« Why Are We Hunting Wolves? | Rowan Wolf's Blog | Obama's Bottom Line on Healthcare Reform? »

Let's talk class warfare shall we?


Let's talk class warfare shall we? Anytime someone raises the issue of the outrageous gap between the very rich and the rest of the population then either a politician or a TV talking head will caution against "class warfare." This is so disingenuous because there is an ongoing class warfare being waged on the population by the very rich - and their very well placed lackeys. The news and reports of late demonstrate the real warfare that is being waged - and who pays the price for it.

We keep hearing that we are recovering, but job losses continue, people losing their homes continues to rise, as does the number of people who are now homeless. So who exactly is recovering? Or what part of the economic sector is recovering? The financial sector (which has been the beneficiary of over $14 trillion between TARP and the Federal Reserve) seems to be doing well.- or at least the top management is. According to Andersen and Pizzigati, ten of the top 20 beneficiaries of the bailout bonanza have reported on bonuses. Adding up the bonuses of the top five managers from each of these firms comes to the tidy sum of $90 million in stock options alone.

Access to healthcare has been in the news a lot lately. Anyone who pays for health insurance is all too well aware premiums continue to rise as do co-pays and deductibles. Most people would acknowledge that we have both an insurance and healthcare access crisis on our hands. So one might think that the industry would be somewhat sensitive to the issue and try to control costs. And they are - by driving them upwards. In 2008, the CEOs of two major insurance corporations (Cigna and UNF) made a combined salary of $20.4 million. Insurance corporations had record profits for 2006, and again for 2007 - and as the economy crashed - remained strong for 2008. In fact, between 2000 and 2007 the top ten insurers saw profits rise by 428%.

Job losses and cutbacks continue to rise. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics August 2009 report, the numbers are grim:

Jobs lost in August: 216,000
Total unemployed: 14.9 million
No. working part-time because hours cut: 9.1 million
Marginally attached to labour force: 2.3 million (up 630,000 from August 2008)
Current unemployment rate: 9.7%
Total unemployment and marginal employment rate: 16.8% (Series LNS13327709 seasonally adjusted).

However, given that grim news, productivity is up. In fact, "Productivity Makes Biggest Leap Since 2003." Productivity grew at an annual rate of 6.6%. So those who are left in the labor force are not only taking up the slack, but actually producing 6.6% more than when their co-workers were with them. Why would any employer want to hire people back when they can get this kind of fear driven productivity out of their remaining employees?

Of course, productivity may be somewhat skewed because workers are getting screwed. A new study was released this week - "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers - Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America's Cities". The study looked at labor law violations in three cities (Chicago, LA, and New York), and interviewed 4,387 low wage workers. The commonness of violations was the big surprise of the study. It was common for workers to not get paid, not get paid over time, and be dissuaded from filing for worker's compensation. In fact, only 8% of workers eligible to file for worker's compensation did so. In a summation of the study written up in The Nation , there was this startling information (emphases mine):

... we and our colleagues found severe and widespread violations of employment and labor laws. One in four workers were paid below the minimum wage in a given work week. Fully 76 percent of those who worked overtime were not paid the required time and a half. More than two-thirds did not get the meal breaks they were entitled to. And of those who came in early or stayed late, 70 percent did not get any pay at all for the work they performed outside their regular shift.


As a result, the average worker in our survey lost $51 per week, or more than $2,600 per year for a full-time worker. We estimate that 1.1 million workers across the three cities are robbed of $56.4 million every week because of employment and labour law violations.

$56.4 million a week for workers in three cities! What might the total be across the nation? In the trillions a week? What if we expanded this study beyond the low wage workforce? What if we expanded it to include these super-productive workers who set a productivity records with a 16.7% unemployment rate? We know where that money is going. It is on an express packet to the top of the earnings spectrum. It is in the pockets of the financiers, and it is part of the monopoly money that fueled the collapse - and keeps any real recovery from happening. Further, the architects of the collapse are building new empires - at our expense.

However, those at the top want more than our hard work and willingness to be abused and bilked. Apparently, an economic recovery requires lots of individuals to go into debt. Not surprisingly, people have cut back on their spending. Job insecurity (for those with jobs) is high. For those lucky enough to get unemployment, budgets are tight. In a short article by Kathryn Harris discussing the personal debt situation in the UK she notes:"If everyone pays off their debts and cuts back on spending at the same time it could lead the UK economy into an even darker downturn than the one we are currently in." In other words, the consumer economy is based on debt, and we have structured (as have the Brits) an economy dependent on consumption.

However, unlike the drop in interest rates in the UK, US credit companies and banks have raised (or are raising) the interest rate on personal credit. I know that it ticks me off when a corporation that has received a ton of TARP funds tells me that "economic conditions require we raise interest rates and fees." I read that as "We got $150 million in TARP and 0% interest from the Federal Reserve, and so we need to raise your rate by 8% and charge you an annual fee of $35 to make an increased profit."

So folks are ticked off. There is public pressure to control these out of control profiteers, and THAT is called "class warfare?" However, the everyday abuse, exploitation, and gouging of the people, is what? Just the way things work? No, I think it is well past time to talk about the real class warfare that is waged by those at the top on the rest of the population.


Resources of Note
9/03/09 Conaway, NPR. New Job-Loss Claims Fall, Rise At Same Time. The Big Number Comes Tomorrow.

The double-edged sword of falling debt. Kathryn Hopkins. Guardian. 9/02/09.

Productivity Makes Biggest Leap Since 2003. (Yes, You're Working Harder.). Laura Conaway. NPR. 9/02/09.

There's a Bubble That Still Threatens the Entire American Economy ... and Few Are Talking About It. Sarah Anderson and Sam Pizzigati, AlterNet, 9/02/09.

Is Health Care the Next 'Bonusgate'?. Jennifer Liberto. CNN. 9/02/09.

So You Just Squandered Billions . . . Take Another Whack at It. Steven Pearlstein. Wa. Post. 9/02/09.


Low-Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says. Steve Greenhouse. NY Times. 9/01/09.

Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers - Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America's Cities. 9/03/2009.

Working Without Laws. Bernhardt & Theodore, Nation, 9/04/2009.


306 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

What is the greedy bourgeoisie doing to the unwashed proletariat in your examples that's actually illegal?

All this wailing about never-achievable social justice will remain just that until the actions by the villians of the day must break the law to be able do what they do.

user-pic

It seems you misspelled immoral.

user-pic

Thanks.

Those who break the law should be prosecuted. Those who do not do anything illegal should be left alone - unless the laws are changed.

Morality is by definition subjective.

"Morals are arbitrarily created and subjectively defined by society, philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience." - wiki.

Which means that different people are entitled to different set of moral values and none can be better than the other.

Laws, on the other hand, are a clear set of rules that apply or should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their class, wealth, gender, sexual orientation, religion, morality and so on.

I suspect you and Karl share a set of moral values that lead you to create your own vision of social justice, theories of who's at fault and how to punish them.

Unfortunately, that vision is predicated on pitting one group of citizens against the other because class warfare is the only explanation for injustice that you have found and the solution is already implied in how the issue is defined.

Given how USSR failed at building social justice by confiscating and controlling means of production in the name of the people, the redistribution of wealth is the only other socialist option available today.

But as you know, it has been in place in this country since 1913 and you're railing against the same evils in 2009.

So the dilemma is that it's difficult to have laws that treat all people equally, while singling out the wealthy "amoral" people at the same time.

Can it be that the vision that you and Karl have and that goes back to the French ideals of social justice (that it never had a serious chance to test in practice), could it be that this vision needs an session with an ophthalmologist?

user-pic

Wasn't the big problem in the USSR that they actually created a new class of oligarchs at the top?

user-pic

No, that happened after Yeltsin came to power.

user-pic

So Lalo, given a post on existing economic abuses and imbalances, you immediately - first comment - drag the comments off to French ideals of social justice, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, and... the USSR. You then start tossing in comments about how social justice can never be achieved, and morality and law are completely different things, but basically... you've torn the post from any mooring in evidence, real-world abuses and such, and made it into the sort of high level philosophical crap that undergrads so enjoy.

In short, you shat on the post. I'm sure to you it's lovely, fragrant, Lalo shite - but to me, smells like puffed-up, out-of-touch, right-wing, quasi-intellectual, scat.

And it's really badly-mannered.

The USSR? Can you really think of no better example? Damn girl, why not bring the Nazis into it? how about Gulags? Are we there yet? REALLY couldn't find anything more productive, in the way of examples, than them darned Russkies. (Sorry. And the Chinese.) Do you really look at the falling back of the American middle and working class, and think there is nothing that can be done? Don't you see that this post is a DEFENCE against the charge of class warfare? Here. Let's 3-step it for the compassion-impaired-

1. The Republicans scream that any and all policy shifts on behalf of reeling in powerful economic abusers (examples given liberally throughout this blog) is Class Warfare.

2. A post is written punching back.

3. Lalo comes on, believing him/herself to be the voice of the little guy, against the tyrannical hordes here at TPM, and compares the defenders of the poor/downtrodden to... the Soviets. Not Scandinavia or Canada or the US post-1932... but to the pesky Commies.

Now, you work hard to make it sound like you're the voice of the little guy here Lalo. You know, outnumbered, The voice of the sane minority. But you're not. That's just some air-freshener you occasionally douse yourself in. Your words and arguments, almost without exception, support the powerful, the rich, and the savage.

Lots of historical examples of people who got played like that.

user-pic

"you immediately - first comment -"

- I'm so sorry!

Next time, I'll wait until you've said what you think should be said before I type a word.

user-pic

Great idea. You really do need a keeper. Let's keep it simple, shall we?

NO DRAGGING THE NAZIS OR THE RUSSIANS IN. THEY'RE BUSY.

user-pic

Oh, gimme a break.

".. there is an ongoing class warfare being waged on the population by the very rich..."


The whole post is about an alleged class warfare, which as always turns out to consist of a mixture of legal and illegal activities.

user-pic

So your knowledge of western history is that weak that when confronted with issues of class inequality and conflict, you have to go tall the way to Moscow to justify your thinking?

Oh well. Napoleon... Hitler... Now it looks like we've got another one keen on making that long trek to Moscow.

user-pic

What's wrong with Moscow?

user-pic

It is a discussion like this...

I AM NOW A COMMUNIST

No ifs, ands or buts.

I do not give one fuck if you want a lemonade stand.

I do not care if you worship at some facility that provides easy access to self flagellation. (Not the kind lola likes under his 'wrap' while sitting on the couch wondering what sean will discuss next)

I have had it. I do not need facts anymore. they just get in the goddamn way.

I shall ignore the fascists, the corporate fronts.

I shall join the circus. Shovel tiger manure and the like.

And then, when the refuse dries, I shall sell it as a cure for general malaise.

And then, after my first ten million, I will purchase a Caribbean island, purchase plenty of flood insurance, and watch Law & Order all day long--except when I am fishing of course.

THE END

user-pic

Dear Quinn, THANK YOU for getting the point of my post!

Many times in this discussion I have almost wondered if I lost my mind and did not remember what I wrote. Then I would recheck it and sure enough I did remember. Not one mention of "party," democrat, republican, conservative or liberal - yet I am somehow a propagandistic ideologue who can't see beyond my party. Wasn't where I was going with the piece at all. However, the message is in the interpretation and not the intent. People take away what they will. I only hope that some seeds were planted, and maybe some arguments posed, that will move something in a positive direction at some point.

user-pic

Rowan said:

Not one mention of "party," democrat, republican, conservative or liberal - yet I am somehow a propagandistic ideologue who can't see beyond my party.

Heh, Rowan has obviously been reading accusatory posts by Jason and Lalo.

user-pic

Yes Lalo its the laws that are the problems. I would like to reprint Ellen's awesome comment from the other day.

Lalo and to a lesser extent, Dan K seem to think that the political left believes that income and/or property should be taken from those who have and given to those who haven't. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The political left recognizes that there exist members of society a portion of whose property is the result of their rent seeking activities. The Left believes that that manner of acquisition renders such property plunder and deserving of no more protection than any freebooters' property would enjoy in a respectable society.

Further, the Left believes society should recover the property from the despoilers forthwith and distribute it in a manner deemed appropriate by the majority -- hopefully but not necessarily to the least among us.

user-pic

Yes, I'm familiar with the fantasy world Ellen describes. But as I said above, the only country in the world that tried to do what "the political Left" believes in is the USSR.

In this country we decided not to confiscate, for reasons that escape me, but went straight into the redistribution of wealth.

Which makes a complete mockery of her claim that it is only those who engage in rent seeking that should be subjected to Left's rage.

user-pic

God you really need to spend less time here and read some history books, maybe travel. Ever heard of a little place called China? How bout the eastern European block? North Korea...Vietnam... No nothing?

user-pic

Let's not descend into vitriol, please. I've been to at least 15 countries, including to 5 for significant period of time and lived for more than 3 years in 2 other than the US.

user-pic

Regardless, a lot more places then just the USSR have tried various marxists approaches. China even today with an extreme capitalist system the state maintains ultimate ownership of things and can confiscate at will.

And of course I am sure you have visited lovely Scandinavia.

user-pic

USSR did exactly what Ellen fantasizes about, until it ceased to exist.

China started decades later than the USSR, but it is undoing it with great results, as we speak - so it's an ironic example at best to bring up.

user-pic

Life abounds with Irony. However, the ownership point stands.

user-pic

The irony refers to the fact that you bring up a country that did what Ellen wants and is running back to capitalism now.

In fact, I don't think there needs to be any more evidence on the tragedy that Ellen's version of social justice brings than USSR and Chine already provide.

As for ownership, private enterprise is expanding rapidly in China. I'm sure you will agree that in time The State will privatize what it owns. All signs point to that.

user-pic

Sigh.

Yes Lalo. I know the irony.

I also lived in China for a few years so I sorta know the history too, and it ain't pretty. And also the serious problems. It was very formative, I've come to agree with Deng: that "It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice."

Have a great weekend.

user-pic

Sometimes, you rawk, Saladin.

Perhaps Lalo just hasn't been in America enough.

The changes are marked, and rather sad.

user-pic

Bwak you always rock!. Yes that is a very insightful point. Maybe poor lalo has been away.

user-pic

Lalo said;

The irony refers to the fact that you bring up a country that did what Ellen wants and is running back to capitalism now.

Lalo is using the standard right wing tactic; warp what the other side says then attack your warped interpretation. Ellen doesn't want the U S to become the USSR, China or wherever, she simply wants to end the unfair advantage those at the top of the pyramid have with government due to their ability to buy what they want, advantageous treatment, from the 3 branches of Government.

Warren Buffet said it best; 'Sure there is class warfare, and my class is winning.'

Lalo obviously does not support the troops.

user-pic

"Ellen doesn't want the U S to become the USSR, China or wherever, she simply wants to end the unfair advantage"

- I have no doubt that the USSR and China also had no intention of ending up where they did.

user-pic

I'm so glad - and we've learned ever so much - through this little comparison of labor abuses in the US today to..... Russia. Did you note that, Lalo? The way we learned sweet fuck all? 17 comments in, and what we have is that you think it'd be like Russia.

IT'S THE RUSSIA!
THE RUSSIA WILL EAAAAAAAT US!
OH! THE RUSSIA! BAD BAD THE RUSSIA!
- Lalo

user-pic

Just wait till you get to his legal case below. I hope you are sitting down.

user-pic

Thanks Saladin - and Ellen. I had missed Ellen's comment and it is excellent and appropriate.

user-pic

What Saladin and Ellen said, doubled, and in spades.

user-pic

Really? I would not have pegged you for the radical who was willing to blow up the village in order to "save" it.

What Ellen suggests is so far outside the bounds of the Constitution it is not even a little bit funny. Laws exist to confiscate property illegally obtained through criminal acts. That money tends to go to the state and not the neediest among us, but I'll leave that aside for now.

There seems to be very little facts in this blog, though lots of single source quotes and BIG SCARY NUMBERS like 428% profit, but it mostly bogus. The article quoted apparently doesn't know the difference between profit and revenue, but we are supposed to take it as an objective source of information? The facts are that while insurance company revenues may have risen significantly, their profits are no higher than they have ever been.

We solve argue complex and interwove societal issues with a torch and a pitchfork.

user-pic

Duh. Last sentence should have been: We cannot solve complex and interwove societal issues with torches and pitchforks.

user-pic

Jason, the report in behind the article states, "Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies in 2007 rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion, according to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings."

Are you saying this is wrong? It lays this out in a table, refers to it as "net income" (not revenue), has sources, etc.

Or did you get it wrong?

user-pic

How much did their revenue rise in the same period? I am guessing around 428 percent. This is the sort of intellectually dishonest shit that comes from the left that totally negates any credibility they should have on a number of other very important issues.

user-pic

Wow. YOU'RE accusing the left of being "intellectually dishonest?" Including - in this case - Rowan? Try this dumbass. In response to an innocuous comment from amike, you said:

"There seems (sic) to be very little (sic) facts in this blog, though lots of single source quotes and BIG SCARY NUMBERS like 428% profit, but it (sic) mostly bogus. The article quoted apparently doesn't know the difference between profit and revenue, but we are supposed to take it as an objective source of information? The facts are that while insurance company revenues may have risen significantly, their profits are no higher than they have ever been."

Now, if you go to Rowan's link.... press on the little red letters under 428%.... you get to an article which states, "Click here for a copy of the full report." What that means Jason, is you should click the word "here" to get the full report. It's HERE.

Now go to page 8.

And what you'll see there is that profits DID rise, by 428%, though you claim they're "no higher than they have ever been...." It also shows Rowan and the article's author were correct in using the term profit, rather than revenue, and even though I suggested you go double-check it, you come back with more mealy-mouthed shit. Which is as bad as your non-response the other day on your blog.

You're the intellectually dishonest one here, Jason, and you owe Rowan an apology.

user-pic

Again, you use strawmen to avoid the main question to put that number in perspective. Did their total revenue rise by a corresponding amount? If you can't answer that question, you are no more correct in your assessment in that number than I am.

user-pic

Jason. 1st off, I think you've overused the word "strawman" to the point where the straw has fallen out. Time to get something new. And might I suggest this time you get a term you understand? Because my point was simply that you were wrong about whether they meant profit or revenue. They used the word profit correctly. You've claimed they didn't.

Now if YOU feel more context would be provided by revenues, then go to it. Sorry, that's not my job - to fulfill your research needs, whenever you get a hankering that hey, maybe this word isn't the same as that one, and something else would give us more context.

And not that I think it'd be a good argument for you, as they'd just turn and hammer you if revenues were also up 428%... and since that would mean health care premiums had likely risen 428%... which would be an insane failure by the insurance firms...

And actually, doncha think that's really unlikely in just 7 years?

As for your line about how I'm incorrect if I can't answer that question, let me just ask this. Did you go to the Clearthinker School of Research by some chance? Where you make asinine comments, and then demand that the other person find some research to back you up?

You're the one who's so all-fired convinced revenues went up 428%.... and is willing to call people dishonest about it. Why not get off your ass and find the number?

user-pic

Quinn, I'll trade you three strawmen for one ad hominem... And I'll throw in one "fringe liberal" for good measure.

I would think it would become apparent that your arguments are considerably less than elegant about the twentieth time you tell someone "Oh, but that's not what I said."

Jason should defend the argument as presented, or face the fact he is spouting indefensible bullshit. Instead, he dodges in some crazed game of intellectual whack-a-mole.

One thing you can say for him is that he's persistent, but then so was Sisyphus. Prepare thyself for yet another "ad hominem" to add to the collection. But don't expect any enlightening dialogue.

user-pic

I "defended" my argument by using the actual numbers quoted and the likely meaning behind those numbers. Quinn kept insisting that the numbers were bad on their face and decided to look no deeper. I am not the one being intellectually dishonest, but I am sure the mutual stroking you guys have going one feels quite nice.

user-pic

Maybe if you actually start having conversations about what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote, we could start to communicate. Then I wouldn't need to describe your tirades as arguments made of straw because they would have never been offered in the first place.

user-pic

Gee thanks for calling me a liar and alarmist. Or would you prefer propagandist? I tried to do an honest piece. Guess that is lost through the lens of political ideology.

I'll be sure to follow your model of reasoned even-handedness in the future.

user-pic

Perhaps you did try to do an honest piece, but it didn't seem so from my perspective as not a single reference was from a non-liberal source.

I certainly didn't call you a liar or an alarmist, just someone with a particular frame of mind and used resources that seem to compliment that.

You can take my "example" for whatever you like as many around here seem oddly reluctant to actually respond to what I actually write.

user-pic

What Ellen describes is nowhere near "the left" of politics, Saladin.

user-pic

The FIRE sector has taken over and everyone lets em because frankly they don't understand it. It sucks. Legal or not it is hurting the majority- which will further hurt the economy as their will be less consumption.

Our society as a whole creates wealth. The rich count their property in a currency that we as a country own. Our market capitalist system does a great job of allocating resources towards sectors that get rewarded, but not such a good job of determining what sectors should be rewarded. The rules that the market plays by are the laws that are passed and you are right they need to be updated.

However civilized societies have found that some vital functions are not able to be filled by that market system. So they have created governments with distribution to spread that wealth and ensure that necessary services (sewer, roads, environments, defense, education, old people) that are not glamorous or rewarded are still funded. It is better for us all.

I am fine with them plundering all they want. Life is a game and we humans need things to do to feel useful. It makes the world a more interesting place and some of them do some great things for the world. However I am also fine with taxing the shit out of them. I don't like what vast income inequity does to a culture. I don't like poor people begging me for money or scared children falling into whoredom or drugs. And I particularly don't like greedy assholes flaunting their vapid pursuit of shinny things as some sort of Superior galtism. I doubt you do either.

Let em plunder. Tax em.


user-pic

You contradict yourself all over.

There is nothing wrong with creating government services that benefit everyone. There is nothing wrong with requiring a universally mandated health and social insurance. There is everything right with helping those who cannot help themselves.

The problem is not the aim, it's the method.

The constitution (on which the laws are based) requires treating everyone the same under the law. A law that doesn't apply to everyone equally shouldn't be allowed to pass.

Contrast that with the socialist toolbox that simply has no other method except for applying the law unequally and creating standards that are not universal but completely arbitrary.

It's not the aim, it's the method.

user-pic

Huh?

Its called a property tax. Income tax? Capital gains tax?

What am i missing here?

Where did I say throw out the constitution (although I do agree with much of that- particularly the design and function of our bicameral system (not the indivudual rights though)- although that is whole nother topic.

What the hell are you talking about?

And would you retire that fucking avatar already. :)

user-pic

"What am i missing here?"

- If everyone is treated equally by laws that rely on the constitution, then the progressive income tax would be replaced with proportional tax. Tax relief would be provided to those who are below or at poverty level. Progressive tax is be definition not equal, regardless of the justification. Just one example, there's more.

Those who recognize socialist ideas as the only path to social justice have always had trouble with the concept of "the law is applied the same way to everyone".

user-pic

The only vitriol round here is your avatar.

Ok. bizarre logic games. The 14th amendment renders progressive taxation illegal? Damn! We could give you colored folks equal protection but that means social security has to go. Food stamps too. You are obviously not being serious today.

Have a great weekend.

user-pic

That's not what I said at all. But have fun your way, cheers!

user-pic

ROTFLOL! The constitution says every marginal dollar of income is equal before the law? Money is people too? You're hilarious!

user-pic

Of course that's not what the constitution says. But in true socialist fashion you're mixing up equality before law with material equality of people.

user-pic

Right. Because if one favors progressive taxation, one must favor equal income for all. There's no POSSIBLE middle ground here. Or possibly you're being willfully thick. I dunno...

user-pic

No, it's the other way around. It's because one wants equal income for all that he favors progressive taxation.

user-pic

Ok. I'll opt for 'willfully thick' then. Lalo, if one believes in progressive taxation, one is by definition endorsing a system of UNEQUAL incomes. If everyone has the same income, there is no progressive taxation.

As for justifications for a progressive tax system, there are a number one can opt for, only one of which consists in reduction of inequality. The US for instance does very little inequality reduction through taxes and government spending .

user-pic

Whatever makes you feel better.

My point, which you do not object to, is that the aim of progressive taxation of incomes is to correct material inequality. And that if the constitutional system of laws were to be applied equally to all citizens, then progressive taxation would not have happened, at least in the form that it did.

But anyway, cute games.

user-pic

Obey - "there are a number of (justifications.)"
Lalo - "the aim."

Gud reeding Lalo.

user-pic

Sure, Obey was actually commenting on something I said, incorrectly, and I corrected him.

Gud reeding Quinn.

Oh, and please - I need more bold type, all caps and rough words to know the feelings you're feeling right now.

user-pic

Obey was saying there are more than one justification for progressive taxation.

You said, "My point, which you do not object to, is that the aim of progressive taxation of incomes is to correct material inequality." (Emphasis added.)

I'd say more than one is not the same as "the" and therefore, to claim Obey does "not object" is goofy. N'est ce pas?

user-pic

"the aim of progressive taxation of incomes is to correct material inequality." Actually one possible aim could be that. The aim of some taxation is to provide for basic necessities for the poor. Which you seem ok with. Progressive taxation does that by taking from those more able to pay. Now the phrasing in terms of needs and abilities may well smack of socialism, but the AIM is not about correcting 'inequality'. Equality doesn't enter into it.

The US has a more progressive tax policy than Europe and has an economic policy providing more unequal distribution of income. Equality and progressive taxes are quite independent of one another.

user-pic

From the Marx/Engels manifesto regarding the aim, from 1948:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
etc,

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/mantwo.asp

user-pic

1848. And do you really think Marx/Engels are the first or only thinkers on this issue? If so, how about we give them credit for this -

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form....

Lalo, you really DO seem to want to argue about Russia, on a post about the United States in 2009. It makes you look pretty fanatical, always hauling a debate about income inequality in the US today and broken labor laws, back to Marx/Engels/Russia.

Truth is, it makes you look either really frigging stupid... or, it makes you a troll. I hadn't thought of you that way to date, funny enough. But the mania about Moscow, Russia, USSR, Marx/Engels makes you sound like a bit of frother.

I'm done here.

user-pic

No, I was arguing about taking the class warfare to its logical conclusion, as specifically described by Ellen as the political belief of the Left, and outlining the world evidence available to-date from countries that have done what she says the Left believes.

My point is that it is possible to achieve a system of social justice without destroying individual liberty to act without arbtirariness and coercion. We don't have to turn this country into a welfare state like Canada or Scandinavian countries to achieve social justice. But "the Left" is so caught in political theories that go against the spirit of this country and they don't see behind the Manifesto.

What you're doing is hunting me from comment to comment, screaming, yelling, insulting, splitting hairs over details and generally acting like an angry jerk and an asshole.

user-pic

Word.

user-pic

????

holy cow

"1. Marx likes prog. tax
2. Marx is bad
ergo
3. prog. tax is bad"

Is that it?

you've lost your marbles. Good night Lalo.

user-pic

No, of course that's not it and you know it. But good night to you too.

user-pic

Equality is not sameness. Progressive taxation can be entirely fair and "equal." It doesn't identify ANY INDIVIDUAL as being subjected to higher taxes. It simply says that if you earn an income of X, you will be taxed at Y. Many individuals move up and down the income tax charts through their lives; there's NO guarantee you'll be in the same bracket next year; and you CAN in fact change brackets, by changing jobs, etc. This is no different than the military, educational, immigration or health care systems having ratings and categories.

user-pic

"Equality is not sameness"

- Of course it isn't. And, I'm talking specifically about equality under law, not equality of outcomes or material equality.

"Progressive taxation can be entirely fair and "equal."

- It could be fair and equal if it was applied to the total tax system, including indirect, backdoor and hidden taxes, to make the overall tax burden proportional to the income.

user-pic

Let's retry. The eye problem and all.

"Progressive taxation can be entirely fair and "equal." It doesn't identify ANY INDIVIDUAL as being a particular or permanent target for higher taxes. It simply says that if you earn an income of X, you will be taxed at Y.

Many individuals move up and down the income tax charts through their lives; there's NO guarantee you'll be in the same bracket next year; and you CAN in fact change brackets, by changing jobs, etc.

This is no different than the military, educational, immigration or health care systems having ratings and categories.

user-pic

That's a bullshit non-argument.

No law identifies any specific INDIVIDUAL, except in honorary titles of some laws.

Proportionality is a universal principle directly related to all citizens receiving the same treatment under law. Progression in taxation is arbitrariness, a mild form or robbery.

user-pic

Proportional.... is not... same.

Progression... is not... arbitrary.

There are all sorts of non-proportional systems, for the armed forces (who goes in?), for voting (how old?), for schooling, for health care... and for taxation. They usually have reasons given for the various system designs, and people weigh what they think of them, and they change over time.

It's also the case that through the course of people's lives, and families movements through generations, their circumstances can change, and they are treated differently. There is no necessity that this be arbitrary or unjust or robbery.

My income has trebled from when I was young, and I face (or miss) all sorts of deductions and so on. Do I regard higher taxes and the various deductions as arbitrary? No. Unjust? Not really. Robbery? You must be joking. I TOOK OUT of the system at points in my life - such as during childhood when I was sick, then again during university, etc. I PUT IN during others. If the game ends and I have put more in, then I actually feel very LUCKY. Not hard done by, or unjustly treated.

Allied with this is Obey's point, that the marginal impact on my satisfaction of a dollar is different than for those making 1/3 what I do. Hugely different. So actually, in terms of the weight of impact, progression might actually end up weighing the same.

user-pic

Every example you give is voluntary - education, armed forces, voting, etc. Taxation is mandatory. So this justification of progression simply doesn't make sense.

It is arbitrary because the rate of taxation is decided by political elites, at the whim of the moment, without any relationship to reality of anything.

It is arbitrary because the very portions of incomes that will be taxed at these different rates are also decided in the same way as the rates.

You could have proportional income tax, at the same rate as the % of GDP Congress appropriates for spending, that would be fair, just, applied equally to everyone - and still achieve significant transfer of wealth to those at poverty or below poverty.

user-pic

Nope, they're NOT voluntary. When a nation goes to war, has a draft, sets out who mjust go - not voluntary. Nor is the voting age. Nor are many determinations/qualifications for medical treatment or education opportunity.

Arbitrary is because the rate is decided by politicians? That's goofy. You may not LIKE the rationales, but that doesn't make it arbitrary.

Again, proportional does not mean fair, just or equal. It's nice that you just keep repeating that though.

user-pic

Why do you insist on being silly?

A nation doesn't go to war every year. A war is an event that's outside of normal daily life. That's why the act of declaring war is prescribed by the constitution specifically. Even with Iraq and Afganistan we haven't had draft in this country yet.

Voting age is not arbitrary because its THE SAME FOR EVERYONE. But the ACT of voting is voluntary.

Taxes are mandatory, the tax rate is not the same for everyone and its not determined in accordance with any kind of universal principle.

user-pic

The constitution (on which the laws are based) requires treating everyone the same under the law.

Article and section, please. I am not aware of that clause.

user-pic

The rich are NOT being treated equally under the law - or else the rest of the population is not.

user-pic

14th Amendment.

user-pic

I'm afraid you will have to be more specific. I see no such verbiage nor implication in the 14th Amendment.

Obviously, the concept is absurd. If all laws had to apply in absolutely the same way to everyone, progressive taxation would be unconstitutional. It would be impossible to draft soldiers unless everyone were drafted. Eighteen-month old babies could vote.

user-pic

"If all laws had to apply in absolutely the same way to everyone, progressive taxation would be unconstitutional."

- Not only progressive taxation, but also DOMA and other coercive laws past and present would be unconstitutional.

The entire Civil Rights movement was based on the ideal that laws should apply equally to all citizens. Any law that doesn't apply exactly the same way to everyone is by definition discriminating against or coercing someone.

user-pic

According to your reading of the Constitution, there can be no law making the sale of liquor to ten-year-olds illegal. Brilliant.

user-pic

That's just stupid.

Any law passes that test if it places the same limits on everyone. Age limit on alcohol purchase does that - puts the same rule on everone. Same with voting age.

A law may still be a bad law, but at least it doesn't undermine the principle of equal treatment under law.

user-pic

I agree that the idea is stupid, but it's YOUR idea. If the law can discriminate based on age, why not race? Why not gender? Why not income level? Why not geographic region? Why not anything you can name?

And we're still waiting for the verbiage from the 14th Amendment that supports your thesis. Here's a hint: It's not there. It's just another right-wing "libertarian" fantasy. Tim McVeigh would love it.

user-pic

That's not what Lalo said. The law can't make it illegal for some ten year old kids but perfectly fine for others. It seems a pretty straightforward point and one supported by 230 years of precedent.

user-pic

Excuse me, Mr. Dolt, but did you not indicate in a prior conversation that you did not care to mix it up with me? If I am incorrect, I apologize. If not, buzz off.

user-pic

Just correcting self-serving spin wherever I encounter it. Without insults or slurs, by the way.

user-pic

Why, then, do you never write inane replies to your own comments? Ignoring spin, spittle, and bullshit, they tend to be content-free.

user-pic

The far left is just as hopeless as the far right, though it comes as little surprise.

user-pic

Oh no I no longer wish to treat everyone the same
I am past all that.

The constitution says whatever the repubs say it does for their purposes.

I do not wish equal rights for the oligarchy any longer. They are all felons.

Take all their property away from them now.

No delays. Just take it and distribute it back to the rest of the country where they procured it from in the first place.

Take no prisoners

user-pic

Well let's be honest and admit that the only difference between you and Bill O'reily is the choice of your enemies.

user-pic

Nice.

user-pic

Lalo,

and how does that differ from you and those you're snarking?

user-pic

Mr. Day, Your ceaseless rants against the "fascists" tells me you're no different than Hitler. You'll get no "Heils" from me. Good day, sir. I said, good day!

user-pic

Oy!

user-pic

Oi! You didn't like my impression? I can do a Donald Duck, too (not easy).

user-pic

Saladin, I don't like what extreme inequality does to our culture either. However, I believe that we could set limits on plunder - at the very least. Taxes are not adequate recompense in my opinion, particularly when you have people who consistently vote against their own best interests because they think that some day they might be one of the uber-rich plunderers.

user-pic

How about we bring back the Fairness doctrine to muzzle FOX? That would help a lot. People really don't understand just how poisonous that network is. But that probably ain't going to happen.

How would you propose to set limits on the plunder? I am all for reining in FIRE. Heavy regulation. Bring it. But seems to me that taxes have worked fine.

Not quite certain if we are quite ready to throw out our eon-long love affair with private property. That would be a civil war.

user-pic

My first suggestion would be to put a limit on profit. How anti-capitalist of me.

user-pic

Use a progressive capital gains taxes then?

I guess my issue is that I really don't have a problem with small entpenuers making a high profit margins. This is particularly helpful for innovative industries that invest in themselves (which we could use a lot of help on in the energy sector). However once industries settle Monopolies come to dominate and our shareholder capitalism forces them to keep finding profits somewhere. That usually comes out of us (either as workers or consumers).

I have a problem with the large pools of cash that dominate and making all the profits, particularly if they are made up. I just hate being raped by the big guys who don't add any value. This is what is happening in FIRE. These are huge pools of cash operating with rules they write and nobody understands. So we just give them money and hope for the best.

I'm not much of a capitalist on principle, I'm more with Deng XiaoPing (see quote to Lalo). I just want a better society and I will use any tool that works. Unfortunately since the advent of computers made it so much easier for companies to both increase productive and devise more effective ways to soak the customer we have been losing this game slowly but surely.

I am fine with the private ownership, but I want an effective counterwieght that keeps it in check, and continually churns our collective wealth. Use both Capitalism and Socialism.

I hate that we missed our opportunity this winter to reset our priorities. Seems to me that we are just turning into India complete with professional castes and insane income inequities. I hate it.

user-pic

Well said, Saladin. Progressive capital gains sounds like a great idea and not so drastic to be without chance of being bartered into passage. But I wonder if the climate in DC, the lock that big business still seems to have, in spite of the Party of Labor takeover, bodes well for radical reforms. Campaign finance and lobby reform apparently fell off the table after McCain-Feingold. And until the money influence is dampened, I can't see us winning the big battles. Excuse my ignorance, but what is FIRE?

user-pic

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.

Basically the rent seeking industries. Businesses that are necessary evils but don't actually produce much. Unlike companies that make stuff their 'innovations' are repackaged rent seeking. That's it. Be wary. Be very wary. They use their smarts to hose us.

We should not be rewarding them but they seem to own us. No matter how bad they keep fucking everything up.

user-pic

Thanks, I remember now (the fog of sleeplessness).

user-pic

Sal I lost your damn comment...But I am rendering unto you the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMC Site, given to all of you from all of me for this gem:

I am fine with them plundering all they want. Life is a game and we humans need things to do to feel useful. It makes the world a more interesting place and some of them do some great things for the world.

hahahaha I do not know exactly why except that you add: AS LONG AS YOU TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THEM!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

user-pic

Laws are precisely as arbitrary as morality, Lalo.

The USSR failed at bringing about social justice mainly because the apparatchik was so engaged in committing social injustices. The whole totalitarianism thing did not work out very well.

I have formulated my "vision" very simply: any job that is worth doing is worth the same as any other job. This solves the problem neatly, without penalising anyone in particular. Until such time, however, those who disproportionately benefit at the expense of others must forfeit proportionately more.

user-pic

Nonsense.

Laws SHOULD be applied to everyone equally and that is how they would not be arbitrary, but external and universal. Morality is internal, personal and subjective.

As far as you "vision" is concerned, what USSR did was create a class of administrators managing the assets on behalf of the people. Same in China. And you and Ellen would never be able to run away from the same problem if you fantasies become reality anywhere else.

user-pic

Your contrast would portray law rather perplexingly as a collection of innate rules over which there are no disputes, let alone differences between cultures or individual people. In reality, laws are just - theoretically - commonly agreed-to mores, and as such no less arbitrary than any other morality.

You may also want to stop speaking of "Ellen and I's vision", because it should be rather obvious that there is a fairly vast difference between our respective positions.

As to the second matter, with respect, I do not feel that your understanding of the political, social and economic mechanisms of the USSR and the failures thereof is sufficient to have a discussion about the topic.

user-pic

I'm not talking about the distinction between good or bad laws here, Karl. I'm talking about equality of persons before the law. Laws become arbitrary when they apply differently to different members of the same society. Like, for example, anti-miscegenation laws. You're confusing arbitrary with subjective, which is not surprising given your apparent desire to give morality the same status as law.

With regards to the USSR, this is indeed going in circles. You contend that they tried to build that system but that it was destroyed from within by the state administrators becoming the new elite. I can see how one can argue that it was just bad execution that won't happen again, but that's a rather weak defense.

user-pic
I do not feel that your understanding of the political, social and economic mechanisms of the USSR and the failures thereof is sufficient to have a discussion about the topic.

Co-sign.

Scandinavia?

Marx never thought communism could work in Russia because it was still an agrarian economy. He was right. In his analysis its development would happen in the most advanced capitalist economies. It didn't quite work out that way as a better hybrid model that exploited strengths from both approaches was developed. However can't help but notice how Scandinavia places on the quality of living and the social equity scale. But Lalo thinks those people are not real just ghosts living beautifully.

Regardless Lalo successfully hijacked this discussion with his brilliant legal insight.

user-pic

When did Scandinavia actually expropriate "plunder" like USSR and China, and according to Ellen's summation of "the Left" manifesto that you brought in here??

user-pic

Well, it actually is illegal to not pay people for time worked (for example). So the "villains" ARE breaking the law - and with impunity. However, as Karl notes, there is also the immorality of it. But the true capitalist is amoral like the system he supports.

user-pic

Then they should be prosecuted. What is so terrible about relying on the law to enforce certain standards?

user-pic

Nothing, and I wasn't arguing against enforcing the law against employers who violate labor laws. Clearly that ISN'T happening.

More generally regarding "law" I must add a caveat. I do not necessarily believe that just because a law exists that it is a good law, and that what is the law is right no matter what. There can be bad laws, immoral laws.

user-pic

Enforcing laws that are good or changing laws that are bad is what happens in countries with engaged citizens. As long as most of us don't vote in most elections, we will continue to get screwed by the powers that be, no matter which side of the fence they operate on.

In the absence of that happening any time soon, the best that democrats can do is inspire all Americans regardless of party to support creating a system that is fair. Tossing any group on the bonfire, even the admittedly overly self-indulgent "rich" or mismanaged corporations, seems an unlikely tactic to win people to your side.

If the numbers have to be selectively quoted or massaged or outright manipulated to make the point, then it seems to me that the wrong argument is being made.

user-pic

If you're referring to thew 428% profit as one of the numbers that "have to be selectively quoted or massaged or outright manipulated to make the point..." please do double-check.

And if you're wrong, you probably should wander back and think about retracting some of these charges.

user-pic

I went to the source material, which stated that insurance company profits had risen 428% in seven years. It didn't give a source for the number, but cited the rise in premiums as the cause which leads me to believe they meant revenue and said profit, which is hardly a surprise given the source of the article.

user-pic

You say you "went to the source material" but it "didn't give a source. How about looking at the table below the first mention of 428%, under which is written,

"Source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The companies are listed in the Corporate Library’s “Insurance Health and Disability” category. All companies are members of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group."

Is that no good?

You then reargue that this "leads me to believe they meant revenue and said profit, which is hardly a surprise given the source of the article."

No Jason, they meant profit, and said profit. But you're happy to keep insisting they must be wrong, and accusing them - and Rowan - of intellectual dishonesty, which is the sort of run-off-at-the-mouth-crap I'm coming to expect from you, because apparently you're entitled, as someone who can't/won't read, but just want to run around bleating about the bad bad Left, and how we should all become Republicans.

user-pic

You continue to not respond to my follow-on point when I conceded that even if that number is correct for profit, it means nothing unless compared to total revenues and percentage of profit against those revenues. It is called context.

I already admitted your point, so your continued intransigence and using my mistake as way to score cheap partisan points shows you are clearly not interested in knowing the real facts that are underneath such a fantastic number.

Sounds a lot like the way "republicans" you hate so much have always discussed issues. Great job on becoming that which you hate.

user-pic

If you want to know the revenue number so bad, and think it's going to be of such vital importance to this debate, then why in the f*ck don't you go FIND it Jason?

As for me, I'll stick to the view that I very much doubt revenues have risen by 428% in 7 years, as I very much suspect premiums didn't rise by 428% in 7 years, and if they did. But all I've found in my searches are some year-to-year figures which moved up by ~10%. 428% increases in revenue seem unlikely to me.

user-pic

You'll stick to the number that backs up your world view without seeking to understand what it really means. Absent total revenue, profit numbers are meaningless.

user-pic

Uhm. What's described in his article IS illegal. Hence the term labor LAWS.

user-pic
... we and our colleagues found severe and widespread violations of employment and labor laws. One in four workers were paid below the minimum wage in a given work week. Fully 76 percent of those who worked overtime were not paid the required time and a half. More than two-thirds did not get the meal breaks they were entitled to. And of those who came in early or stayed late, 70 percent did not get any pay at all for the work they performed outside their regular shift.

Since you appear to be the assigned conservative troll for this thread, I've highlighted the relevant statements above. Let me know if I need to rephrase them in smaller words.

user-pic

Since you appear pratically giddy with your little gotchas, I don't think I have much to say to you, until the excitement that prompts block quotes and bold type wears off.

user-pic

Your original post:
--
What is the greedy bourgeoisie doing to the unwashed proletariat in your examples that's actually illegal?
--

How exactly do the clearly illegal things highlighted in my post count as "gotchas"? Unless you mean that I "gotcha" not reading anything past the first paragraph of the article.

user-pic

In other words, the original post is really just a rant about the laws not being enforced?

user-pic

Lalo,

you're consistant, I have to hand you that. Whenever you're handed a legitimate, logical rejoinder, as Matt Jones just did, you retreat by offering irrelevant answers.

user-pic

The original post (my original post) is not a rant about unenforcement. You are the one who derailed the discussion into "law" rather than what the my "rant" IS about - the rhetoric of "class warfare" being used to hide the real exploitation of the population. THAT you referred to as "wailing" and chose not to pursue the actual point of the post.

user-pic

"You are the one who derailed the discussion into "law"

- Maybe that's because your title and the first few paragraphs are generalities about class warfare but the rest are examples of alleged illegal activity?

user-pic

No, the only legal example was the abuse of low wage workers. The other examples of profit taking were not example of "illegal" activity, or even framed as being illegal. Rather they were examples of the overall "warfare. "

user-pic

Lalo wanted to drag the debate off to Russia. He/she did. And then the argument that equal means same. And to claim that somehow these things weren't illegal. A claim which was trashed within the post itself.

So. Being the long weekend and all Lalo, got any more crappy ideas that you'd rather discuss than the post?

user-pic

If you're so outraged about a hijacked discussion, why not simply move down a thread or two and start from there?

And yet, for some reason you decided to butt into a hijacked thread multiple times offering nothing substantive to say except for "equality is not sameness" which is a bogus objection sine it has nothing to do with the anyone's point.

As for Russia, that reference comes in connection specifically to Ellen's comment on another blog that was brought in here. You must have felt a great urge to join a hijacked thread before you had a chance to read it and connect the dots.

But I don't mind one bit that you make your comments more hysterical than anyone else's. Because you're right, equality doesn't mean sameness.

user-pic

Pssst Lalo, I don't know how to tell you this but he dismberered your point.

I know logic is hard. But you get points for consistency.

user-pic

"I know logic is hard"

- I can tell.

user-pic

Sorry, but you raised Russia/USSR at 5:03. The Ellen quote came in at 5:38. You yanked the blog over to the same tired ditch, and you don't want to own it. 5:03 vs 5:38.

As for me having nothing of substance to say, that may be, but:

1. I did blow a hole in Jason's supposed (but not actual) argument that the facts of the case were wrong...

2. Then I joined Obey & co. as they spiked your brain dead argument around equality and sameness. Which you still haven't at all responded to. Neither the fact that "proportional" has no automatic relationship to equal (much less same), nor that a system can have different impacts and consequences, and yet be entirely fair as long as people can move about and change which impacts they receive.

All in all, not a bad blog's work.

Beyond that Lalo, let me say that your schtick is to state obnoxious, insulting, things - but just to do them in this flat, inanimate tone. Then, if anybody points out what you're saying, and is angry about it, or swears with bad bad words, or whatever... then you can do the "voice of reason" schtick. Why, they're "hysterical" and "outraged."

Meanwhile, your contribution was to compare Rowan's approach and mindset to RUSSIA/USSR - a system and nation which killed tens of millions of its citizens. But you're such a fake that you feel painting someone as being the same as mass murderers is WORSE than calling them an asshole.

And while you'd consider it a sign of lower intelligence to compare someone's views to those of Hitler and the Nazis, you seem quite happy to walk in here, swinging your flaccid intellect, and compare the poster and others to the USSR, and thus, Stalin, the gulags and all that baggage.

You ideas and comments - consistently - do nothing more than offer a defense or distraction from the actions and attitudes of the rich and powerful. Your comparison today was as mindless as the most idiotic labelling of someone as a Nazis.

THE RUSSIA! IT'S GONNA EAAAAAAT YA! - Lalo