Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

If This Is Such a Rich Country, Why Are We Getting Squeezed?

By Heather Boushey and Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted July 18, 2007.


While the rich are getting richer, they're slashing social security, medicare and other social programs for the rest of us. What gives?
07182007story
07182007story

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The commercial media is telling us two perfectly contradictory stories about the American economy. The first is how wonderfully rich we are in the United States. The stock market's booming -- some analysts predict the Dow will break the 15,000 this year -- the economy is expanding at a healthy clip, productivity growth is up and unemployment and inflation are relatively low.

But, at the same time, we're also told that we don't have the money to pay for a robust social safety net. When it comes to paying for universal health coverage, affording retirement security for our elderly, investing in programs for the poor or educating our children, we need to pinch pennies. According to this story line, we face a looming "entitlement crisis" -- we won't be able to afford to keep the Baby Boomers in good health and out of poverty, we're told, unless we slash their benefits and privatize the programs that their elderly parents enjoy today.

This is the line we hear from the administration when it talks about entitlement "reform": Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says that "the biggest economic issue facing our country is the growth in spending on the major entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security." The solution, according to the Heritage Foundation, is to cut entitlement spending. "Reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is the only way to get the budget under control," it says.

How can two narratives that are so clearly at odds with each other be so pervasive? Are we seriously supposed to believe that Paris Hilton has to dig between the cushions of her sofa to buy a can of tuna?

What reconciles these two themes is absent from our mainstream economic discourse: We "can't afford" all sorts of programs that are clearly in the common good because most of the benefits of our growing economy have gone to a very small group of Americans, who have, in turn, seen their taxes slashed again and again in the past six years. It's a story that isn't told as often as it should in the commercial press, because it's a supposedly "liberal" narrative -- never mind that über-conservative former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress that there is a "really serious problem here, as I've mentioned many times … in the consequent concentration of income that is rising."

Saying that the majority of the country's economic gains in recent years have gone to the top 1 percent of the income ladder understates the trend. You have to cut the pie into even smaller slices to get the full picture. Because, while the bottom half of the top 1 percent of the income distribution have done far better than the average wage slaves, it is a smaller slice still -- the top .01 percent -- that has grabbed most of the gains, seeing an impressive 250 percent increase in income between 1973 and 2005 from an economy that's grown by 160 percent.

An analysis by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez gives us the best perspective of what's going on for everyone else. They found that despite several periods of healthy growth between 1973 and 2005, the average income of all but the top 10 percent of the income ladder -- nine out of ten American families -- fell by 11 percent when adjusted for inflation. For three decades, economic growth in the United States has gone first and foremost to building today's modern Gilded Age. The recipients of those gains don't care about a fully funded Social Security system or a healthy Medicare program -- they don't need them.

Meanwhile, even as the top earners' incomes have gone through the roof, their tax burden has shriveled. At the same time, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined -- by two-thirds since 1962.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: economy

Heather Boushey is a senior economist with the Center for Economic Policy and Research. Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oh yeah, the class war that isn't happening
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 18, 2007 12:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where’s the surprise here? The nation is more productive than ever, and the total wealth of the nation according to financial indicators like the Dow and GNP is rising to reflect that. But that inwash isn’t rain sprinkling on all. It’s an irrigation system that shunts most of the water to a few large lakes and parches the remaining landscape. That’s old news. That’s the class war – rout, really.

In essence, the American people are not the owners of America. They just work it for the owners, the ruling class, the aristocracy. Yeah, you have freedom. Not once you’re in debt, join the record number of felons, or join the military. Even without any of that, we’re not going to be buying a yacht or a chalet. With a family, you’re not going on any serious vacations or purchasing any toys beyond vehicles and electronics anyway. Grazing cattle are free, too, just as long as they don’t try to go anywhere.

Just as surely, the people are being ranched by their ruling class. And like farm animals, they’ll get the equivalent subsistence food and shelter, and whatever health care is as cost effective as veterinary care. That’s what you give an animal, no more. OK, a few get a little more as incentive to train and educate themselves as engineers and scientists and doctors and lawyers. But people oriented government spending is under attack (health care, education, social security, student loans, etc.) and the kind of spending that benefits the wealthy or makes them feel safer – military, war, police, prisons – that goes up.

And my social security. Sure, I’ve paid in for a lifetime. But that gets me nothing but what Congress wants to trickle my way. Can you imagine any other forced withdrawal (or voluntary) “investment” where you put money in for forty years to get it back at a certain rate at a certain age, and they kept changing those amounts and ages to their benefit?

And yet people paste flag decals on their oversized, overpriced vehicles and are genuinely nuts for something red, white and blue. I look around and see nothing that I consider mine outside of my house. I used to feel like I owned a little piece of the roads and the power grid and the government buildings and the national parks. They’re not ours. And they’ll tell you which ones you can use, when and how.

I suppose that if people let you ranch them, someone’s going to do it. Some species can’t be domesticated well. Some herd real nice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Were being reemed Posted by: Krain61
» Who's Hunting and Who's Hunted Posted by: cognitorex
» Thoughts on "Gross" Pay Posted by: cognitorex
Oui, mais...
Posted by: Mop Cheese on Jul 18, 2007 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the increasing disparity in incomes is not positive, but I think it's symptomatic of a deeper problem in the system. One thing that isn't commonly understood is that big corporations more often than not [i]love[/i] it when taxes go up. Not because they like having their money stolen, no, but because it allows profits in a given industry to concentrate in the hands of the bigwigs who have more resources to throw at finding (and creating) and exploiting loopholes in the tax system.

For instance, Warren Buffet's support of the Estate Tax, known by Republicans as the Death Tax, was not because he's some altruistic liberal democrat but because he makes a lot of money by buying up small businesses on the cheap that have run out of money because of that tax.

As to why people are working harder without seeing equivalent returns, it's because the tax system is essentially an upwards-directed transfer system to the politically connected, a system which has increased taxes on the working man quite a bit over the last few decades. Even if you don't think taxes are theft (is it so hard to believe that Saddam Hussein was stealing from his subjects?), the federal income tax is itself not mandated according to US law, so you must at least admit that working 4 months out of the year for uncle sam is not quite just.

As for universal healthcare, no, it really is untenable. Not because there's not enough money, but because it'll have miserable effects. Imagine being a Canadian and being unable to choose your doctor on the basis of their credentials, or being one of the 1,000,000 million Britons on waiting lists for treatment--or how about the 200,000 waiting to get ON waiting lists. Making something "free" doesn't make it free: if you remove the money cost, you just add an equivalent time-cost, hence the lines people die while waiting in. And then the route to getting efficient treatment lies not through money, but on social and political connections. Very egalitarian, right?

What we need is an actual free market in health care--the first and simplest measure to take is to remove or lower licensure restrictions for doctors. That way, the supply of doctors would increase, which would drive prices down, so going to a guy who went through seven years of medical school to get ibuprofen will be an extravagance of the rich and not a requirement. Also, making it so that congress had no power over the industry, so Big Pharma cannot write favorable legislation for itself.

As for those who think that an increasing disparity between the rich and poor is simply the effect of the free market, take heed of the words of the 19th century businessman James J. Hill, who built his own railroad network (without subsidies) from Chicago to the Pacific and who understood that "We have got to prosper with you or we have got to be poor with you."1

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: ankhet
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: sausage
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: duck-lady
» Delusional rationale Posted by: ladmeaux
» RE: Delusional rationale Posted by: bifheart
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: babs
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: fleurdelamer
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: dseilhan
» RE: Oui, mais, and more mais... Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: Maryanne
"It's a beautiful world, but not for me"
Posted by: HeroesAll on Jul 18, 2007 4:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This issue is not just the elephant in the room: it's the thirty thousand square kilometres of Serengeti desert, complete with scrub, lions, zebras, and elephants, in the room.

This from the NY Times piece:
Stephen J. Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, and other supporters of the cuts said they did not go far enough because the more money the wealthiest had to invest, the more would go to investments that produce jobs. For investment income, Mr. Entin said, "the proper tax rate would be zero."

Oh indeed, Mr. Entin.

Actually, the story that "more investment == more jobs" is a bit of a myth these days. Certainly, back in the day, investment meant investing in land (productive of food and other consumables) or plant (productive of manufactured goods), then that was true. The money went into real, solid, physical things that directly affected employment.

However, those days are gone, well and truly. These days, most investment is in intangibles, and could be described more accurately as gambling. When I say intangibles, I mean various investment "products" that are simply a means of betting that something will or will not happen. I don't have exact figures, but there's a very large threat here that I'll mention in a moment.

The other factor is that, as Joshua mentions, the investment isn't used to increase production, but simply to increase quarterly profits. So basically, the investment money is returned to investors as immediate profits, rather than actually invested in anything that looks like growth. There's another threat here too.

The first big threat comes from the fact that most of the 'wealth' in the economy is fairy gold. That is, there's nothing backing it up. In the old days, the US dollar was backed by gold, but that's no longer true. When you had a thousand dollars in cash, you could exchange that for a thousand dollars worth of gold. These days, the value of the dollar is only a polite agreement that a thousand dollars in cash can be exchanged for gold: there are far more dollars in circulation, and their agreed value (what we all believe them to be worth) bears no relationship to their real value.

What that means, and I know I'm expressing it badly, is that one day, something might happen to make us stop agreeing about that. The economy is what the software trade calls "vapourware": you get promises and enticing images, but nothing comes of it. And that is a bubble that can burst very unpleasantly.

The second problem is the short-sheeting of industry: when investment money is essentially used to reward investors, instead of being invested in the business, that depletes what should be a long-term lifeline for the business. When you don't look to the long term, and don't plan for it, and don't expend some current wealth on preparing for it, your business may go belly up.

So combine those two flaws, along with the others, and there's a pretty good chance of a very nasty Kondratieff winter coming to hit us hard in the face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The black market leads the way! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: The black market leads the way! Posted by: dangerouslysane
Rent an Army
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jul 18, 2007 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rent an Army

When oil tycoons use the U.S. Armed Forces to invade and steal oil from other countries, they should pay for it. But instead of paying for their Wars for Profit, corporate tycoons have engaged in price gouging, while getting huge tax cuts. They hit us with a triple whammy, and that doesn’t seem fair. Any corporation that wants to wage a War for Profit should be required to pay for it; after all, that’s a cost of doing business. Why should those costs be passed on to taxpayers?

Corporate tycoons own damn near everything, including the government, and they ought to be required to pay a property tax, or at least a rental fee for the using the U.S. Armed Forces for private gain. If they don’t agree, let them hire an Army overseas. They’ve privatized and outsourced everything else, so let’s make them finance their Wars for Profit out of their profits and with foreign troops. Why should we sacrifice American lives for their bottom line?

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The REAL News Promise
Posted by: Rshaw on Jul 18, 2007 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Help develop awareness to this aspiring independent world news network by rating and commenting on their video. Watch the video and learn more! Very exciting.

Watch it:
http://coanews.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1986

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Balanced Arguments?
Posted by: edith on Jul 18, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But when the masses ask for help paying for health insurance or child care, or request that everyone be given the right to paid sick days, we're told we cannot afford it. "

1. The above quote's diction expresses one major reason Americans do not listen to the US left or to its rationales for income distribution. The authors use, probably without reflection, the term "masses" for the American people. For reasons that stretch back to the Pilgrims, de Tocqueville and the failure of Marxists to capture the US labor movement, the American people do not consider themselves undifferentiated masses. The individual may be exploited by Big Business or Big Government, but the term "masses" connotes an eltism and non-American value system of the speakers.

2. There is no analytic discussion by the authors on the vast amount of wealth locked up in retirement funds that are owned by at least one person in the majority of American families. Whether or not you like capitalism or the US retirement paradigm, social security is almost irrelevant to the retirement plans of most Americans. The 401(k) and its permutations cannot be ignored. It represents wealth, wealth which could in a market crash disappear, or as of today, could increase far more than a comparable govt program like Social Security. Yet a major comparison by the authors is the wealth accumalation by the top 1% versus the threat to social security. The appropriate comparison would have been to compare savings wealth increase for most Americans in the past 20 years compared with Social Security, which the authors assume is the major retireement vehicle for most Americans, which it is not. The private retirement/wealth accumulation tool of the US may be flawed, but to ignore it as the authors do casts a shadow on their overall argument that Americans are poorer.

3. A similar omission about real estate as a savings tool for most Americans and its escalation in value over the past 20 years is present in the authors' posting. Even with recent levelling off of the real estate market, real estate values in every region over the past 20 years have exceeded inflation. The authors ignore the singular fact that the US, unlike most other nations, is a nation of homeowners. Many people are cash poor, but asset rich.

4. The purpose of the foregoing remarks is not to tear down the entirety of the authors' arguments, but to raise a question about the comprehensiveness and balance of their overall arguments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Balanced Arguments? Posted by: leafsong1
» go play in your sandbox Posted by: pzzp
» The vanguard is upset Posted by: edith
» Clean your receiver Posted by: pzzp
R. V.
Posted by: RDVSR on Jul 18, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The opportunities for success in this country are unlimited. Just ask the many recent immigrants to come here, go into business, work hard, and are affluent. They only see opportunities. You whiners only see the hole in the donut.
I must be one of those you hate because I've worked hard, and have enough of everything that I need. Am able to help the poor also.
Quit whining and go to work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Quit whining and go to work. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» And don't forget... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Bush: The Ultimate Meritocrat Posted by: mrcentrist
» RE: Bush: The Ultimate Meritocrat Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Who's President? Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: . V. Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: . V. Posted by: swifturtle
» RE: . V. Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: . V. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: . V. Posted by: yakirz
Computer Era Corporate Innovations
Posted by: cognitorex on Jul 18, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From "Innovations of the Paperless Age, Cognitorex Press."

Hire basic labor force at less than full time thereby shedding the cost of health care, pensions and seniority benefits. Transfer savings to executive management.
Transfer previously tax paying internal accounting divisions to Offshore Tax Havens. Transfer savings to executive management.
Underfund pension obligations, then enter bankruptcy to avoid promised worker retirement benefits. Transfer savings to executive management.

Labels: CEO embezzlement, national health plan, what pensions (at cognitorex blog)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Francis
Posted by: Francis on Jul 18, 2007 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone knows about the the not-too-bright gentleman who placed one foot in boiling water and the other in ice water figuring that the extremes would cancel each other out and produce a comfortable mean. As regards our economy, this is what the right wing spinners want us to believe is possible. An increase in gross national product and ever increasing corporate profits are, somehow, supposed to trickle down and benefit the jobless and the hungry. Such statistics are the damndest of liars and are employed by the damndest of liars as an increasingly transparent fig leaf for the economic woes of many millions of Americans. And if that isn't bad enough, and lord knows it should be, wait until the bill comes due on the debts incurred by the Bushies with their endless wars and misplaced billions (trillion). It may come as a shock to some, but these bills are going to be paid by someone. If not the very rich and the giant multinational corporations, then by whom? You guessed it...your great-grand children and everyone who comes before and after them.

Additionally, when the Zionist neocons finally drag us into a genocide against the Iranian people,in the not too distant future, and the price of a barrel of crude oil rises to $120.00, we will then understand what it was like to have lived through the great depression. Hold onto your hats, you may have to sell them for food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Francis Posted by: clthompson
» RE: Francis Posted by: Francis
» ?????? Posted by: gellero
» RE: ?????? Posted by: Francis
» Consider this... Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: Francis Posted by: yakirz
Typically Disagree
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Jul 18, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with mr. holland, however, he's nailed this one dead on. add to his article congress passing the Universal Default for credit cards and tougher bankruptcy laws, lifelong student loan debt, and you've got the recipe for not only getting pinched, but getting screwed.

bravo joshua.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Typically Disagree--Not To Mention Posted by: apophenia_monkey
All a lie. Even the penny shown costs more to make than it is worth!
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jul 18, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That was a perfect picture to represent our economy. The penny is now costing more to make than it is actually worth! Like most of our money it has become devalued, on purpose, by the private bankers who own and control the Federal Reserve and our economy.
linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer...
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Jul 18, 2007 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what happens when the system goes out of balance.....when government and big business start working hand in hand to get power and profits.

Government makes sure that our tax dollars keep going to favorite companies, and regulates certain industries in a way that makes it impossible for competition for their favored business partners.

Then, those corporations run wild, raising prices and lowering the quality of service. It's like a monopoly - closer to a cartel.

It's essential for us to reign in this beast....read on for more:

"The Value of Financial Viability" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Slogans don't help Posted by: edith
Does this news make you angry?
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jul 18, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It angers me terribly. These are the practices and results that have made me despise reagan since I was a teenager. Even as an ignorant and stupid teenager I could see something fundamentally cruel about most of reagan's policies. It's why I see republicans as little better than nazis and their poor supporters as nazi sympathizers.

Why do I consider reagan (republicans) and the democrats that agree with these proposals as cruel? :

One, Remember AIDS- The reagan administration cared nothing for the suffering since it was nothing more than a Haitian or queer disease. Our administration nor the moral majority care if queers and Haitians die a wretched death. But when some children starting contracting the disease from blood transfusions, these cruel and ignorant republicans started wondering if this might really be a problem. So much for compassion from a conservative.

Second, let's imprison as many people as we can with a new war on drugs. We surpassed South Africa for numero uno in 1989 with the highest per capita prison population. Thank you ronnie for making us number one in something. When you're a nazi republican, why care about freedom or liberty?

Third, let's use as much money as we can for weapons of war. Every one of reagan's budget had the DOD as the number one expenditure. These budgets probably could have been slashed by 90% yet still provided enough for our "defense". Eisenhower knew this type of funding is mostly a complete waste, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Fourth, these so called conservatives continually spent more money driving this nation from $2 trillion in national debt in 1980 to $6 trillion by 1989. The graph of this debt prior to 1980 was mostly linear but turned exponential under reagan.

Think of all the scandals since reagan that involve theft and deception : the savings and loan crisis, Iran-contra, 9/11, and the War on Iraq to name a few. They have all been primarily driven by republicans with the moral majority providing cover.

Here is another story related to this topic for anyone who cares:

Parasitic imperialism

And finally, being poor I see that the only thing poor people have going for them is education. It's the only thing we have that might help prevent us from being manipulated and cheated but not only is our fascist government gutting education, education is not highly valued by a large percentage of the population. And what constitutes education is alot of times little more than indoctrination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: interesting... Posted by: dangerouslysane
» DEMOCRATS ARE DIFFERENT??? Posted by: gellero
» RE: Democrats are awesome Posted by: sheena2u
Thanks, Heather and Joshua
Posted by: sausage on Jul 18, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been asking this same question for some time.

I've heard right wing politicians on the stump praise the United States for being the richest nation on the face of the earth, ever in history, with the strongest economy on the world! Then turn on a dime and say, "but we can't afford such and such and so and so," usually one or all of the entitlement programs or Social Security or a single-payer nationalized healthcare system.

But we can afford an F-22 Raptor!

We can afford to occupy Iraq to the tune of $456 billion!

But the treasury is empty so we can't afford national healthcare.

Why?

Anybody who's ever viewed True Majority.org's "Setting the Priorities Straight" Web page knows our taxpayer dollars are going down a sewer called the Pentagon. We've known the Pentagon was a sewer of taxpayer waste ever since Iowa Senator Chuck "Mr. Big Pharma," "Mr. Big Ag" Grassley raised a stink about $600 toilet seats for the Navy back in the '80s.

So why doesn't anybody in Congress do anything to rein in spending for the military-security-industrial complex?

Campaign contributions.

Congressional Republicans are beholden to funds from the mangement/investment side of the MSIC, and for the Democrats the defense industry is one of the last bastions of strong labor unionism. Don't you think it rather odd that some of the most "liberal" congressional Democrats come from states with heavy concentrations of defense contractors: Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Rhode Island, New York?

Personally, I hoped that with the fall of the old Soviet Union there would be a peace dividend. How naive.

Our generals and politicians and Wall Street investors (true parasites on the body politic) and union leaders all conspired to keep the war machine birthed in the combat of World War II growing. And it is very hungrey indeed.

We are doomed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» why they won't impeach... Posted by: dover23
» why they won't impeach... Posted by: dover23
Economics, politics and greed
Posted by: american on Jul 18, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are informed as we are because the owners of everything own the press too. The press, along with “K Street” money broking, is what provides access to the political arena.

To commune with the people, politicians must be wealthy or go to the wealthy. This is the only access. The politicians who see the point of view of the wealthy most decisively are the ones who get the most money and exposure via the media assets owned by the wealthy.

Once candidates get the money, it gets back to the wealthy via their media ownership.

The political discourse as well as our understanding of our government and economy, to be sure, is regulated by the press's interpretations and coverage levels of issues and candidates; the length of the leash the politicians are on; - and the policy_philosophy inclinations of the pre-selected candidates.

Via this system we are getting the best candidates for Capitalism-gone-loose and not getting the best candidates to activate the will of the majority. Activating the intentions of the majority is the objective of democracy. Activating the intention of the few is the objective of capitalism.

I am not necessarily anti-capitalism, but I am against it steamrolling democracy: so I am against how it is functioning now.

The source:

In our country, as the business and political bodies are functioning right now, it is clear that the sweet cream is not rising to the top. It is clear, by nearly all metrics outside of the Dow and S&P, that this country is not in great shape - yet leaders who continually fail to improve things sit in front of the television cameras recombining the same old pacifiers, making it easy for people to let things slide one more day that we may hope, against our better judgment, that their courses of action - as they say - will improve things "in the future."

Wait...

Let me explain.

Democracy and capitalism are not necessarily congruent in the way a hand fits in a glove. One does not necessarily require the other, although we are told as much. The capitalism practiced at present is a one variety of economic theory. Democracy is a political philosophy. Enforceable laws originate both. At present, the forces of today’s capitalism far more than populace-originated representative democracy are originating laws, policies and initiatives.

Economic theories and speculative "predictions" are trumpeted to explain how things will work out. Know this though: all of economics is theoretical. This means it is not proven to be true. Ask an economist. And as for the spewing of speculative predictions, recall the opinions of all the stock market "analysts" on CNN prior to the tech bubble crash of the late 90's. Ninety-nine of a hundred were bullish. So they didn't know what they were saying or they were saying what they knew to be untrue. (This may be the surest way to get on CNN...)

How is this happening? Well, the number-one quality for obtaining wealth, typically, is greed. For extreme wealth extreme greed is typically required. Greed-synonymous traits are selfishness, control-freakishness, hoarding, secrecy, anxiety, and blind disregard for external consequences. To an outstanding degree, the type people running the corporatocracy own these characteristics and they are the ones essentially pre-qualifying the ensembles of candidates we time and again ultimately choose from. The end result is we have candidates who are either members of the greed set or ones whose ambitions are bridled by the adverse consequences of tampering with the status quo.

This is our problem. And if we want to solve a problem, we have to go to the root. I do not seek a revolution, you can be sure, but I do seek a just and livable society. For this to occur, where there is an impasse, democracy must trump capitalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Workers More Produvtive?
Posted by: Jack Saturday on Jul 18, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it curious that Ms. Bouchey and Mr. Holland would say “Americans have become much more productive.” You hear this from trade union representatives as well.

I don't think Americans work 80% harder or smarter. Technology has become more productive, I think it is essential now to make a clear distinction between humans and technology, though it is correct to call commodity laborers “tools.” But as tools they are not themselves working so much more productively than their forbears.

The tech is much more productive. This tech has issued from R&D paid for by the American people so that it can displace them, but they get no return on that investment.

Trace who paid, through their taxes, for the R&D that brought an 80% rise in productivity, then deliver a decent return on that investment to the investors, the American people.

John Henry learned a long time ago that to compete in productivity with a steam-drill kills you. What we need to learn is that the steam-drill ain’t the problem, it’s that the top .01% claim to own that steam-drill and all benefits accruing. Some suggest that John Henry should have taken his hammer to the boss instead of trying to compete with centuries of design science evolution paid for when US workers signed their John Henry on an income tax form to pay private bankers for printing money backed by thin air, and to cover the costs of industrial technology through state subsidies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Workers More Produvtive? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Workers More Productive? Posted by: Jack Saturday
» PRODUCTIVITY Posted by: gellero
What about...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 18, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Military Spending? That most sacred of sacred cows we collectively herd and feed what ought to be funding all these things you say keep getting cut? Even here it hardly gets mentioned. We are told we must make further cuts to programs other countries guarantee as part of their citizenship but you're labeled a terrorist or worse if you suggest that any cuts be made in military spending.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing's gonna change, it'll only get worse.
Posted by: Landbaron on Jul 18, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's history, "the rise and fall of the USA"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wah! Wah! Wah! Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: Wah! Wah! Wah! Posted by: NumberSix
Up the ante
Posted by: Gaubladt on Jul 18, 2007 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution to social security is simple: Just increase the interest that the government gives to the payees in return for the use of their money to run the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Up the ante-- ? Posted by: wmGreybeard
» RE: Up the ante-- ? Posted by: Gaubladt
masochisme
Posted by: richholland on Jul 18, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let us face it. MIllions of germans were victim of the rich americans and english between world war 1 and 2 they were on the brink of starvation.
Hitler and the national socialists promised work and better conditions t the first stage they got health insurance, vacation, housing, volkswagen etc. but then a second world war.

the problem in america is many people not understand it is not
Capitalisme or Communisme;;
Karl Marx was right Hedge fundings captalisme leads to destructing of enviroment, destruction of values but the solution is not SOCIALISME.
the solution is working together, respecting values.
A pimp or a drugsdealer with a billion dollars is still an arshhole, althouhg some Republicans call him a Patriot.
Europe is fed up with American fascists, the people of USA are wunderfull nice people, but many of your leaders are fascists. America back to the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WW I Posted by: gellero
Visual Representation of This Article
Posted by: astromathman on Jul 18, 2007 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The picture portrayed in this article can be visualized by graphing the US income distribution. See http://www.lcurve.org.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

its called capitalism
Posted by: wleming on Jul 18, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The authors must consider that capitalism is a greed driven ideology... or as John Kennth Galbraith... who was a very great economist put it: "Capitalism is the assumption that the very worst, for the worst of reasons, will do the very best."
Mr. Galbraith, alas, could speak clearly, directly, and concisely-- but that was before the Right Wing Think Tank, and the tepid, sad
Liberalism that was to come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: its called capitalism Posted by: kellysgarden
It's called an Oligarchy
Posted by: dover23 on Jul 18, 2007 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The elite despise the lower classes and have purchased the government to "legally" keep everyone else down and destroy the middle class. They could not do this without the use of sanctioned violence that people seem to cheer on.

If you think you can end the reign of these elites by using the tools that they control and use against you, you're falling into their trap and playing by their rules. There is only one alternative... dismantle the killing machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

follow the money
Posted by: kellysgarden on Jul 18, 2007 1:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
follow the money and you'll see it didn't end up in my pocket, or in your's. It ended up in the pockets of large corporations.

We in the "middle" and "lower" classes are merely slaves to these large corporations, which are run by the owners, CEOs, directors, etc. of corporations.

When the masses are ruled and governed by large corporations, we are truly seeing one of FASCISM's defining definitions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» truly??? Posted by: dover23
» RE: truly??? Posted by: kellysgarden
» 14 defining features of Fascism Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: 14 defining features of Fascism Posted by: kellysgarden
» USA... 14 for 14! Posted by: dover23
» RE: USA... 14 for 14! Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: USA... 14 for 14! Posted by: sterlingdave54
Democracy? Think again. Oligarchy the rule of the rich is what Bush has done to us all.
Posted by: jgdewey on Jul 18, 2007 1:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are his base the filthy rich. In addition, these right wing republicans have always hated the social programs of Franklin Roosevelt. From deregulating electricity( think enron what a mess) to making medicare a laugh to all who use it. But what bothers me the most, is after years of paying trillions for a bogus useless war they cry foul over social services. Here's the problem with the budget, it's not our greed, it's not tax cuts for the rich, it's not the war, the military, it's that stupid medicare, social security, education and childcare etc. Ah yes. It's those people who can't make it on their own, who don't know how to manipulate the system and get rich. Let them not have good health care, they can't afford it (direct quote from Rush Limbaugh), let them invest for their retirement(what exactly is extra from a family of 4 making less than 50 thousand a month? ) let them send their kids to college, if they can't tough luck. Looking at sicko, where France manages health care, superior education, including college, social security, rest homes for the old, HOUSE CALLS FROM DOCTORS, I would pay my taxes for this in a heartbeat, rather than that stupid, illegal, immoral war from hell, that has bankrupted us morally as well as financially. Our economy is great. Give me a break. Has anyone in that overfed, overpaid, under responsible administration even begun to address the trillion dollar deficit, the horror of it is looming with huge loans from China and elsewhere to finance the war. Have they gone completely mad, to even think of cutting out all social services to get rid of their war deficit. I have to say, as much as I try to be a forgiving and loving person, they stink to high heaven. I really have to fight not to hate them all.Do we need another revolution? I think so, and if the middle class and poor keep getting tampled it won't be far away. Reduce social security and medicare anymore and you're going to have a generation eating out of garbage cans. Of course, they could always eat cake if they wanted. Where have I heard that before?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So here's a question
Posted by: Tim Chadron on Jul 18, 2007 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If 85-90% of our wealth is held by say 10% of our population, and it is the wealthy who hold all of the power in this country, well, I thought every individual only gets one vote. Are there more wealthy people than we first thought? And how do these 10% vote folks like GW into office? The rest of the 90% (us poor folk) don't seem to be doing a very good job of voting for decent leaders, or taking any time to learn about the potential candidates on our own. Otherwise, morons like Bush would never even get past round one, no matter how much money they have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» but, but, but... Posted by: dover23
» RE: but, but, but... Posted by: Joshua Holland
The Real Elite is Ignored, and They Like That
Posted by: jbetterl on Jul 18, 2007 2:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The talk of the American (or Chinese or French or British) top 10% is misleading. The money is controlled by international, often offshore, financiers. They like the bellowing about a nation's "elite." National "elites" are simply puppets, used again and again, and we make the mistake of calling them the enemy in a class war. The real "enemy" keeps its head down and stays out of the press.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The zeitgeist, pedantic pandering
Posted by: ray burchard on Jul 18, 2007 3:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To understand entitlement we must acknowledge its origin; Academia's system of public "grant monies" earmarked to ameliorate the human condition, but disproportionally used to help create the Academic dynamics of pedantic turf protection. Through the solipsistic construct of symbolism, Academic speciality disciplines, the apparatus of credentials and an allegiance to the recondite policy of silence. Especially as it applies to the general public, the 'local yokels'. Where public queries are customarily unrequited. Academia can't be questioned except from with in, how convenient for them.

The developement of a bourgeoisie free from being tethered by social decorum, duties and the responsibilities that relegates the rest of the American public.

Now is it any wonder where and why America's corporate and/or governmental leadership were taught this cancerous, anfractuous tactic of separation, designed to abrogate reponsibility through a malleable code of ethics..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is how Capitalism/Imperialism WORKS!!!
Posted by: MLMrev on Jul 18, 2007 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For an eye-opening talk of why there is no "Right to Eat" under this system, check out THIS AUDIO SAMPLE

Taken from one of the 7 Talks by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
More available at BOBAVAKIAN.NET

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The reason Rome fell etc.
Posted by: macdon1 on Jul 18, 2007 5:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Students of history will recognize the fast approaching fate of the American Empire. Those who do not heed the lesson of history are doomed to repeat it. Most Americans are asleep at the switch when it comes to the lessons of history and don't care to exert themselves to learn. Many empires including the Mayan Empire fell apart because the privileged few put such a burden on "the masses" (sorry to offend but I couldn't find a better term to express this...) that everything fell apart. This country is well on its way. Keep on snoozing America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 99.9%...
Posted by: Cathyc on Jul 18, 2007 5:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the 99.9 percent-- and deserve a bigger piece of the pie."

And its not getting it, because the other 1% is bigger and stronger? That's a very strange (unnatural) system indeed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The 99.9%... Posted by: Logic's Edge
"Starving the Beast" to Destroy the New Deal
Posted by: CatDad on Jul 18, 2007 6:16 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is the only way to get the budget under control."
===========
Starving the Beast: The deliberate tactic of having massive budget deficits to stop new entitlement programs and to force an eventual economic crisis that will force huge cuts in existing entitlement programs. Destroying the New Deal is the wet dream of the conservative movement....Bush and Rove...caught up in delusions of the their own power...thought they were in striking distance in 2004. Bush used his "mandate" to stop gay marriage in 2004 to go forward with this effort....A classic "bait & switch" pulled on the naive/conned "values voters." Sadly for him (but not us), the "Ownership Society" scam effort came just after his power had peaked. The people saw right through it...The dream of destroying the New Deal by normal political means was lost.

So now they're deliberately damaging the nation with their "stave the beast" method to achieve these means...At some point the deficit spending will force a meltdown....meaning drastic cuts in entitlement programs....It'll be all good for them...but not us...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Revolution Happens
Posted by: brodix on Jul 18, 2007 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humanity is rapidly approaching a crossroads, where we will begin cooperating on a scale that we never have before, or we will descend into a state of warring tribes like we have never seen before. Appeals to the conscience only work on those willing to listen, while it is the less altruistic who need to pay the most attention. If there is one thing that does get people's attention, it's the money.

In 1996, Bob Dole had a campaign slogan, "We want you to keep more of your money in your pocket." The first thought to cross my mind was, 'Thank God it's not my money, or it would be worthless.' The logic of this is that the actual currency doesn't belong to the holder, only its value. The monetary system is a function of government, which in a democracy is the people. Therefore money is actually a form of public commons, similar to a public road system. Instead of transportation, it's a system of economic exchange. While you are in total possession of the section of road you're driving on, its value is due to it being connected to those everyone else is on. So is the value of the money in your pocket due to its broad interchangeability. It is not an issue of socializing wealth, but of understanding what money is to begin with. Your home, business, car, etc. are private property, but the roads linking them are not. Money is more like the public road system, than private property. It provides a broad economic connectivity, without which the economy could not function.

Money has always been a form of public utility (Render unto Caesar...), but because it evolved out of barter and for much of history was minted out of precious metals to gave it inherent value, the issue of function has been confused with the issue of possession. Now all monetary value is a matter of public trust in government accountability and this is being abused to the breaking point. It was only a generation ago that the wealth of governments were still symbolized, if not based on the gold in the treasury. For many countries, it's now how much US dollars and debt they are holding. This is not a stable situation. When the liquidity bubble does burst, faith in the concept of printed money will be shaken to its core. In order to restore faith in an invaluable economic tool, it would be useful to emphasize this public function. There is no longer a gold standard and it is the taxpayer who bears ultimate responsibility for government obligations.

Here is a little history to consider in understanding why we are where we are.

The money supply has to grow along with the economy. Inflation is caused by the supply of money growing too fast, so the law of supply and demand makes it worth less. Interest rates are raised to slow the growth of the money supply, when the economy is reaching peak potential, since the amount of money might expand faster then the economy is able to grow. During the late sixties and seventies, the money supply was allowed to grow faster then the economy in order to pay for Great Society programs, the Vietnam War and the oil crises. By the end of the seventies, inflation was spiraling out of control and Paul Volcker was given the job of taming it by raising interest rates as much as it would take to do the job. This led to a serious recession, but by 1982 inflation had peaked and he could take the pressure off.

There is a minor logical hitch to this scenario, though. By raising interest rates to the point of causing actual economic harm, he was reducing the growth of the economy and therefore the need for money. How do you reduce an oversupply, if you also reduce demand?

The Federal Reserve fine tunes the size of the money supply by buying and selling government debt. To put money into circulation, they buy government debt with fresh money and to take money out, they sell debt they are holding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: evolution Happens Posted by: brodix
» RE: evolution Happens Posted by: brodix
Time fer a barn burnin'!
Posted by: DaBear on Jul 18, 2007 7:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Per Howard Zinn, prior to the American "revolution" the serfs were rising up against their masters and weekly tossing out rich farts' furniture onto their lawns and hosting bonfires. This got out of hand and the aristocracy solved the problem by distracting the serfs with the King of England is Sadaam, so let's git 'im.

Seems like it's high time to go breakin' down some doors of the richy rulers and start burnin' up their furniture. When they start pointing in the other direction and wanting to bomb Iran or the boogieman du jour, we can just lift up the middle finger and burn down their barns. After they realize they're fucked unless they capitulate, they'll give us the universal health care and living wages we both deserve and have earned.

Of course, if we all stay passivist about it, well, same ole same ole and nothing will ever change.... until there's no more oil.... then all bets are off and we all so very fucked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans Will Be "Forever Poor"
Posted by: robbrian on Jul 19, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We lost our country in 1913 when bankers convinced Woodrow Wilson that a Central Bank was needed to avoid the currency fluctuations which caused boom and bust periods. He signed the bill that unconstitutionally transfered the government's authority over U.S. monetary policy and procedures to the private banking system.

The people of the United States granted to Congress the power "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Wisely, we never gave them the constitutional power to delegate this money-creating and regulating responsibility to any private group. Yet this is exactly what the Federal Reserve Act did, unconstitutionally. It created a cartel of private banks, managed by a Board appointed for long terms of office by the President. This group of banks became the sole issuer of U.S. money, with full control over its quantity and thus its value.

American taxpayers do not send their payments to the Treasury Department, they send them to the Federal Reserve Banks, who take their share of these tax payments as interest payments ($500 billion in 2006) on loans made to the Federal government. These loans are unnecessary since the Treasury had previously financed the government for practically nothing. Unless this provision of the act is repealed there is no way to balance a budget or make a dent in our national debt.

Morever, since 1913 the new Federal Reserve System has overseen, the profiteering of the 1st WW, The Depression, death of the Gold Standard, four major recessions since the 2nd WW, followed by 3periods near rampant inflation, and today a dollar worth about 3 cents. It has been the tool used by the major bankers to gain control over the smaller banks. It has been able to bail out many international banks when their reckless overseas lending policies brought them to the brink of bankruptcy. It has been the financing agency for Congress' unprecedented deficit spending on the welfare state and war. Many people believe that it has intentionally manipulated the economy in order to influence the results of our presidential elections.

Our government doesn't need the help of any private banking cartel to manage money. We need to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and return control of our currency to Congress. Then we need a serious national discussion about how real currency reform can be achieved, giving consideration to restoring the gold backing to our money. As long as the Federal Reserve has control over our nation's money, Congress' control of the purse-strings will not have the benefits the Founders intended.

There are a relatively small number of American and foreign families who own these private banks that make up the Federal Reserve System. They collect the $500 billion or more annually. Money that could be allocated to the provision of better health care systems absent the intrusion of insurance companies. Repeal would also challenge the unconstitutional collection of income taxes on wage earners. Such a debate would bring to the fore the need to consider some form of graduated consumption taxation which would, in part, eliminate the direct transfer of funds to the federal Reserve.

To save the Republic for the people, the people must repeal the one piece of legislation that reserves the Republic for the super-rich. Abolish the privately owned Federal Reserve System---Central Bank and return the authority of control over our money to the Treasury were we have the benefit of transparency, and Congressional, Executive control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While the rich are getting richer
Posted by: greenpagan on Jul 19, 2007 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>>>>While the rich are getting richer, they're slashing social security, medicare and other social programs for the rest of us. What gives? For three decades, economic growth in the United States has gone first and foremost to building today's modern Gilded Age. The recipients of those gains don't care about a fully funded Social Security system or a healthy Medicare program -- they don't need them. Meanwhile, even as the top earners' incomes have gone through the roof, their tax burden has shriveled.

COMMENT: As long as the American People remain a bunch of ignorant illiterate innumerate superstition-ridden overweight over-consuming undereducated complacent sniveling servile bumpkins yokels and oafs the Masterclass will continue crapping all over them. Pathetic folk. What degenerate specimens compared to the Revolutionary, Depression Era/World War Two and Civil Rights/Vietnam War Era generations.

Now would you like to know what I really think about my fellow Americans…?

More at: Greenpagan

====

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ahh, yes...blame the victom! Posted by: BigNoseKate
It Would be Great
Posted by: Maryanne on Jul 19, 2007 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If on our income tax returns there would be either a check list and/or a blank line where we, who pay income tax, could specify where we want our money to go. I doubt that the majority of payers would choose weapons and war over health insurance, a safe enviroment, opportunities for education, child care, etc.

It would be great but that's one choice we won't get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Dead Country
Posted by: P. Hermes on Jul 19, 2007 1:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A nation that cannot take adequate care of its elders, its infirm and its common weal is a dying nation. A country that refuses to do so is already dead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oh to be .01
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on Jul 19, 2007 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's always nice to see someone quantify what you have known intuitively from your own experience and the experience of others for quite some time now. I am in a business where I talk in some depth with hundreds of people over the course of a year. I have noticed for the last several years that many more people seem to have financial complaints and/or are having great difficulty finding decent paying jobs. Oh there are plenty of jobs available that are on or near the level of the "Would you like some fries with that?" jobs but God help you if you are a skilled laborer ( and not a plumber or an electrician) w/o a college degree in this job market.

So what is going on? I think the article has it right. The wealth of this country is being appropriated by those at the very top at what seems to have been an increasing rate. Further we are being lied to on grand scale about this happening. Many of those responsible for perpetrating the lie (not necessarily their lackeys who spread it) feel they are entitled to do this and see nothing wrong with doing so if the rest of us are foolish enough to believe the lies. Have you ever known anyone from old money or even anyone who managed to become very wealthy on their own? Both types believe that everything is theirs by right although it is usually worse with the old money folks.

There is so much to say on this topic but I'm just going to leave it at this for now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

large middle class is anomalie
Posted by: billwald on Jul 21, 2007 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The normal world economic condition is a very large working poor class and a very small rich class with a few professionals and small merchants in the middle. A large middle class is a freak post WW2 occurrence. The war made the USofA the only major country with an intact industry and population. The Marshall Plan and the G.I. Bill prevented the normal post war depression whenn the troops came home. The Marshall Plan created a middle class in Europe. We are reverting to normal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IMPEACH CHENEY NOW!
Posted by: sheena2u on Jul 23, 2007 3:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are not suffering from an "entitlement crisis" except in Dick Cheney's twisted mind.

Its only a "crisis" because he wants all entitlement programs to go away. I heard him say in an interview two years ago that it was "his aim to reduce or ELIMINATE ALL ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS."

He's more than willing to throw the elderly, disabled, people who need health care, children who need care, and veteran's who need care under the bus.

He has put us all into debt over a bogus war, and he won't willingly spend a dime on those who are "vulnerable." Those are the people who are normally cared for by any moral and socially responsible civilization!

The mark of a civilization's humanity and success is shown by the way they treat their most vulnerable members. It is only in Cheney's ruthless, greedy, mind that we cannot fully fund our entitlement programs and care for those who need help.

In Cheney's world the only good use of money is to reward himself and his cronies. The richest of the rich get unneeded tax breaks while the national deficit soars. It will continue to soar unless these unnecessary tax breaks cease immediately!

Cheney's policies have caused our country to fall into a monumental debt while he gets richer by the second. Unless we impeach him now, we will soon be bankrupt. America is less secure in every way because of Cheney and his ilk.

The illegal and incredibly unsuccessful war in Iraq gets megatons of money because most of it goes to Blackwater and Halliburton. Cheney gains while the rest of the country loses! He's been laughing himself to the bank at America's expense far too long.

Cheney has shown utter ruthlessness to the suffering of others, and mean spirited greed. Cheney has had free rein with America, and has played a game where we lose and only he wins for far too long.

Wake up America. Its time to impeach Cheney now! Call your member of Congress now, and demand immediate impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our Share of the Pie
Posted by: jende on Jul 23, 2007 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only two tactics will get us our share of the pie: strike and boycott. Short of those actions we're doomed to receiving fewer and fewer benefits for our toil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]