an ad hominem, it was a description.
“In short, [the U.S. Constitution] was made by the people, made for the people, and is responsible to the people.”
Reiterated just in case some of those in the chicken coup did not notice that part.
Now, next:
(Justice Joseph). This is the same for federal statutes:
(Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-254, 1992). Now groupies in the coup, what part is ambiguous about the constitution being of, for, and by the people?
Not for the King people, for the people.
Bring forth your ambiguities so we can move forward with your treatment.
The closer one gets to the ordination of the constitution, from the proper side, which is after it was ratified, one hears:
(Justice Joseph). Things were different before The Coup took place.
Those who don’t get that are probably part of the coup.
Indigo Jones 1, June 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm
@Dredd
You idiot …
==========================
I overlooked that ad hominem blip on purpose.
It is learned behavior, not something you were born with.
Indigo Jones 1, June 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm
@Dredd
…. the constitution doesn’t contain its own history.
=====================================
That is why you have to take the meaning of the text itself, the law of interpretation is, if it is not ambiguous it has no history.
And you probably think that is improving your argument:
Now come on and show us the text of the U.S. Constitution that says “The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the opulent from the rest.”
If you can’t then you are in error.
If you persist you are a liar.
If you persist beyond that you are a sociopath.
If you persist beyond that you are a psychopath.
If you persist beyond that you will have a better chance to be elected.
@Dredd
You idiot, the constitution doesn’t contain its own history.
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/progressive-economics/07/26/economic-inequality-in-the-united-states/
Indigo Jones 1, June 12, 2012 at 4:56 pm
@Dredd
And your opinion is worth what, exactly?
You give me one quote without context and expect that, on face value, to make up for painstaking legal, social, and economic research?
=================================
The “painstaking legal … research” you have set forth is little more than a pain in the arse.
The lawyers here will realize the principle of legal hermeneutics, when it comes to the interpretation of law, that one does not go back into the previous text to interpret the final text, unless there is an ambiguity in the final text.
The rules of statutory interpretation and constitutional interpretation are the same in that respect.
Therefore, your resort to quotations from the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution is quite backwards.
Backwards is not up to date, not up to snuff, and diversionary.
Show me in the constitution or federal statutes where the constitution was forged to improperly protect the opulent at the expense of the poor and/or middle class.
You too Idealist707.
Here is a video of Idealist707 and Indigo Jones waking each other up from soul sleep with hard hitting logical discourse.
Compelling discourse they learned at Dredd Blog.
@idealist
What CLH said 🙂
not sure where I got this link…maybe even here but it is a mind changing view…
CLH, one of the things holding back progress this century is the banks continue to fund ‘old’ technology almost exclusively. They fund mountaintop mining over solar and wind. They fund the fracking industry. The choices the banks make on WHO gets funding gives them tremendous power.
Amazing power considering they create money out of thin air.
So far the banks are not making the right choices about which industries get funding. thats why we do not have true production in this nation, why we only have old tech and bread and circuses.
We have to change this system. I also think college students should be getting near zero interest rates for the good of the nation.
Great points Indigo. The financial system in the US is based almost entirely on fiction and artificial constructs. The only way to actually add value to an economy is through production of raw materials into goods. Everything else is an artifice that will eventually blow back on itself. Every dime that actually is created in an economy comes from the growth of food, or the manufacture of products, or the extraction of resources, or the exchange of services from outside a nation. Services can not create wealth by themselves- services are an end user of resources, except in the instance when they make resource usage more efficient. Banking services are entirely artificial in that manner. They remove wealth from a system, rather than adding to it, except when they actually make resource extraction, food growth, or manufacturing more efficient, which can happen through structured finance allowing pools of investment capitol that would otherwise be insufficient to allow start-ups to survive. Other types of loans are purely negative on an economy’s overall generation of wealth.
“People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as “parasites” fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by the host, one that can make the host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.”
Jason Read
http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-america-you-should-be-mad-as-hell-about-this-charts-2012-6?op=1
Indiana Jones,
So to ask a detail for making it concrete for me who counts the nickels and dimes—-
When the government (fed?) changes the regs, and says the bank can lend 16 to one on deposits instead of 8 to one, what effect does that have?
(The actual injection of the bills is done for now. I believe, by the Fed Reserve, who print and loan it with interest added to the US government.—but let’s forget that for now.)
It would seem to me to drive prices up, encourage injection of money to produce tangibles, and create a surplus to seek marginal financing profits elsewhere. In other words, a mixed bag.
Net effect?
Don’t want to hang on your coattails, so answer only if inspiration exists.
BTW, your avatar poem (?) really will keep me wondering for a long while.