Dr. B to the Super Rich: When will you be rich enough?
. . .The huge bonuses over the last decade or so skimmed off about 300 billion dollars into private pockets. Now what can those people do with that money? How many yachts can you own? How many homes can you own? How many planes can you own? It's that level of income which could, I think, make a contribution to class solidarity rather than be the cause of class hatred and social hatred, [and] Class warfare, eventually.
Dr. Zbiginiew Brzeznski, March 26, 2009
One day last week I woke up to a memorable bit of remarkable television--and it was on "Morning Joe", of all places. If, before I turned on the TV, Joe was his usual puffy-chested, when-I-was-in-congress blowhard, I missed it. If Mika was her usual schizo hand-wringing, sorry-for-even-existing, here-comes-tough-mommy self, I didn't see it. If Jim Cramer did a freaky voodoo dance (he was a guest that morning), I didn't see that, either.
What I saw was Dr. Zbiginiew Brzeznski--Mika's father--giving the clearest, harshest, most insightful lecture to the super rich I've ever even dreamed of witnessing. (Mika makes no bones about the fact that he is the most intimidating figure she's ever known. Yes, I could see that. But the thing is--he's on our side. I love that about him. Even though he'd scare me to death, too.)
The most amazing thing about the segment with Zbiginiew--among many amazing things--is that it went on for over 17 minutes with barely an interruption. He began by talking about Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (interesting stuff there, too) and then, at about 7:26 on the video, Joe changed the subject by saying, "Dr. Brzeznski, you've talked about the danger of runaway populism. (Eds note: ???) Some mocked you. Over the past two weeks we've seen your predictions unfold, from Capitol Hill to Wall Street to Main Street."
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
That was it. Joe (yes, that Joe) shut up and let Dr. Brzeznski talk. (Remember when Zbig called Joe "stunningly superficial" a while back? That might have been why.)
"There is a growing anger in this country," Dr B said, "a growing sense of resentment. There is a feeling of fundamental unfairness. . .We saw a list of people who have made more than a billion dollars in one year. A billion is a thousand million. Can you imagine making more than a thousand million a year? And how were most of those funds made? They didn't make them by creating new jobs, building new factories, making new technological innovations which then cumulatively enriched America. They made it by complex financial transactions which few people understand. Which, in effect, just sort of swooshed off money into private pockets. . .It's almost like a huge national ponzi scheme."
Here I thought I heard some slight whimpers of protest, but the good doctor was on a roll:
"Now, what gets me really is in this situation of anger and resentment and the growing risk of class hatred, no one from the private sector has stepped forward and said 'Let's organize a national solidarity fund in which the people who made so much money. . .money which is difficult to understand and to even justify, [should] contribute, to help, to pull us together'. The taxpayers are contributing. The president has urged us to pull this together, and we're doing it. You're doing it, I'm doing it, and a lot of much poorer people than us are doing it. Where are the rich people who have made hundreds of millions, thousands of millions in some cases? Why don't they step forward? We have the names of some who are returning the bonuses; what about the others who are not? There should be social pressure and if some major figures from the public sector with great reputations who have made a lot of money but who are generous in philanthropy stood forward. . .maybe there would be a movement to do something about social rehabilitation, social reconciliation, social solidarity. I think this is very much needed."
(Did you see the CEOs coming out of the White House meeting yesterday? What was the one thing they all said they agreed on with the president? "We're all in this together." Something tells me either Zbigniew was in the room with them or the specter of Zbigniew was in the room.)
Finally, Jim Kramer spoke--softly, a little petulantly, with head down though not in full kowtow position. He said, " . . .These hedge fund managers who made money are- a lot of them grew up regular, normal people who grew up in America and managed to just win big. We don't want to discourage people from winning big who are from normal origins, who are not silver spoon people."
To which Dr B., refraining admirably from slapping the little wanker upside the head, said, "Well, that's fair but. . .there's also a limit to what 'win big' really means in a society in which there are still a lot of people who are very poor--who are not winning big but losing much. Do you really need billions of dollars to be happy? What can you do with them? At some point it seems to me that social responsibility comes to play. . ."
He talked almost non-stop on the subject, without commercial interruption, for over 10 minutes. He pointed out the obvious: "If you made 500 million dollars and you gave away 250, I think you would still be left with enough to enjoy. The point is, there has to be some demonstrable response to this sense of crisis today from the rich people, rather than have them hide, or hire security guards, or insist that they stay anonymous."
And then he said it again, in another way: "I would like to see some major figures, public figures, step forward on their own. Not mobilized by the president, or by you or by me, but out of a sense of moral obligation. They still will not suffer. If you have 500 million or even 50 million dollars in your pocket you can give up half of it and still be more than comfortable for the rest of your life.
Mike Barnicle came in then, and told a poignant story about the mill town in Massachusetts, where he grew up . He talked about the "big winners" who had "more or less raped that town and other towns like it. Made millions for themselves, and yet the factories that they bought and sold that enriched them are now closed. They didn't build any new factories. They didn't create any new jobs. They left behind the skeletal remains of a city that was once vibrant and they've moved on to their big billion dollar salaries and this, I think, is part of the Bunsen burner, the fuel that is igniting this incipient class warfare in America."
It wasn't because the town had gone bad or the workers didn't work. It wasn't because people didn't pray hard enough or sing loudly enough. It wasn't a case of "tried but failed". It was because those lousy SOBs rode into town with premeditated plunder on their minds. (This is not Barnicle talking. This is me interpreting what I saw on his face and heard in his voice.)
There was much more, of course. I've probably already violated some copyright law by transcribing almost word for word a large portion of this conversation. (I'm doing it mainly for those who still have slow dial-up. They can't watch those streaming videos without having to wander off for a fortnight or two until the damn things finally reach the end.)
When Dr. Brzeznski was finished, I thought the Morning Bunch was going to burst into "Hoo Rahs" and cheers. They did rise up from their seats a little and made muffled noises of assent, but of course they couldn't let themselves go that far, considering who they are and what they've either advocated or ignored in the past.
Mika, bless her heart, had the final word after those long minutes of having to huddle in the shadow of her father's brilliance: "In America we don't think about--actually, I'm sorry, but there is a certain way of thinking--greed--put it on credit. We just don't think of--I'm sorry, we just don't think this way."
Is that priceless? Could you, in all honesty, turn it off after that?
Yeah, me too.
Ramona
(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices.)
















Good post, Ramona. Migwetch (thanks) for the transcript because I am one of the slow dial-up impaired.
An unrelated point: You will possibly get more recommends and comments at TPM if you post in entirety here. Splitting it sends readers away and they are less likely to return to comment. :o) Just my opinion which is almost worth nothing.
March 28, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flower, are you thinking that "Cross-posted" means that part of it is here and part of it is at "Ramona's Voice?" Cross-posted just means that she's posted it at both places. The post is complete here and at her own blog site.
March 28, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Flowerchild is right. I had a partial post here first, and then I changed it. I wasn't sure the video would transfer to here, but I tried it and it did.
I guess she was sending me the post right about when I changed it! Sorry. . .
March 28, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay...that's all straightened around! Whew! For a second there I thought I was lost in the Twilight Zone. Again. :o)
March 28, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or Night Gallery, even
;)
March 28, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you give Joan Crawford her sight?
March 29, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Naw. I haz muddy brown eyes. Whoever that sap was, he had blue eyes.
=D
March 29, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flowerchild, thanks so much for the heads-up about the partial post. Someone else said it's better to do a partial, because nobody will go to your website otherwise, but I realized that the ones I got the most comments on here are the ones that are complete.
So I just changed it, and then came here and saw your comment! Eerie. . .
March 28, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, thanks for straightening THAT out! When I read Flower's comment it threw me and I went to your site to see what else was there, found no new info, then spent a few minutes trying to figure out whether to just wallow in my confusion, or attempt to help a fellow blogger! I figured I'd want to know if I goofed up, so I jumped in! Sorry Flower!
March 29, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona The more I read you the better I like you.
Except now you have me thinking good thoughts about Mika.
I ALWAYS LOVED HER DAD.
GOOD POST RAMONA.
March 28, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Dickday. Loved your Ode to Michelle, by the way.
March 28, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Ramona, I missed this also and am glad I got to see it because of you. I see one of your favorite quotes is from Molly Ivins.I worked at the Dallas Times Herald for 10 years while Molly wrote there. This means of course that I got a free newspaper every morning, and I always looked for Mollys' column 1st. Appreciate you and your work.
March 28, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lucky you, being anywhere around the incomparable Molly! I have all of her books and I go back to them all the time. And every time, I find something new and wonderful. She is so missed. . .
March 28, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might as well ask an alcoholic if they have had enough to drink.
C
March 28, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the question is rhetorical, to be sure.
But the worse thing you can do to an alcoholic is offer him/her a drink.
So does it follow that the worse thing you can do to a Fat Cat is offer them more money?
Another rhetorical question. Just ignore.
March 28, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was great, Ramona!
I read about this, but you have made it much more of a full picture.
Thank you.
March 28, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And thank YOU, but, what--no clucks??
March 28, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe cluckles.
=D
March 28, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or chuckles. . .over your cluckles.
March 28, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since awards are given out around here, I hereby award you a pullet-zer.
That and $5 will get you a latte at Starbucks.
=D
March 28, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, a Pullet-zer is egg-zactly what I've always dreamed of! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
March 28, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Ramona. I was really struck by how, for a lack of a better word right at this moment, fair Joe was in letting Dr. Brzeznski make his points. Even to Cramer's credit he seemed to agree in part with Brzeznski on the need for the uber-rich to give something back to the society which allowed them the opportunity to accumulate such staggering wealth. And the fact that Brzeznski's argument was at least taken seriously, not being written off as 'socialism' (which I kinda expected to happen), by those 2 conservatives gives me hope.
It sounded like a Dr. B was calling a couple Mr. B's, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, out without actually naming names.
March 28, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was pretty amazing. If you watch that show at all, you know that deference is not their strong suit.
I don't think I've ever seen a single segment that lasted that long on any news show. Can you imagine Chris Matthews sitting still for that long? So, yes, I give Scarborough and Cramer credit for letting the man finish his thought without going on the attack. You could almost see the wheels turning as he spoke. But in the end, they simply couldn't come up with a response.
I think the greedy super-rich don't travel in the same lanes as Gates and Buffett. They actually give some of their money away. I'm afraid the Fat Cats wouldn't quite see them as role models!
March 28, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I am familiar with the show but not a frequent viewer Ramona. I don't mind watching Joe as much as the other conservative talking heads. He tends to be the most intellectually honest one of the bunch. Don't get me wrong he has more than his share of 'ideological' moments, but overall he might be the best of the bunch in terms of intellectual honesty. I remember in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, while most of the RW talking heads were trying to defend the Bush Administration and their woeful response, Joe was tearing Bush and FEMA apart. He ripped 'em to shreds.
Well maybe Gates and Buffet can start a trend...they have been generous in the past so there is a track record for them. If they make it a 'high profile media event' maybe they can shame some of their fellow uber-capitalists into following suit.
March 29, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note to anybody who cares about this sort of thing: I've gone back and unpartialized (yes, it's a word. I just made it up) my other TPM posts. But there are a whole lot more on my website, and it gets mighty lonely over there, so sometime, when you have nothing better to do. . .
(I love ellipses. They look just like I sound. . .)
March 28, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
don't be lonely.
March 29, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's 10 pm on the West Coast, but I wrote this three weeks ago.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/gregorzap/2009/03/private-sectorfree-market-nows.php
So not only can I say I agree, but I put it up 3 weeks ago. It is very simple. If the private sector believes the private sector can solve the world's problems, have at it! Take your best shot! Regulate your selves rather then have politicians write the rules. At the end of the day, there has to be order, there has to be trust, there has to be cooperation or the whole thing fals apart. At the end of the day, if you gave up half your wealth, would you ever miss a meal before you died of natural causes? My guess, if you gave up half, in 10 years you would get it all back, but, at the end of the day, you didn't need it anyway. It was all just a game to enterain your self.
March 29, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
GZ, thanks so much for adding that link here. Your post was insightful and there were good arguments in the comments.
I've been harping for decades now that when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer--and the middle class disappears altogether--nobody but the rich can buy anything. How will they feed off each other then? So it's obviously in their best interests to keep the working class working for decent, livable wages because (again, obviously) it's what keeps our economy strong.
The idea that the super-rich can only think about hiding their wealth and laying low until this all blows over tells you just what lowlifes they really are. They don't deserve a penny of our money, let alone billions of it.
If you'll notice, Zviginiew steered clear of suggesting a government mandate in order to squeeze a few bucks from them. He was appealing, instead, to any speck of integrity or obligation that might still be left in their black souls.
March 29, 2009 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wo, Zig, you hot. Hotter than Rummy. What a Vulcan you'd make!
March 29, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, few of the 'uber-rich' are going to be shamed into, or have a speck integrity to be appealed to, to 'give back' the millions or billions they don't need.
They don't even want to be taxed on it after they are dead, ergo the Republican fight against the 'death tax' which affects only 1% or so of estates.
The tax on inherited estates is a way to restore some payback to society so that fortunes can be flaunted and obsessed over by their original owners, but not passed down whole and in perpetuity to relatives (or to dogs in the case of Leona Helmsley) who did nothing but become related to or owned by (in the case of the dog) a super-rich person.
March 29, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you can shame quite a few of them. He's right when he says that with $500 million you can give half of it for "solidarity".
However I disagree with the thought behind "shaming" of anyone - it's counter-productive and smack of class warfare he's proposing to avoid.
Personally, I think this policy is wrong and it will lead to lowering of the income ceiling, so I don't agree with it.
But if you think that the best solution is to re-distribute income - then raise taxes and be honest about it. It's been done before and it can be done again. With $500 million income, you won't get much resistance.
March 29, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if you listen again, you're hear Zbig say he doesn't think you should go about shaming anyone. That's not what he's advocating.
We've have class warfare for the past 20 years or more. We're practically a third-world nation because of it.
I don't understand your comment about lowering income ceilings. Could you explain?
If your kids go out and break something that belongs to someone else, don't you make them take responsibility for their actions and pay for the repair? That's what Zbig is saying. Some, but not all, of the Super Rich feel no responsibility toward the people they stepped on along the way to their obscenely luxurious lifestyles. Now, through their actions, a whole lot of people are suffering. We have homeless people living in tent cities because they lost their jobs and couldn't afford housing. We have people dying because health costs are out of sight. Our infrastructure is crumbling because the money for repairs went to unnecessary wars and privateers.
And we have gazillionaires hiding their money and crying the blues if anyone dares suggest they could give back a few dollars and take some responsibility to fix things.
I don't care how they do it. Taxes, or whatever. But the people are rising up and if they don't do something, sharing a piece of the pie is going to be the least of their problems.
March 29, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's YOU'LL hear. (First sentence) Tsk!!
March 29, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all - I was responding directly to a comment that talked about shaming them into giving up their money.
Secondly, you are making a judgement that the rich and super-rich have stolen something that doesn't belong to them, and you are using an emotionally-charged issues to "back" your argument. In the process, you are throwing the current crisis and the past 20 years of class warfare into the same pot.
Unless you charge and prosecute people for doing something illegal, it's not really a coincidence that the commenter above used the word "shaming".
Because at the end of day it's exactly what you and Zbig and him are talking about.
March 29, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're talking about ethics and obligations, not grand larceny--though that's not out of the realm, either. The emotionally charge issues I'm using--and Zbig is using--have to do with shutting down operations and moving them overseas to get cheaper labor and then still calling themselves "American companies", with all the attendant benefits.
Or buying up companies in order to destroy them, with no thought given to the employees who are out of jobs.
Or fudging books and hiding money so as not to have to pay taxes on the bundles they've made.
But yes, 20 years of class warfare has indeed helped to create the current crisis. The richest were allowed--even encouraged--to get richer by avoiding regulations, by creating phony corporations that did nothing except move money around, and by subsidizing any number of programs that were designed to make them richer and the rest of the country poorer.
The numbers show that in the past 20 years fewer people rose to the ranks of the riches, but many of those who were already there made massive, obscene fortunes without having to produce a thing or even account for their dealings.
The labor force, the backbone of this country, meant nothing to them. Making money was their only objective, and no amount was ever enough.
So here we are. Yet you're suggesting that they should feel no obligation to this country? They should just shut their eyes to the pickle we're in, as if they had no hand in it, and go on living like royalty when 600,000 Americans are losing their jobs EVERY MONTH?
So tell me this: Who are YOUR heroes?
March 29, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I'm suggesting that everyone has equal obligations under law. If you want to create special "ethical" or any other obligations, then pass laws to that effect. Financial industry is an industry like any other. You don't need to be born with special moral gifts or be Mother Teresa to be part of it. As for your "numbers", yes it's true that rich got richer. But instead of pulling them back to the rest of us, I think we should be focused on lifting the poor. And the only solution you and your kind have been proposing is to take from the rich.
So - you hate them. But you depend on them. And you won't ever admit it.
March 29, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you didn't get my message, then. My solution for "lifting the poor" is to encourage union activity and work real hard at raising wages and benefits. But that would mean--oh, perfidy!--taking money. . .from. . .the rich!
Who do I hate? The rich? No, not all of them. A good number of them are fine people who live in mansions the size of small countries and sail around in boats a hundred times larger than my tiny cottage and fly planes that could hold a whole fleet of chauffeur-driven cars, but who still understand that screwing people isn't the way to get there.
But they're not the ones we're talking about here.
March 29, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words - you confirm what I had said.
You need the rich so you can take from them.
You are you completely and utterly dependent on them, even when you passionately demonize them. Because without the rich - you have no idea what else to do.
But I'm sure you don't even realize the irony of your position.
March 29, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an odd way to look at what we're talking about here. You DO know what we're talking about here?
I don't know how many ways I can say it. There are the rich and then there are the rich. Just as there are men and then there are men. Or there are women and then there are women. They're not all the same just because they appear to be the same.
I do not demonize all rich people. You didn't read that here. In fact, you read just the opposite but you chose not to notice.
If you want to argue about this, at least choose your points based on what has been presented. Your generalities are baseless and have nothing to do with the discussion.
March 30, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the end, unless we start printing money, not tied to any yardstick in the real world, and disregarding wealth creation the old fashioned way, (by increasing productivity), there is a finite pool of money out there which flows hither and non, depending on the tax/regulatory/vicissitudes of life. The wealth you speak of is no more a property of the rich than the middle class. But for the fortune of changes in the tax code, the excess wealth that has flowed in the direction of the wealthy these past 23 years is just as valid a possession of the middle class as the rich. 'Pulling' the poor/middle class up as opposed to subtracting from the wealth of the rich, would be limited under your model by the growth of the economy/production. The wealth redistribution toward the upper tail end of the curve from tax rates which were changed within the past 8 years alone would take an inordinately long time to even return the income distribution to Clinton era levels under your 'model'. Income redistribution: It was good for the rich for the last 20 years, and it will be good for the middle class at present.
March 30, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how the supposed inequities of "income redistribution" only became an issue when the poor and middle classes got back to expecting a piece of the pie. I wondered, too, how you "pull the working class up" without "redistributing". I'll bet there's an answer in that magic hat somewhere. It'll pop up any day now.
March 30, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone ever been able to establish how much money was printed under w?
March 30, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Ramona! I had missed this and I always love the Zbig!
March 29, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet, Brzeznski, like Dick Cheney is a member of the Trilateral Commision, and has demanded the displacement of US citizen workers, the deregulation of our banking and other industries, the lifting up of the corrupt status quos in the third world, to promote and rationalize them and his desire to impose the same corrupt status quo here in the US. It's rather like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank taking hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions and then pretending to rail against those they've been paid off by.
Brzeznski sought to create suffering, so he could then promote his agenda, by exploiting that suffering. Are you all so bone ignorant that you're indifferent to these truths? Crack open a real history book, and compare what we see now, with what happened to bring fascism, nazi-ism and communism into Europe in the last century. We're repeating those same mistakes, and those at the helm, promoting what is fascism, on both political extremes wish the same outcomes.
March 29, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the 'brilliant' doctor, architect of Carter's spectacularly successful foreign policy, advocates socialism. Wonderful. Let's ask the 'rich' to give up half their wealth (after being taxed at close to 40% initially). Then what? Tax the rich to feed the poor, till there are no rich no more. The great philosophers The Beatles penned that years back, when they faced a 95% tax rate in the UK. Who determines what is rich? Why are they expected to pay so much? How do they benefit from it? If his ignorant plan is enacted, the rich will simply leave, and we will collapse to third world status.
March 30, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to look around. We're already fast approaching third world status, thanks to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. When jobs are lost to the tune of more than a half-million a MONTH but the number of BILLIONAIRES rises at the same time, it's a pretty wacky argument that the rich should just be left alone in their pursuit of the good life.
And spare me the pity for the overtaxed rich. We're talking about billionaires here. We're talking about people who became spectacularly rich while millions of their fellow Americans lost their jobs, their homes, and any chance of attaining the American Dream. You want to explain to me exactly how that happened?
March 30, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are wrong on so many points. First, the number of billionaires has decreased by 33%. Secondly, when the rich were getting richer, so were the poor, now everyone is getting poorer. As far as people losing their homes, most of this mess is caused by people who should never have had a home to begin with. They borrowed more than they could afford to repay, and now they are defaulting. Many were speculators who bought numerous houses to drive up the cost in the hope a making a quick buck. It wasn't a few evil rich people, it was thousands of everyday people who made bad decisions, encouraged by stupid government policy.
March 30, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know where you're getting your figures, but in 1988 there were 13 US billionaires. By 1990, after Reagan opened the floodgates for them, there were 99. According to Forbes, March, 2009, today there are 359 billionaires who call themselves Americans.
On your other point, I can't believe anyone still thinks every person who had a home foreclosed did it to themselves. What nonsense. When 600,000 people lose their jobs every MONTH, how many of them do think can go on making house payments?
I really think you need to look around you. So much of what you're saying is just plain false.
March 30, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So where will "the rich" go when they leave America because of the "repressive" taxes here? The rich in this country prospered just fine with much higher taxes right up until Ronald Reagan launched his "trickle down" economy (how's that working out for us, America?).Actually, Reagan's tax policies would be considered "socialist" by the modern day loony right wingers who call themselves the republican party . By the way, the lyrics you quoted are from Ten Years After, not the Beatles
March 30, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Shasta, this argument that if we don't kowtow to the corporates they're going to leave, is odious to the extreme. That kind of lame thinking is what got us here today.
Everybody, from the government on down, gave them everything they ever wanted--and looked away while they took everything else, leaving nothing in return--because there was this hue and cry that they were all that held us together.
What gets me is that there are still people out there who cling to that notion. The corporate looters have taken everything and given back nothing. The proof is out there. Foreclosures, unemployment lines, tent cities, empty food banks, people dying in emergency rooms because they don't have insurance--and no chance to recoup because there's only a shadow of a manufacturing base anymore.
And we're supposed to feel sorry for the RICH??
March 30, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan's policies lead to a dramatic growth in gdp, his only failing was in not restraining spending. Not that the democrats would let him, of course. After Obama returns us to the Carter years, you can expect a new Reagan to emerge as the country moves back to the right.
March 30, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute. "After the country moves BACK to the right"? Where do you think we've been? Did you miss the past 20 years? Have you looked outside lately? Hurricane Katrina was nothing compared to the destruction the Right has caused. We're near death here, and it wasn't Jimmy Carter or even Barack Obama who tried to deal the death blow.
March 30, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong again doggie. You and Rush just like to throw your misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies out and hope that nobody is paying attention to the drivel you think is debate.
March 30, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey doggie. Just a quick note to keep you honest. The max rate anybody is taxed at in the US is 35%. In the year 2000 the rate was 39.6%. The Obama plan is merely returning the rates to those levels. Suck it up and be a man, if you can't be the lovable dog I know is in that obtuse skull somewhere.
March 30, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, back when I was working it was 39.6, now it matters little to me because I make diddly squat. I would sure like to have back that money that was taken from me, since it exceeds my current net worth. I for one would have been far better off to move to the Bahamas rather than pay 'my fair share'.
March 30, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
So do you think keeping the super-rich happy is going to give you your money back? Who do you think took it from you? Was it those damned "high taxes" that caused you to be left with diddly squat? How did the Right help you?
Questions, questions. All those damned questions.
March 30, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The republicans are so bankrupt of any originals ideas that their whole economic platform can be whittled down to one sentence, "be nice to corporations or they'll kill us".
March 30, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And we're STILL being nice to corporations. When are we ever going to learn? The lesson is, never turn your back on them. And for God's sake, don't ever trust them with your money.
Otherwise, let them eat cake.
March 31, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go on take the money and run!
It is only in the US you could make money like that. If you went to the Bahamas, you could live well, but do nothing there with it. It is not the environment in which money is made, only squandered.
Sorry to hear of your financial losses.
March 30, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink