J
Jonatello
Guest
this is not very relevant though. i get into it more in my previous reply, but if you’d like me to expound further i’d be happy to.
- Status
N
Nate13
Guest
J
Jonatello
Guest
Unions aren’t even close the only non-corporate PACs.
To clarify my Obama statement, I didn’t mean just the Wall St money was a problem. I’m against all flavors of lobbying, even for things I agree with, but acknowledge if we live in a balogna democracy where laws and governance is bought, then supporters of righteous causes are going to feel a great deal of pressure and temptation to join the game rather than work to change it.
My entire argument has absolutely nothing to do with any entity out to get the poor. Absolutely not. I hope you will reread my various posts. There’s no thought to the poor when someone motivated by self-centered ambition sets out to get control of all the resources that everyone, including the poor, need. If Billy takes all the best meat in Mom’s soup, he’s not doing so to spite Mark and Eddie. He’s doing it for Billy and would rather not be bothered by any thought of his brothers. It’s only when Eddie calls “foul” that Billy turns on Eddie by telling Mark (for whom Billy left 1 piece) to be wary of Eddie.
For anyone to minimize the lesser’s hurt and say the poor are doing pretty good, when more people than ever in recent history can’t find a way to make a living, pay rent, start a family, eat real nutritious food, or receive crucial medical treatments, is cynical and unfair to millions of Americans in real pain and struggle.
Once again, this idea that capitalism enables the masses to move up is just not true. It will allow for a minority of the populace to move up the ranks, but no matter how hard everyone works, there will always be fewer slots up top than down below. Even if “anyone” can, not “everyone” can.
It’s a fact that pure capitalism = dominance over productive property, which = dominance over ever facet of society.
E
Ella
Guest
I’m kind of curious how everyone here is doing with their investments. How are your 401k’s, IRA’s and so forth doing?
N
Nate13
Guest
Unions aren’t even close the only non-corporate PACs.
To clarify my Obama statement, I didn’t mean just the Wall St money was a problem. I’m against all flavors of lobbying, even for things I agree with, but acknowledge if we live in a balogna democracy where laws and governance is bought, then supporters of righteous causes are going to feel a great deal of pressure and temptation to join the game rather than work to change it.
There’s no thought to the poor when someone motivated by self-centered ambition sets out to get control of all the resources that everyone, including the poor, need.
Of course this is only a trait that is found in rich people. You won’t find any selfish poor peopleThe problem with your story is there are plenty of not so selfish people to counter the selfish people at all income brackets.
For anyone to minimize the lesser’s hurt and say the poor are doing pretty good, when more people than ever in recent history can’t find a way to make a living, pay rent, start a family, eat real nutritious food, or receive crucial medical treatments, is cynical and unfair to millions of Americans in real pain and struggle.
Your argument can basically be summed up as “we can’t allow free speech because some people are better at it than others” You wish to apply it to monetary donations for campaigns but then why not speech itself? The guy who stutters is at a disadvantage in trying to get his voice heard to the suave politician is he not?
J
Jonatello
Guest
once again, you’re missing my point.
i’m not claiming in any way that only the rich are selfish or there are no selfish poor people. That should not follow from what I actually said. I was addressing a specific point about “out to get the poor”, by saying the average greedy person (poor or rich) who sets out to own and control everything (speaking in shorthand) is simply thinking about their own wants, not some animosity toward others.
Your free-speech paragraph makes no sense. Of course some people will be better at anything than others. Some people will be better speakers than others and such advantages will take their course. Some people will be better business minds than others, and such advantages will take their course. I’m not against people using their particular advantages to their advantage in life. I’m not against some people becoming richer than others. Nuance.
Why do Christian conservatives suddenly believe Darwin works when it comes to economics?
i’m not claiming in any way that only the rich are selfish or there are no selfish poor people. That should not follow from what I actually said. I was addressing a specific point about “out to get the poor”, by saying the average greedy person (poor or rich) who sets out to own and control everything (speaking in shorthand) is simply thinking about their own wants, not some animosity toward others.
Your free-speech paragraph makes no sense. Of course some people will be better at anything than others. Some people will be better speakers than others and such advantages will take their course. Some people will be better business minds than others, and such advantages will take their course. I’m not against people using their particular advantages to their advantage in life. I’m not against some people becoming richer than others. Nuance.
Why do Christian conservatives suddenly believe Darwin works when it comes to economics?
E
Ella
Guest
This op-ed voices the issues very well:
nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html
nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html
J
Jonatello
Guest
hey! if you still have edit time, replace the link with this one:
nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html?_r=1
(your current link accidentally just sends us to the comments section)
oh and thanks! i’ll post the text here for those with slow connections:
Oligarchy, American Style
(first 2 introductory paragraphs omitted to obey post limits)
So what you need to know is that all of these claims are basically attempts to obscure the stark reality: We have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people, and in which that concentration of income and wealth threatens to make us a democracy in name only.
The budget office laid out some of that stark reality in a recent report, which documented a sharp decline in the share of total income going to lower- and middle-income Americans. We still like to think of ourselves as a middle-class country. But with the bottom 80 percent of households now receiving less than half of total income, that’s a vision increasingly at odds with reality.
In response, the usual suspects have rolled out some familiar arguments: the data are flawed (they aren’t); the rich are an ever-changing group (not so); and so on. The most popular argument right now seems, however, to be the claim that we may not be a middle-class society, but we’re still an upper-middle-class society, in which a broad class of highly educated workers, who have the skills to compete in the modern world, is doing very well.
It’s a nice story, and a lot less disturbing than the picture of a nation in which a much smaller group of rich people is becoming increasingly dominant. But it’s not true.
Workers with college degrees have indeed, on average, done better than workers without, and the gap has generally widened over time. But highly educated Americans have by no means been immune to income stagnation and growing economic insecurity. Wage gains for most college-educated workers have been unimpressive (and nonexistent since 2000), while even the well-educated can no longer count on getting jobs with good benefits. In particular, these days workers with a college degree but no further degrees are less likely to get workplace health coverage than workers with only a high school degree were in 1979.
So who is getting the big gains? A very small, wealthy minority.
The budget office report tells us that essentially all of the upward redistribution of income away from the bottom 80 percent has gone to the highest-income 1 percent of Americans. That is, the protesters who portray themselves as representing the interests of the 99 percent have it basically right, and the pundits solemnly assuring them that it’s really about education, not the gains of a small elite, have it completely wrong.
If anything, the protesters are setting the cutoff too low. The recent budget office report doesn’t look inside the top 1 percent, but an earlier report, which only went up to 2005, found that almost two-thirds of the rising share of the top percentile in income actually went to the top 0.1 percent — the richest thousandth of Americans, who saw their real incomes rise more than 400 percent over the period from 1979 to 2005.
Who’s in that top 0.1 percent? Are they heroic entrepreneurs creating jobs? No, for the most part, they’re corporate executives. Recent research shows that around 60 percent of the top 0.1 percent either are executives in nonfinancial companies or make their money in finance, i.e., Wall Street broadly defined. Add in lawyers and people in real estate, and we’re talking about more than 70 percent of the lucky one-thousandth.
But why does this growing concentration of income and wealth in a few hands matter? Part of the answer is that rising inequality has meant a nation in which most families don’t share fully in economic growth. Another part of the answer is that once you realize just how much richer the rich have become, the argument that higher taxes on high incomes should be part of any long-run budget deal becomes a lot more compelling.
The larger answer, however, is that extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy. Can anyone seriously deny that our political system is being warped by the influence of big money, and that the warping is getting worse as the wealth of a few grows ever larger?
Some pundits are still trying to dismiss concerns about rising inequality as somehow foolish. But the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake.
N
Nate13
Guest
The defense for campaign finance is based on the protection of free speech. That is the only reason people are allowed to donate so much money to campaigns. The Supreme Court is who is in your way to more campaign finance regulations. If you believe there is corruption that is where you should be pointing your fingers. Congress has passed tons of campaign finance reforms in the past and the Supreme Court has been the one to pick them apart and rule many of the reforms unconstitutional.
csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0121/Supreme-Court-Campaign-finance-limits-violate-free-speech
E
estesbob
Guest
. The problem is those who want to quote “reform” campaign-finance only want to reform as it applies to people who disagree with their political opinions. . Thus we see demands that corporations be fordidden to contributebut no such dmeand concerning unions who not only contribute but do so exclusively to one party and do it with funds taken from their members paychecks.
J
Jonatello
Guest
absolutely 100% false
i am against financial lobbying of every kind, including causes i believe in
J
Jonatello
Guest
i understand that is what the argument is based on, but i don’t buy it
N
Nate13
Guest
What is your alternative? And please explain how it does not stomp on free speech.
J
Jonatello
Guest
democracy, subsidiarity, use of a populace’s right to assemble, revival of the public square, and the rebuilding/strengthening of more local levels of civic life and community.
S
scipio337
Guest
Maybe for those public sector unions, who get to negotiate their contracts with the recipients of their largesse?
opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Oddly enough, OWS is actually marching with some of those on this list.
Ironic, no?
E
estesbob
Guest
So you would have the govt finance campaigns forcing me and others to fund speech we find repuslive??? No thanks.
J
Jonatello
Guest
when you’re talking about 99%, that would likely include a lot of different people marching together
plenty of people feel as though, in a civilization where law is auctioned, lobbying is their only recourse.
when i say i’m against all kinds of financial lobbying, i mean that i would never want it preserved only for my own pet causes.
and i would never let the existence of my own causes in this game stop me from shutting the game down.
but so long as the game is the only way to have a voice in this banana democracy, i can’t rail as hard against people who feel stuck playing within it, though i’d rather personally look for other ways to advance any cause i believe in than potentially grow to like bribery
E
estesbob
Guest
We already have that-the question is how do we finance campaigns?
N
Nate13
Guest
I’m still curious why campaign finance is not protected by free speech as well. The decision by the Supreme court was close so I don’t doubt there are some reasonable arguments. I’m curious if you would share them considering they seem to have persuaded you.
J
Jonatello
Guest
we have hardly any of that anymore actually.
and the question of how to finance campaigns is a good one. there are a variety of solutions out there which could be constructively debated.
i for one don’t currently have any problem with government funded campaigns - if - (and only if) it means the public is finally in control of said government…which removing bribery from government should effectively accomplish if done right.
ensuring a fair and bribery-free platform for democratic competition could easily be considered a function of public responsibility.
you wouldn’t be funding ideas you disagree with, you’d be funding an even platform for all ideas in a democracy to be presented and expressed (thus ensuring the ability for your own to have voice)
- Status