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.
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.
September 5, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems you misspelled immoral.
September 5, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
September 5, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't the big problem in the USSR that they actually created a new class of oligarchs at the top?
September 5, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that happened after Yeltsin came to power.
September 5, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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.
September 6, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with Moscow?
September 6, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
September 6, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rowan said:
Heh, Rowan has obviously been reading accusatory posts by Jason and Lalo.
September 6, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Lalo its the laws that are the problems. I would like to reprint Ellen's awesome comment from the other day.
September 5, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
September 5, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Life abounds with Irony. However, the ownership point stands.
September 5, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes, you rawk, Saladin.
Perhaps Lalo just hasn't been in America enough.
The changes are marked, and rather sad.
September 6, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak you always rock!. Yes that is a very insightful point. Maybe poor lalo has been away.
September 6, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo said;
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.
September 6, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"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.
September 6, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
September 6, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wait till you get to his legal case below. I hope you are sitting down.
September 6, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Saladin - and Ellen. I had missed Ellen's comment and it is excellent and appropriate.
September 5, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Saladin and Ellen said, doubled, and in spades.
September 5, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Duh. Last sentence should have been: We cannot solve complex and interwove societal issues with torches and pitchforks.
September 6, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
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?
September 6, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
September 6, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 7, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 7, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Ellen describes is nowhere near "the left" of politics, Saladin.
September 5, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
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. :)
September 5, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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".
September 5, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what I said at all. But have fun your way, cheers!
September 5, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFLOL! The constitution says every marginal dollar of income is equal before the law? Money is people too? You're hilarious!
September 6, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
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...
September 6, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's the other way around. It's because one wants equal income for all that he favors progressive taxation.
September 6, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
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 .
September 6, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey - "there are a number of (justifications.)"
Lalo - "the aim."
Gud reeding Lalo.
September 6, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
September 6, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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.
September 6, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
September 6, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
September 6, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
????
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.
September 6, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, of course that's not it and you know it. But good night to you too.
September 6, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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.
September 6, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rich are NOT being treated equally under the law - or else the rest of the population is not.
September 5, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
14th Amendment.
September 5, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"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.
September 6, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to your reading of the Constitution, there can be no law making the sale of liquor to ten-year-olds illegal. Brilliant.
September 7, 2009 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 7, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 9, 2009 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 7, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 9, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just correcting self-serving spin wherever I encounter it. Without insults or slurs, by the way.
September 9, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why, then, do you never write inane replies to your own comments? Ignoring spin, spittle, and bullshit, they tend to be content-free.
September 9, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The far left is just as hopeless as the far right, though it comes as little surprise.
September 9, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
September 5, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well let's be honest and admit that the only difference between you and Bill O'reily is the choice of your enemies.
September 6, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice.
September 6, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
and how does that differ from you and those you're snarking?
September 6, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
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!
September 6, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy!
September 6, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oi! You didn't like my impression? I can do a Donald Duck, too (not easy).
September 6, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My first suggestion would be to put a limit on profit. How anti-capitalist of me.
September 5, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
September 5, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I remember now (the fog of sleeplessness).
September 6, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
September 6, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
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??
September 6, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then they should be prosecuted. What is so terrible about relying on the law to enforce certain standards?
September 6, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 7, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhm. What's described in his article IS illegal. Hence the term labor LAWS.
September 5, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 5, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, the original post is really just a rant about the laws not being enforced?
September 6, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"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?
September 6, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
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. "
September 6, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
September 6, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
September 6, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I know logic is hard"
- I can tell.
September 6, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
September 6, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"and you don't want to own it. 5:03 vs 5:38.
- No I don't. I will concede that my comment at 5:38 was meant to be a response to both Rowan's at 4:31 and Karl's at 4:08 and things may have been clearer if it was placed after both of their comments.
I'm glad you feel good about your daily contributions. However, your self-congratulations about winning arguments are just that. The point about eqality vs sameness is irrelevant because it isn't even the point. I concede nothig else as there is nothing to concede.
The rest is really brash loudmouth trash not even worth responding to. Let's call it your schtick: to react to something you don't agree with in the most obnoxious, insulting way possible and then accuse others of "provoking" you.
Do me a favor - skip my comments in the future or take a valium before responding.
September 6, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. You "don't want to own it." Great. What a cool maneuver. No attempt to avoid the fact that you were bullshitting by saying someone else raised Russia first. You just don't want to own it.
2. You concede nothing else because there's nothing else there? Eye problems? This is now the Sargeant Schultz defence. I SEEEEEE NUTHING!
3. See? YOU won't even own the Russia comment, and all the mud you smear on someone with that little gem... but move right into your schtick where I'm "really brash loudmouth trash." You're the voice of reason, they're "hysterical" and "outraged."
Do me a favor - skip taking your valium. You've wandered long enough in the Land of the Undead. Zombie arguments don't show you at your best. THE RUSSIA!!! IT WILL EAAAAAAT US! THE RUSSIA!
September 6, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is their to own about the Russia comment? That the USSR was built as a result of class warfare and failed miserably?
September 6, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's your most insightful comment of the day Lalo. Really a very penetrating look into the structural difficulties of the US. So I think I'l just leave it there, unadorned.
I think we should call it "Lalo's Original Thought."
September 6, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, suit yourself.
September 6, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, the original post is really just a rant about the laws not being enforced?
September 6, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAXKIKehbc
Oh come one Lalo, we can do this right now!!!
Because you believe in more than the ads on cable
I know you can. Just seeeeeeeeeeeek deeeeeeeeeeeply within your soul. WE can do this. hahahahah
September 6, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
A voice of reason. Thanks, Lalo.
September 6, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rowan, just so.
I am getting so tired of this crap.
September 5, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am tired of the code words to scare people away from righteous indication - and action.
September 5, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
We might start by adequately funding the Legal Services Corporation -- $321 million (1981); $390 million (2009) -- that's $164.6 million in 1981 dollars.
Now, if we only had a Democratic majority in Congress.
September 5, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be unrealistic. We don't have 75 votes.
September 5, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the most funny (as in hysterical) comment I've ever read on TPM. Thank you!
September 5, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellenb,
heh, truly on the majority thing.
Ellen, it seems that intelligent women are a threat to some in here, one can observe this by the attacks.
Perhaps the ghost of Socrates is following them around.
"Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior."
Socrates
September 6, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That one made me chuckle. There is wisdom in old Soc's quote - though not necessarily what he thought it meant (wouldn't know). However, from the perspective of the higher status group, any equality gained by lower status groups is perceived as usurpation.
Thanks for sharing that.
September 6, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rowan said:
Heh, excellent observation.
September 6, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
Are you gonna tell me that a mechanic in Dallas or a farmer in West Virginia are going to stand for this, even if they vote republican because of issues including abortion, gun control, presidential speeches directed to elementary schools....
Yes Rowan, there is class warfare going on in our streets every single hour of every single day. And who wins? Who always wins?
90% tax rates are not a bad idea.
September 5, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
... unfortunately yes. Clearly "yes" since there seems to be a vocal minority that seems tremendously afraid that the government might hurt insurance company profits with a public option.
September 5, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is as if we have this huge banquet table upon which sits a bountiful feast.
At the head of the table is the choicest and most enriching dishes -
While the rest of the table holds only bones with bits of meat, produce past its' prime and other lesser tidbits, with just a taste left to savor and digest.
Now, the answer is to pass around and share all the dishes, but instead, those fortunate enough to be able to sit at the head of the table seldom share with those at the end.
Instead there are those at the head of the table who reach out to scoop up some of the lesser fare to add to their plates, even as they hoard what is in front of them. It seems they just can't get enough to fill their bloated gullets.
We all may have a seat at the table, but too many are unable to achieve the nourishment and sustenance needed and more oft than not, deserved.
Thanks Rowan. Rec'd.
September 5, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam, in some ways an apt analogy except those at the scrap end of the table, grew and produced what is at the head of the table - including the plates and cutlery, and they will also be the ones who clean up after the feast.
September 5, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
How true. That was the appetizer! And for dessert, because the grossly overfed are still hungry for more - they manage to belch out the rallying cries and lies to defeat HCR!
September 5, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have nothing to add, but I thought that my avatar would be appropriate here. Great post!
September 5, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!.
Been missing your pic since KarltheMarxist decided to go palsy on us. Thanks!
September 5, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
thats right karl. You just keep on keepin on.
hahahahahah
September 5, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
;~)
September 5, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.
Ummm.... NYC, LA, and Chicago are not "just" 3 cities. They are the 3 largest cities in the country. Assuming for the moment that only a strict definition of city was used (and does not include the "great metro area"), these 3 cities combine for a total population of 14.0M or about 4.6% of the US population.
If we assume that the $56.4M / week were in a similar manner around the rest of the country, we would find that it would be about $1.2B / week lost.
That's BILLION. With a "B". Not TRILLION... which is 1000 times greater.
Now this number, $1.2B/week, would probably shrink more because (a) there is a higher density of low wage workers of this type in the 3 largest cities, (b) they may have included metro areas, not just strict city boundaries in which case there are even more people scooped into the study, and (c) much of the farming community doesn't work this way.
So let's stop with the fuzzy math and histrionics... because it weakens the case by showing clear bias.
Next: Individual salaries, while sounding impressive, mean nothing. You can pay many of these executives ZERO dollars and it wouldn't be more than the spitting into the ocean of "giving back" into the economy. (Remember that 1 million goes into a trillion, 1 million times.)
**************
If you want to get a real handle on things (rather than a simple jealous / revenge based type of argument -- which many of these blogs begin to sound like) look at some larger picture studies.
Much of the "wealth" discussed is not about liquid wealth -- or even stocks. It's "business equity" which is pretty much useless if you are going to try to buy groceries with it.
But the numbers tell a story that is compelling: wealth is exponentially distributed throughout society. This is why the categories are 1%, 9%, 90% on some of the graphs.
Now for a little clear thinking:
To a large degree, the wealth in the country has always been concentrated by a roughly consistent percentage -- about 66%.
Why the consistency? Part of it has to do with the business equity ownership. That illiquid part.
So what is the thing that primarily creates the little fluctuations?
TAXES.
Now if one further reads that link (which you should), you will see that 20% of the country is doing "okay"... as in "wealthy". Not 1%. 20%. This is a critical point. It means many people like the system the way it is. At a minimum: 1 out of 5.
The CEO pay getting out of whack is an interesting graph as well: Figure 7. Note it goes crazy during the Clinton years. Yes, the Big Dog himself ushered in some of this. How? In part it was part of the tech boom which contributed to much of the shenanigans described in the article. But I'd also suspect it had to do with the fact that during that time the Financial Sector passed Manufacturing as the dominant one in our economy. In other words, the US culture, not the GOP specifically, has been trending in this direction for quite a while. Again, people at TPM intuitively are getting the idea that both the GOP and Dems are closer than one might think.
So. What's the point of this comment? Merely to point out that good numbers are out there to work with. And that the situation that you may feel like you understand intuitively has a lot more complexity in it. And if you don't deal with things in terms of its complexity, you won't be changing the situation any time soon.
I suggest anyone who reads Rowan's blog, take a serious look at the article I linked to.
September 5, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker you raise some good points, and I'll even give you that 4.6% of population (which is different than workforce, but let's not pick nits). Let's also keep in mind that the study's projection was exploitation of low wage workers only.
I am familiar with the article you link to and with Wolff's analysis. Quite good as far as they go, but there is one big oversight in both - wealth held outside the U.S. This is what the big push on Switzerland has been - release the information on those accounts held by those in the U.S. I strongly suspect that the top 20% is not equally represented in that off-shoring of wealth. Further, the wealth and income span within that top 20% is HUGE. The top 20% starts at roughly $91,705 (77% of those households had 2 or more earners) Check wikipedia household income I doubt that many people would consider a family income of 91K "wealthy."
Further, while individual wealth is important, it is corporations that are also holding wealth outside the country. A common practice for major corporations (according to my daughter who is a corporate accountant for a fortune 500 company) is to move virtually all money outside the country and only bring enough back in to pay the bills - or as close to it as they can get.
Finally, I don't buy the assumption that low wage workers are concentrated in major cities. I have way too many friends and relatives living in rural areas across the country. Wages in those areas (overall) are beyond depressed vis a vis (most) urban areas. Watched the news about Standish lately (or read flowerchild's blog)? Standish is hardly a booming urban area.
This information is for Oregon:
So thanks for sharing.
September 5, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rowan,
The 4.6% population is not a bad estimate as I compared it to total US population, not US work population -- apples to apples.
And of course there is a big difference between the top 1% and the 20%th percentile -- as I said, the wealth is distributed exponentially. And always has been.
As far as your $90K number -- you have neglected to factor in cost of living. $90K in Des Moines, IA is equivalent to $145K in Los Angeles. I'd call that fairly comfortable.
Again, the wealth is distributed exponentially so that there is a large shift between even the 20% and 18% percentiles.
We can talk about the differences between the urban vs the rural poor. That's the topic of a whole other blog.
In the end, you point out something that is the central thesis of the comment: numbers must be picked over very carefully. Number should be gotten from primary sources (like US Federal sites) and parsed with care during the normalization process. Obviously, whole theses can (and are) written about this topic. But I think it's still important to look wider in scope that some news article over the past few years to gain insight, if not to completely understand, some underlying issues.
September 6, 2009 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Especially when one only chooses those articles that back up your preexisting views.
There seems to very little interest in sourcing objective articles or even calling the ones that were used out on rank idiocy - like confusing a 424% gain in revenue as a 424% gain in profit.
That isn't even half-ass credible and should be dismissed as any sort of serious source of information.
September 6, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know CT this is a great comment. Informative, interesting, thought provoking, and calling Rowan on her facts and slight exaggeration. Good work.
But really. The "sigh", the 'everybody here is an idiot' tone? Is it necessary? Just saying.
September 6, 2009 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
September 6, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.
September 6, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touche. funny shit jason, but lalo is one guy who was playing around (and his avatar screams prick so really all's fair).
What's really interesting to me is that he pulls the same cowardly maneuver you do when he is called on his ridiculous logic. Screams "thats not what i meant' and runs away.
cheers
September 6, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm here. And if you read the comments again, you'll see that you response had indeed nothing to do with what I was talking about.
September 6, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Sigh was for your implication that I didn't get the irony. I found it ironic.
September 6, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was objecting to "cowardly maneuver" and "ridiculous logic". I don't care about offensive but neither is true.
September 6, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your claim of the 14th amendment rendering progressive taxation unconstitutional is either a simplistic misunderstanding or a willful lie. Either way it is idiotic.
Your further claim that "that is not what I was talking about' when indeed that is exactly what you are talking about I interpreted as cowardly.
September 6, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I give up on your cowardly maneuvers, word twisting and "wait until you see what she did!".
September 6, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
sigh.
Now I am back to where we when we started your bizzaro world legal digression:
"what the fuck are you talking about?"
but hey more points for consistency.
September 6, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find myself usually in agreement with Lalo, which is a huge shift in consciousness for me given where I started 18 months ago.
The more I see his icon, the more I think it is actually an homage. Obama is far more Lincoln than Kennedy to me. In a perfect world, he would have been a republican president with Hillary as VP or vice versa.
Glad you got a laugh though because I had a little chuckle myself. Cheers as well!
September 6, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have a great Labor Day. (don't take it too personally but I will probably still call you a coward on occasion- but hey there is plenty of time to work on your cognitive dissonance).
Regardless. Cheers!
September 6, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strategic retreat isn't cowardly. Thinking with my brains instead of my balls is called maturity where I come from. Have a great labor day as well!
September 6, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You too! But arguing logic points is the name of the game. If your logic was faulty do what I do.
Strategic retreat in this setting would be to simply concede the point and quickly change the subject. You and lalo never conceed, you just change the subject or obfuscate with a "thats not what i said- which often it is exactly what you said". It drives people like me, quinn, obey, sleeping jesus, ogd CRAZY. Like absolutely foaming at the mouth angry. It is very hard to be civil (like I want to clock lalo for his intellectually dishonest 14th ammendment requires a flat tax argument- its pure bullshit. Right up there with the libetarians who argu the federal government can't tax).
Regardless I would appreciate if in the future you found a way to concede some of your faulty thoughts (like the kennedy example) and work on your quality contributions (you know like corn subsidies).
Anyway check out my Labor day post for a nice respite from this. Fun Videos!
Peace
September 6, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment isn't addressed to me but you talk about me so I want to say something in my defense.
If you take care to read every single comment I made on this blog, you will find nothing but logic and consistency in my views. Perhaps it's the nature of comments and responses to responses that doesn't seem conducive to a logical sequence of arguments that you will find appropriate.
I believe that 14th Am provides for equal treatment under law to everyone. And yes, I believe progressive taxation is incompatible the values on which this country was built. Our past and present is full of laws that should never have been passed in the first place.
For reasons i cannot explain in any way than a socialism-inspired idea of social justice, you refuse to view progressive taxation, gay rights, miscegenation laws as essentially similar types of affronts to personal liberty. They produce very different outcomes, clearly, but they are all unjust because of their arbitrary nature.
I also think that you rage or anger at me is driven by misplaced stereotypes and habit. I'm not and have never been a social conservative. I'm not against taxation. I'm not against market regulation. I'm not against gay rights. I want the same end results you want, but our difference is how to get there.
Anyway, I thought you words at me in this thread were highly offensive, unwarranted and based on wrong understanding of what i said, deliberate or not.
September 6, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo. I do not respect disingenuous.
1. You KNEW that the 14th amendment says nothing about progressive taxation. It is one thing to say you think it is against the founding principles- but it is quite another to say that it is unconstitutional.
We have had progressive taxation for nearly a century and it has NEVER been unconstitutional. You know this.
2. My rage has nothing to do with your libertarian political views. It all stems from the fact that YOU ARE LYING (see 1.). I have never said anything about gay marriage, miscegenation, or any other conflation you might make. The fact that YOU LIE means that you do not respect me as a conversation partner. Therefore I don't really give a shit about you either.
3. You did not bother to read her post. Everything in it was documented and much was clearly against the law. You did not care.
Okay. Are we clear. By willfully lying and belittling 'leftests' You clearly don't respect me, Rowan, or much of the TPM community so I don't respect you. You don't deserve civil treatment.
Now I know that logic is hard for you so if you are going to cherry pick what to respond to here here is a hint point 1 is the axiom.
September 7, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say 14th AM "SAID" it was unconstitutional.
Fuck you.
September 7, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
When asked for constitutional cite for your 'unconstituional' claim you said 14th amendment.
Peace be with you.
September 7, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I said:
"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."
September 7, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peace. We've been through this Lalo.
I don't want to fight anymore today. Check out my videos I posted for a nice mental health break. They are pretty.
Peace.
September 7, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a liar. Gutless shameless liar.
September 7, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peace be with you.
September 7, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saladin:
You might check your list and apply those standards consistently. Some on your list are very guilty of the thing you are talking to Jason about.
I find it really interesting that when some here start showing they can't push a point as far as they would like, they immediately start a lecture about "tone".
I have found some of the posters at TPM to be just as close-minded and language bending as any teabagger.
I don't say this as a criticism of you or your comments but it's certainly a larger issue at TPM.
September 7, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you really write this?
"I find it really interesting that when some here start showing they can't push a point as far as they would like, they immediately start a lecture about "tone". I have found some of the posters at TPM to be just as close-minded and language bending as any teabagger.
Wow. Insert pistol in mouth, pull trigger.
September 7, 2009 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, I love you and I owe you at least twelve ham and Swiss sammiches.
Really.
September 7, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was the context of the "retreat or advance" statement:
This had zero to do with this or how we have interacted on it. It was clearly a reference to the fact that I choose to find common ground and work from there, while your crew prefers the storm the Bastille at every turn, vanquishing the enemy with your righteous fury.Don't turn this into a conversation over relative styles of debate on this blog. You guys rarely respond to what I actually write because you have a very particular frame based on decades of trench warfare and that colors your perceptions of every single word that comes from my pen. That is why it pisses you off when I don't respond in kind and try to bring the conversation back to the original point rather than whatever partisan tangent has been introduced.
The only Boomers on this site that I get along with now are moderate republicans and conservative democrats, even though I learned most of my politics at the hands of far left radical authors over the last four years and was as little a fan of context as the folks on this thread seem to be. I grew up by force of will and through dint of coming into contact with people like Lalo and CT and artappraiser and others.
I am afraid it is much too late for some bloggers at TPM who never came home from the war, no matter how many decades it has been since it ended.
September 7, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason. I am a boomer? Fighting the decades long war?
Wow. have you ever read me. I am 32. Here is a bio- Been self employed most of my life (save a brief corparate stint in the bay last two years- laid off, now on my own again). I work construction: project manager (shitty industry these days). I don't suffer fools. I have designed and built with my hands 3 houses (Drew the plans). I have a B.S. in Econ. Autodidact- Read vociferously, Don't write too good sometimes.
I have lived and/or traveled through 42 countries all on my own dime (no family money here, most of my family is navy).
Sometimes I am wrong. I admit it. Sometimes I go overboard. I concede.
Now. Here is why I sometimes call you a coward. I don't respect your running away from a logical point that your whole thesis rests on. If your precepts are faulty all that follows is flawed. Its not strategic retreat. It is cowardly. Regardless I think you are a good person who's heart is in the right place- you just seem to get enamoured with certain ideas that overtake your logic.
Maybe I am wrong. But we have plenty of time to find that out.
Regardless. Have a good day.
September 7, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the confusion. It was more the debate style and belittling attitude than anything else. Not sure what can account for that sort of tone in a 32-year-old with such a wide variety of experiences. My travels taught me to be more empathetic and inclusive, not less.
I never meant to suggest I thought you were uneducated, only that some ideas seem to rely on a very specific state of mind that I don't particularly share.
As to my supposed cowardice, I suggest you read the thread again. I challenged the 428% rise in profits as being outrageous. When it was pointed out that, as far as the number goes, it was actually accurate, I asked the follow-in question that seems basic common sense - How much did their total revenue rise in the same period?
I call such questions intellectual rigor and basic logic. If something doesn't sound right, it is probably because it is being used out of context.
September 7, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry you read that as "everyone is an idiot." It really was supposed to mean: "I hate poor arithmetic that doesn't even pass the a common sense test."
And I still do.
There have been many "the rich suck" posts here lately. Most of them weren't worth even commenting on because they were based in childish emotion. I applaud Rowan to at least building a case about wealth distribution and such. That's why I commented on this one. The others "weren't even wrong".
September 6, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tmccarthy0/2009/09/so-abortion-is-your-final-answ.php#comment-3590339
September 7, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Business equity. What a wonderful axiom. wow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAXKIKehbc
shuffle some numbers around, different of course when sending the IRS info on bonuses vis a vis stock options or stock for that matter than what is sold on 'the market'.
It is all a goddamn lie. And you know it. hahahahaha
OH and 20% of the country is DOING OKAY. So the glass is 20% full.
What the hell is this?
Silly willy.
September 6, 2009 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your writing has become more fragmented as time has gone on.
Here is a link you should study. Then we can go back to talking about wealth distributions.
Your comments are becoming bits of buzz words strung together - inadequately. (Your blog on the speed of light showed a serious lack of scientific understanding but that's a whole other story.) However, your buzzed word stringing certainly qualify you as a left-leaning Glenn Beck of TPM. Say a few words like "goddamned" "lie" "fascist" "hahahahahah" and stir, right?
September 6, 2009 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is fine to disagree. It is not fine to belittle.
September 6, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rowan,
Thanks for this comment.
When someone resorts to denigration, disrespect and overt rudeness - it is because they do not have the skill set to enter into a fact based civil discussion. The utilization of derision and cheap shots is always the sign of someone who is desperately seeking cover - not equal to the debate and/or wanting the spotlight for any reason. Sad, really.
Unfortunately, it too oft derails an enlightening and positive exchange of information.
September 6, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam,
You are one of those people who think that there is some intrinsic difference between OReilly and Olberman because you agree with one and not the other.
Oh -- and I thought we established last week that there was no ruling junta here? Rowan made a comment on her blog... But what is your excuse to police behavior?
September 6, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT,
Once again, you've proved the veracity of my comment to Rowan.
September 6, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course: because everything you like is "respectful" and everything you don't like is "disrespectful".
You may have more in common with the myopic teabaggers than is comfortable to admit.
September 6, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I am heart broken
Why, I do not think I can face another day.
Wait a minute, I am another day. ha
September 6, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screw him, Dick.
The blowhard thing is bad enough, but this guy is a coward.
September 6, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. You are also a dick. ;-)
September 7, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your response above. I look forward to your future posts.
However I would like to briefly chime in here in defense of Olberman and my buddy DD.
Sure both are similar in method, and hyperbole sells. However one side is responsive to facts and the other spews simplistic ideology and obfuscates. For example see this video here (although their are millions of examples).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpU0NxPhA78
Their is an intrinsic difference. One side simply lies.
September 6, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both FNC and MSNBC present commentary as news. That's very dangerous -- even if I agree with the commentary of one of them.
FNC only has to muddy the waters on what looks like news. Then once everything degenerates, they can say things like "well, bust everyone!"
That's how they were able to manipulate the feeble minded into now saying "government sucks" conveniently when the Dems hold power.
Where is our "no decency moment" from a politician to Rupert Murdoch and FNC? It's long past time for it.
PS: Did you notice I said "feeble minded"? I believe that is an accurate description. Because this applies to the teabaggers, I'm sure none here will find it inflammatory. Had I used it against another group... not so much. ;-) But I do try to call'em as I see'em.
September 6, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of what Dead Eye Dick offers with regards to left-wing, red-meat topics like this one are meant to belittle all those who think differently.
Hence the charged language and long strings of HAHAHAHA!s which add very little but certainly give them impression that our resident "bard" think what has been offered is barely worthy of reading.
Holding up a mirror to behavior is not the same thing as participating in said behavior.
September 6, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason,
Please refrain from adding to the negative dialogue and personal snark attacks. It is disrespectful to Rowan's efforts and those of us who attempt to engage in positive discourse.
Post your own blog on this if you feel the need.
Thanks.
September 6, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam,
What is this school marm stuff again?
Talk about a chiding tone - from you.
Why didn't you say anything to Dick's moronic (and content-free) comment to me? That, too, was a blight on this blog. Again, standards applied inconsistently speak of a larger agenda.
At least Jason wrote in complete sentences with proper capitalization.
September 6, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT,
I reiterate my comment you are attempting to address. Take it somewhere else, respect Rowan's excellent post.
September 6, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to stifle opposing thoughts?
Aunt Sam: You are a left-leaning teabagger!
Shame on you for this comment.
September 6, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are those who feel some deep seated need to "debate." The argument is everything and not atypically they devolve to name calling and denigration. Personally, I HATE "debate" as it is generally rhetorical and trying to score points rather than trying to engage is dialog. I appreciate your efforts. Thank you.
September 6, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
Initially I always try to consider how truly sad they are, to always be so full of angst and unable to express themselves cohesively and without rancor.
But then my patience wears thin and empathy evolves into pity for them, as well as irritation that others who only wish to engage in civil discourse, are pummeled by these types who can only contribute ineptitude and vitriolic blather.
It's all the more annoying when their incoherent ramblings detract from the intent and content of other's good blogs. It is always those with nothing of value to offer who insinuate their irrational rants - yearning for attention, not able to produce their own positive product so they are like children throwing a nonsensical tantrum.
The best they seem to be able to do is to spew illogical attacks and vapid idioms.
September 6, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has been my experience that those who can't articulate their views in a "debate" haven't thought them through and merely wish to sway others through via their own reptilian (emotional) brain. That makes for poor justification to action.
The first line of your comment may well have been stated by a teabagger.
September 6, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll post whatever and wherever I think it is appropriate to do so, beside the fact that nothing I added here was snarky or personal, just an observation of fact.
September 6, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason,
Have no idea why you replied to my comment - unless you assumed I was referencing you, and if so, that's interesting. But, truth is, I wasn't.
September 6, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the comment I responded to:
You referenced me by name, asked to be to refrain from adding to the negativity and claim you weren't speaking to me, but that I thought you did says something about me rather than you?Pretzel logic doesn't begin to cover this thought process.
September 6, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOps, thought you were referencing other comment.
Mea Culpa.
Jason, you're a bright guy and good writer - and while I appreciate and understand your stated goals, too often IMHO you dilute your message because of the tone and negativity in your delivery.
I want to be able to enter into positive communication with you on some issues - not debate per se but exchange of thoughts, information and philosophies - without snark or derision - we can agree to disagree, but also need to agree to be respectful and not be derisive in tone or content.
Sincerely hope to achieve this in future.
Appreciate and apologize again for 'assuming' you were referencing another comment.
September 6, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam:
I'm calling you out here. Show me that you are truly principled.
Look at this comment the part when I am called a bed-wetter and especially this part:
Are you going to stick to your principles and lecture quinn? Or will you find a reason to let this ride?
September 7, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah Aunt Sam! OK, here's my defence:
WHY CT IS A BED-WETTER.
I do not know the origins of his bed-wetting tendency, but it might have something to do with the celery that is always up his arse.
- quinn esq.
Seriously, Aunt Sam. We all know why CT is termed "bed-wetter." He can't make it through a day without whining about all the bad bad people at TPM... he throws tantrums and does things like destroy all his posts... he leaves debates he can't win... and he does things like attack people based on what country he thinks they're from. He hasn't even figured out that this is - in debating terms - the same as attacking someone for their religion or skin colour or sex. Ever notice how other people here don't do it, CT? Yeah. It would be cowardly as all get out. But you seem comfy with it.
Oh yeah... and when CT throws a tantrum and leaves, he'd like to come back as other people... but he's really not very good at it.
Other than as Peet. He was good at that.
But otherwise, pretty much a bed-wetter.
September 7, 2009 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rowan,
Seriously, I'll assume you meant this comment to be attached to Dick's post.... ;-)
September 6, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see you around providing a little added context to the witch hunt.
Fuzzy math and hyperbolic populist rage will not get the right people focused in the right direction, much less We The People at the grassroots who have to force the change to begin with.
The kind of arguments put forth in this blog really get the blood pumping and banners waving, but they do very little to advance progressive goals.
September 6, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Jason.
What most who post here don't understand is that their ire and bile is pumped up -- behind the safe confines of their monitors. Sort of like the sweet old ladies who become whacked monsters behind the wheel of a car.
The people screaming about "class warfare" should well remember the case of Maximilian Robespierre who found out that once the mob gets going, it's kind of hard to control.
If there is a physical manifestation to this class warfare, there is little doubt that TPMers will be the first to lose their lives -- because they don't know how to shoot guns.
One of the deeper aspects of my comment is that how, until recently, the wealthy consistently owned most of the country, but people saw this as a land of opportunity. It's only in the last few years that a change of a few percentage points of that wealth -- and really the demise of the middle class -- that people are complaining about. Rightly so. Because the wealthy owning so much should not be mutually exclusive of the middle class being able to enjoy living. The consumption of the past 30 years was fueled on cheap, available credit. Now with that gone, the middle class is finding out how poor it really is... and saddled with debt to boot.
For all the blather about the rich we see here, I'm amused that no one has brought up how their own elected representatives - including the much recently lauded Ted Kennedy... and even our new President -- own. This is truly an exclusive club that is shared with the industrially powerful.
And yet, it would be so easy to knock these politicians out of office in a mere election.
Care to guess how much you can be in debt when you are a member of Congress? How about the politicla party of the wealthiest member of Congress?
September 6, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment alone makes anything you have say worth reading. Thanks.
September 6, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, for Jason this is a witch hunt, based on fuzzy math and hyperbolic populist rage. When to me, it looks like all his name-calling based on that 428% figure was... wrong. Double-checked that yet, Jason?
*
For CT, there's the automatic assumption that Jason's numbers must be right. Why? Because they're friends. I'm sure a wiser man than I has pointed this out before. ;-)
Anyway, what CT doesn't understand is that by posting ire and bile at others here, he must be in the right. And that because there's fewer on his side, he must be purer. Add to that the fact that he's behind a monitor, and he becomes a whacked out monster, raging, quitting, deleting his posts, then returning for more. (I hope you're enjoying this game, CT!)
*
Ok. To be more serious. 3 things.
1. An historic reference to "Robespierre" does not answer any and all issues of class conflict. More interesting to the poster here is that it's the RIGHT who use the term class warfare now, CT. They're using it as a label to slap on anything which goes against their economic interests. Aren't you the one always warning the Left against this sort of Animal Farm behaviour? Your argument is that BOTH parties gave way to the rich and powerful, Clinton and the Dems included, right? And there WAS a shift in income and wealth toward the rich as a result. Objectively, a set of benefits flowed to the richest, and away from the middle and the poorer. The fact that the political representatives are largely drawn from that richer class (or quickly join!), would show they have done better in the political battle of interests. So... for the GOP to shout "class warfare" ONLY when the middle and poor propose policies would seem slightly disingenuous. Or... Animal Farmish.
2. I know about the guns, but that TPM'ers would lose their lives, should there be class warfare is... not clear to me. The last and greatest example of such conflict from US history was actually the New Deal, which followed on and contained within it many instances of public violence. And it's not actually clear that the rich won that struggle, eh? Perhaps. Organization and communication is incredibly important in such times, not just firepower.
3. Finally. CT, I appreciate your point about the data on wealth and its make-up and relative stability etc. That was useful. Just let me add an extra insight. For the rich, a shift of 1% in the wealth actually means very little to the conditions of their real lives. But for the POOR? A shift of 1% of wealth would mean an enormous change in their lives. This a simple consequence of adding 1% to say a 50% share in wealth, versus adding 1% to say, the 1% share of the very poor. THIS is why these figures matter. When whole great stretches of the population are living on 15% of the nation's wealth, a seeming small shift - say 5% - adds an enormous margin, but without blowing any great hole in the lifestyle or prospects of the rich. To fight over 1% can therefore be seen as of marginal importance (which it is, for the rich), or as being essential to life (which it is, for the poor.)
September 6, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your third point is exceptionally insightful. Excellent!
September 6, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Rowan, you are basically talking about tax reform now? Good. After all, that's what tipped things from the status quo of most of the first 2/3 of the 20th century as I pointed out in my original comment.
Perhaps a tax structure as it was under Clinton?
I could sign up for that in an instant.
September 6, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I am not talking about tax reform and neither was Quinn in his third point.
September 6, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's leave quinn out of this one, Rowan, I can't read minds -- what mechanism were you thinking to redistribute the wealth? I figured taxes were the obvious thing. Are you talking about seizure of property?
September 7, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taxes are one way. However there have been changes legislated in corporate management and the financial system that have incentivized ... insanity ... in my mind. The structure changed to focus CEOs on short term gain and took accountability for failure away. Legislation took the reins off the financial sector to allow creation and operation of essentially a casino environment with money that doesn't even exist. These were "gimmes" to those with extreme wealth that had little to do with taxes. Those were then reinforced with tax changes (inheritance tax, capital gains tax, dropping the top tax rate, etc).
We could limit the amount of allowable profit (100% say). We could limit the amount that top management makes vis a vis their workforce. (x times more).
We could pass legislation for a living wage - not just a minimum wage. We could have universal healthcare, or subsidize higher education and professional training.
We could do a lot of things. I am not arguing against changing the tax system, but it is not the only possibility.
September 7, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I checked the numbers and standby my main point that the number is misleading unless it is compared against the rise in actual revenue. As a percentage of their revenues, health insurance companies haven't made any gains beyond the rate of inflation.
September 6, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read the Cafe Page lately?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/06/obamas_big_question/
See charts 3 and 4
September 6, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not disputing those numbers, as far as they go. I am saying that a 428% rise in "profits" over a seven year period is a worthless data point without knowing the corresponding rise in total revenue.
September 7, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
quinn,
Since you are Canadian (yes, you are, and stop denying it):
Let's talk about how YOUR government tries to take US jobs via tax incentives.
Or let's just talk about how your government sends lobbyists to Washington DC to influence our industry:
Or how you have decimated much of the entertainment industry in Hollywood
Shall I continue? I have more links, so I shall.
September 6, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the part where CT, defeated in argument, shows himself to be bed-wetter - by turning to patriotism as an attempt to slur the person he's arguing with. What the relative trade practices of 2 nations have to do with anything, I'll never know. Oh wait! Yes, I know! CT was losing on the issue, so he turns to the LAST REFUGE OF THE SCOUNDREL! Which - as I've said before - NO ONE ELSE on this board turns to! But it's about your 5th time, old pal! That's right... you attack the person you're arguing with as an outsider.
You're a coward, CT. A gutless little prune. And when we argue, you lose, and you don't like it. And so, you hit the "foreigner" button. But screw it, I'll dance. Come on hotshot. I'm just a little farm kid from a cold insignificant country. Surely your great big intellect can crush me? Like this.
1- There is NO argument about overall who subsidizes more. You guys do. Because your states HURL money - billions and billions- to attract new plants. You know, all those Southern states subsidies we debated in about 100 blogs. Or.... are you somehow going to deny this now???
2- Or maybe all those hundreds of billions in bailout cash, and energy spending - think that isn't to bail out your industry? The billions of subsidies for battery plants in Michigan?
3- Plus, as you've noted, your Congress is so locked into lobbyists interests.
State subsidies, Buy American, Congressional pork, and Bailout monies. What have you got that could POSSIBLY match that, in terms of Canadian resources to subsidize its industry?
Also, you might want to check the link you gave too. It was a loophole that the US forest companies are taking advantage of to make BILLIONS. i.e. They mix a bit of diesel with black liquor, and get 50 cents/gallon. I thought you were against these biofuel rip-offs? Well, this is the worst. As your friend Baucus says, "the tax break is an unintended loophole that is costing the US Treasury billons."
As for the entertainment industry, again, you must be shitting me. "Hollywood" has been joined at the hip of American trade negotiators for decades now - probably the most aggressive sector. Other countries produce actors, writers, stories - and then they're filmed, and all the jobs go to the US. That's changing now. Break my heart.
Interesting to me how you didn't go near the great big obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room. The Free Trade Agreement between these countries. And the way the US keeps losing on issues like steel and forest products, and then IGNORING the findings.
I mean, are you really so dumb that you think the world's most powerful nation, with its extraordinarily aggressive industrial players, who are in lockstep lobbying Congress, to a degree that other nation's industrial players can only covet, a nation with almost endless billions in wealth, and now, with TRILLIONS to give away... would somehow be allowing Canada to be ripping them off? HA.
And yes you were wrong to defend Jason's 428%... your Robespierre point still stands as Animal Farm'ish... and seemingly small shifts in national wealth do matter, a great deal, to the poor. Not that I thought you'd deal with those. Better to try and smear someone.
But back to the main point here. Which is that playing the patriot card makes you a coward.
September 6, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have yet to respond to the follow-on point, quinn, despite my agreeing that the profit data appears to be correct if misleading without the proper context.
So I will ask it yet again. What was the corresponding rise in total revenue? That is not a nit to pick but is central to putting a fantastic number in perspective. Without that number, nothing any of us have to say about its significance means shit.
Unless your goal is to incite rather than inform, in which case, great job!
September 6, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've already suggested twice that you find the number yourself - and that I think it highly unlikely that revenues (premium-based especially) would have risen by 428% in 7 years.
And why you felt the need to tack this comment on here, where CT is busy messing his pants, and the 3rd time you've said it now, is beyond me.
Or are you two tag-teaming now?? ;-)
September 6, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you choose to not understand what numbers mean, I choose to dismiss your opinion of those numbers as lacking merit for missing any sense of context with reality.
September 7, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
quinn never responds to anything specifically. You should know that by now. That's why he regularly blows a gasket with me -- when was the last time someone here called anyone a bed-wetter? In fact, he keeps talking about how I defended your numbers... and I'm wondering where he can quote me on that!
PS I'm waiting for Aunt Sam to come out and lecture quinn on presenting an argument and being reasonable.
September 7, 2009 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
quinn, I love it how you get in blind rages. My point was that Canada was taking jobs from the United States... that's wealth leaving this country. $10B annually estimated in Hollywood alone. Totally on point for the topic: jobs that could have helped our economy, taken by institutional targeting of the Canadian government.
PS If you were really winning the discussion, you wouldn't have to try to point it out. ;-)
September 7, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT, you bleat about your inside-DC knowledge... but you think Canada "targeting" jobs in certain sectors is a huge secret or some major factor?
You must be kidding. Our nations have strategies to exploit, cooperate with, complement, replace, tear apart EACH sector in the other's economy. You don't actually think we'd have multi-year long trade negotiations without each side being perfectly and intimately aware of what they wanted to take and give up with each sector, do you?
No, no, WAIT! Hey how, about this, CT! I think... the US has a STRATEGY... to lock up access... to CANADA'S ENERGY RESOURCES! Ohmigod Newsflash!
My God. Put your pants on, CT. You're embarrassing yourself, and that celery up your arse is showing.
P.S. With you, I like to win the debate, big-time, AND point it out along the way. Consider it pointed out. ;-)
September 7, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, before you tell us how to deal with our poor, please keep your mitts off of economy. In fact, why don't you help your government come up with a way to determine how to measure poverty? Seems awful convenient to me that if you don't measure something, you won't have to discuss it.
Of course then you'd see how the wealth gap in Canada is larger than in the United States:
C'mon, quinn, show us the way. Reform your own Canadian society in wealth distribution first. You have plenty to do up there in the great white north.
September 6, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a wise man who said, "If you want to get a real handle on things (rather than a simple jealous/revenge based type of argument - which many of these blogs begin to sound like) look at some larger picture studies." When I went to your larger picture study, lo and behold, it's NEW UPDATED numbers showed the US to be much more unequal than Canada. e.g. The bottom 90% had to make do on 30% rather than 47%. So... either you have to disown your previous top-quality piece of research, or this latest. What's it to be?
2nd, "please keep your mitts off of {the US} economy." Now, THAT, may well go down in history as one of the stupider things said at TPM, and thats saying a lot. Of all the major trading nation pairings in the worlds, undoubtedly the one which has been studied most closely in terms of WHO OWNS THE OTHERS ECONOMY, is the Canada-US pairing. In fact, it was my very first essay in university. Now, who do YOU think "has their mitts" on more of the other's economy? You know... foreign investment and ownership and all. Think hard, CT. Think of allllll those Canadian corporate brand names you see daily.... and I'll try and puzzle up a couple of American brands I see daily. My God, man. what a stupid thing to say.
3rd. You then claim that "the wealth gap in Canada is larger than in the United States." Which is NOWHERE in the link you sent. The link you sent was to a study which doesn't include pensions, annuities, or retirement income funds. In short, it's not apples to apples - which is likely why the Domoff article finds Canada to be MORE equal. Pension funds are not an insignificant element.
Does Canada have lots to do? Absolutely. Interestingly, the chart in behind the study you linked showed that Canada has 60% of the population doing quite well - i.e. the middle class isn't being hammered the same way. Here.
Also interesting is that Canada is doing much better through the recession, and that this province turns out to be doing best of all. With no oil/gas, no big mineral deposits, no special access to Asian markets, nothing. Other than a socialist government in its 10th year. Funny, unemployment's still down at 5.7%, and real estate prices are still rising.
So, ummmmm, consider the leadership to already be being shown - in this province at least. We'll see if anybody pays attention.
September 6, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, quinn, for a bit of sanity. CT is out there in la la land again, but I'll give him this: I never know what tangent he is going to play. He is so inconsistent that he is truly unpredictable.
Did I ever mention that I can see Fidel Castro from my porch?
Well, I WILL be able to, as soon as I get a new cat and name her "Fidel Castro."
September 6, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you only mentioned you know someone who swears that Ted Kennedy didn't know Mary Jo Kopechne crawled into his car.
September 7, 2009 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
My, my... how emotional you become when your native land is pressed under scrutiny, quinn!
Seriously: now is about the time you swear never to respond to one of my comments again. You and I have been through this before about a dozen times now.
Please do work, however, on getting a serious study going of Canada's poverty. Then we can talk.
September 7, 2009 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT, it's no contest.
1. You were losing the earlier debate, and so... you shifted the discussion to a battle about Nationality. The last refuge of the scoundrel. It makes you look cowardly, you know. But when you're losing with me, you shift to this. It makes you look cowardly when you do it, and I enjoy pointing it out to everyone. HELLO EVERYONE!
2. In this particular case, your own study - which you held up as top-notch - ran directly against your new claim... the relative ownership of each others economies you were wrong on (the US owns more)... the degree of trade subsidy you lost on... and whose economy is doing better now - and thus stands in a position to teach the other - you lost on.
I admit, CT, that these kinds of "debates" with you - early on - drove me nuts. Simply because I found it appalling the way you would demand information from others, and then you'd change the topic, blatantly, when it went against you. See, it's not the same as a real face-to-face debate, where you'd be marked down and eventually, thrown out for such weak efforts.
But after a while, I realized that the whole "Following" feature puts it in an entirely different light. As long as I say something eye-catching in the first sentence, and mention your name, people will come back to SEE the "debate." It's the major benefit of having 100 people following. And they'll see that you waited 'til the post had rolled off before replying to me in this nasty nationalistic way. And they'll note how your comment had nothing to do with the post. And now, they'll see how you're simply walking away from another debate in which you got trounced.
You were rebutted, point by point. You responded with yet another of your personal attacks. And of the nastiest sort. But now, your after-the-24-hour-deadline-nastiness is shown to all.
WAVE TO THE CAMERAS, ASSHOLE.
September 7, 2009 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
quinn,
What I like is you claim you rebut point-for-point when you don't. You are the one that gets personal but claims it's others. You also misread a multitude of things, thereby making claims people say stuff that they didn't, or, in this case that people are posting off topic.
I've learned long ago that time spent responding to you is typically wasted. I still remember last year when your math -- this was arithmetic -- shown to be wrong, and you still couldn't just do "oops!" You like arguing because of some other reason than to learn and discover and think.
Most discussions with you degenerate quite quickly as you race to the bottom (look above with Lalo and Jason)... you started out here by calling me a "bed-wetter". Among other things. And this was in response to my calling you a "Canadian". Okay, maybe you are that embarrased to be Canadian and so went with the bed-wetting bit. I'll try to be kinder next time. Deal? LOL!
September 7, 2009 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
No need to be kinder CT. You've been too too kind already tonight. Serving up big fat pitches like that.
See, you claim I never respond to points, but the thing is, I make it completely visible to people that I DO. I number the points. Seems odd, but it makes clear exactly how much the other person is responding. Or not.
And on this little chain, I've done it four times now. and you've responded to... none of the points. Typical. Easy for people to check.
So what they'll see is that your original "arguments" amounted to something about Robespierre, then something about how TPM'ers would get killed with guns, then the fact that you don't understand why the shift of even 1% of national wealth to the poor is an important thing. In short, you sound retarded.
Once that got dismissed, you tried your usual bullying about my nationality, which you've done numerous times before. But I enjoy it, because it's so obviously in the same category as trying to chase someone off for various other prejudices eh? Haven't figured that out, have you? Dummy. ;-)
Besides, the Canadian thing gives me more opportunities to kill your individual arguments, explicitly and visibly. See, you know nothing of Canada - and I know quite a bit about the US. So hey, bring it! Which leaves you doing responses like this.
Bed-wetting responses.
September 7, 2009 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
If someone posts a number that isn't accurate, it's beneficial to point that out, even argue it as the case may be. But hard as we try to suss out good information and back up assertions with data, we’re not all experts with unlimited time. This is a blog not a peer-reviewed journal, and a little hyperbole to make a point has never killed anyone (warning: hyperbole may be harmful to nitpickers and pregnant women). Besides even the experts, economists or whatever field involved, disagree and debate many assumptions. This is what discussion is about.
I appreciate any and everyone adding to the debate, expanding our knowledge of a subject, reminding us of the complex nature of systems. But that is not the same as looking at the big picture. This post is a good example of adding to the big picture of our current economic mess and capitalism in general. She does tie everything up and comes to conclusions that most economists and people here would agree with- that an elite class is more and more in control of the wealth in this country. She discusses an element of that by pointing out how workers are being regularly cheated. It is a fresh subject and apropos on Labor Day weekend.
I have never seen this subject posted here. I agree that it is good if sources are cited to back up assertions and would be interested in links to those posts that discuss workers being cheated out of their hours. OTOH, the “Who Rules America?” link has appeared here several times. It’s appropriate to bring up alternate sources in a post, but not to accuse the poster or the Café in general of ignoring information or intentional bias in regards to data.
Of course, we all skew information to fit our perspective. It is not true, for example, that wealth distribution has always been static. In 1976 the top 1% held 19.1% of the wealth compared to over 24% in 2007 (and I imagine it’s greater now). Anyone care to tell us how many $billions or $trillions that growing five points represents over the years? The fact remains that the top 5% own more wealth than the other 95%.
The income of the top 10% of wage earners has grown from 33% in ’72 to 50% in ‘07. It seems to me like income distribution is pertinent in this discussion since income is how wealth is grown. In a discussion of low-wage workers being fleeced of income, income disparity is salient. Of course data never tells the whole or even the true story, which is reason to hash things out (but arrogance and ad hominem attacks only make the attackers look foolish).
September 6, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS The rich suck.
September 6, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's comments like this that make it easy to dismiss a poster. Why?
Do you think Ted Kennedy sucks? He's rich.
Do you think Obama sucks? He's rich.
What about Nancy Pelosi? Bill Clinton...? Hillary?
... shall I go on?
The topic gets even more fascinating when we start talking about "who" is rich. I believe everyone should have equal opportunity. But not equal property. Because believe it or not, many of those "rich" people work harder than others do -- and make certain sacrifices that others wouldn't want to make. They defer having families. They move far away from their parents. They give up social lives. And often live below their means. These people become "the millionaire next door".
Some people come to this country barely knowing English and yet end up moving up the ladder quickly. How does one explain that with a simple "the rich suck"?
Now, the truly poor should also be given real opportunity to allow themselves to apply their dedication and industry to better themselves. And we should ensure that some sort of minimum standard is maintained in a society as wealthy as ours. No doubt.
But that's not what your comment said.
September 7, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep...
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dikkday48yahoocom/2009/09/labor-day-part-1.php#comment-3589502
September 7, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
“The rich” is used to connote a group. Like when I say “criminals” or “scum” I’m not specifically thinking about the CEOs of the five biggest banks; I’m referring to the group, “scum,” as an entity.
Actually, I was quoting you above and your snub of TPM posts (please link to one, just one, post that boils down to "the rich suck" and nothing else).
PS It’s called a joke. Compare it to the post it was post-scripted to. I apologize for not putting a smiley face, flashing lights and a bunch of little clowns running around it. :)
September 7, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, only undisciplined minds do this. Scholarly minds keep pounding on the facts to learn their meaning.
Part of the problem with this blog is that it mixes rant with a desire for the US not to be based in capitalism. At least that's how I read it.
Now, unless you are very poor with absolutely nothing, you aren't going to try to get the country change the very social fabric on which it's grown. So this is a pipe dream at best.
And one that most people in the country don't want.
If you are very poor, of course, you will want a "do over". But no one here is very poor -- because I will assume that the very poor have far more important things to do with their time than post on an Internet forum about politics.
September 7, 2009 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’m not going to defend capitalism. If you see that as your job, have at it. As far as everyone bringing bias to their perception, it is human nature, and yes, we try to be as objective as possible but this takes constant vigilance. It still infiltrates our thinking (which is why science rests on things like double blind studies and peer review, is it not?). I admit that I have my prejudices and try to avoid falling into those holes. But do you believe you’re completely objective and unbiased?
The entierety of the comment I was replying to can be boiled to down this:
Followed by a refutation of something Rowan never said (she asked a question: What might the amount of cheating workers be?).
Now, she didn’t add it up because it’s beside the point, and there is probably no easily available source anyway. The point is that it’s a big number; this is no small thing. She may be a little dramatic, but that’s what writing and argument is about.
Then:
Really? A “simple jealous/revenge based type of argument”? To which you throw a few detailed numbers with little bearing.
Not clear at all, as I point out above.
I could go on, but you get my point. If you really can’t see that you are filtering information through your own blinders, then those are pretty big blinders. And what is the deal with you and Jason and Lalo on this thread? You could add to the discussion with disagreements on the points but that is not what you’re doing. Physician, heal thyself.
PS Many people actually empathize with the poor and other people in unfortunate circumstance even though they’re different. I’m poor, and yet I post here. I do thank you for allowing me to. I know I should be out working unpaid overtime, but I can hardly move today because of a longtime injury. Logic is often faulty, and human society doesn’t follow the rules of logic anyway.
September 7, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
There used to be usury laws; where did they go? The new credit card reform bill is a big hoot, Elizabeth Warren says that banks and now non-bank lenders are bringing pressure to neuter the fledgling consumer protection agency. And the laws that do exist to protect citizens in so many cases aren't enforced, and now people are begging for tort reform which, as I understand it, could make it even more difficult to sue corporations. It seems that changing the laws isn't always such a silver bullet.
If there's one great inexcusable inequality here, it is how little we spend to educate our kids and build decent schools. It could be called a built-in inequality.
I am one of the peasant class who believes that the rich got rich largely on the backs of the poor, then are subsidized by the government, and peeved at the tax rates, even though they avoid them with off-shore shell corporations and armies of tax lawyers. And please don't call me envious; I escaped that world on purpose. I saw how bereft of conscience and consciousness most of the upper class were. I didn't want any part of it. I have one aim in life, and that is to die well.
"If the rich could pay the poor to die for them, they wouldn't be so poor any more." And man, I'll bet a lot them die ugly deaths.
Don't even both lalo; and that avatar is really creepy.
September 5, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
(clapping flippers enthusiastically)
September 5, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Rowan. This is the way to celebrate Labor Day. I hope many will follow your lead on this.
September 5, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks AMike! I wanted to get off of the right (er) left foot.
September 5, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Class warfare? We’ve gone from the ‘war on poverty’ to the ‘war on the poor.’ And in this war, the losers are looted of the little they have. This is a great essay, Rowan; straight to the point. It should be run on A1 of NY Times, Chicago Trib and La Times (of course a little editing might be needed- e.g. “…productivity may be skewed because workers are getting screwed.” Though you’re phrasing is truer). Low-wage workers have received less and less protection over the years. They are in a catch 22; if they complain about being underpaid, they may find themselves out of work (it’s not an unreasonable fear).
What I don’t understand is how those in control can be blind to the ultimate instability of the system as it is (they would have gone down with the ship if not for our bailing out their lifeboats). The too-big-to-fail “banks” are made even bigger with taxpayer largesse but it is known that they would likely be rated insolvent if the bad paper (originated fraudulently in many cases) they are holding in the $trillions is revealed. Meanwhile, I’m trying to drop my “high” health care plan to get the low plan with lower premiums and higher co-pays and impossible deductibles (to pay off debt that spun out of control as I argued with the usurious credit companies, AKA banks, then fell more and more behind). I just can't get seriously ill for the next couple of years at least.
Millions of families file for bankruptcy each year. In 1981, 8% of all family bankruptcies were because of medical debts. Two years ago it was 62% (and our corporation-loyal government reacted to this exploding crisis by making it more difficult for families to file and at least protect their homes from being seized). And the kicker: less than a quarter of those filing for medical-relate bankruptcies were uninsured (over ¾ were still driven to bankruptcy despite being insured).
PS Happy Labor Day all!
September 5, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don ... I don't know what to say. I am touched by the high praise.
You hit the nail on the head on every point. I didn't coin the term, but overwhelmingly we have become "wage slaves." By keeping people on the margins, wages flat, and jobs becoming a lottery, there are not many choices. Land of the free. Land of opportunity. American dream. Slipping from the vision of more and more of the population. Held in shaking hands like a greased watermelon for even more. "Somewhere over the rainbow" may become a new theme song.
Don, I am damn sorry to hear your struggle. It is echoed a million times over - cold comfort that.
September 6, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
see Jolly Rogers blog for those... collateral damages.
September 6, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Rowan. I’m fine, really, and only mention my situation because it is so typical these days. But I see the ranks of the homeless who gather around the shelter and food pantry in town growing. I appreciate posts like this so much because they are an assault on the conscience of those who turn a blind eye to those suffering undeservedly. Shame them with the truth. -Hope you’re feeling well.
September 6, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ranks of the homeless and temporarily housed are growing in my region as well. Another former Oregon boom town even made it to the BBC news. Wow, would like different recognition.
I'm feeling like crap, but at least I still have insurance. I'm one of the lucky ones - so far.
September 6, 2009 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
(shuffles feet)
((((((((((((hugs)))))))))))))
September 6, 2009 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
((((((((((((hugs back)))))))))))))
September 6, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is an added benefit for the Not Us: we are so busy trying to keep our little patches of family and life together that we haven't much time or energy to give them hell.
After a night's sleep, I checked out my night-dreams, and once again concluded that the problems we are a faced with, once again, don't really have political solutions. The core difficulty is based in the unhealthy psycho-spiritual collective consciousness of too many of our citizens.
The difference between the posters on this site are real; some can discuss this all with emotional detachment and as an intellectual exercise; others of us really and truly care about the great majority of suffering brothers and sisters. We can witness the same events and each describe them wholly differently. Zounds, but it's hard to hear each other.
Our community is full of western hate-the-government and the Black President folks. The letters to the editor in the local paper are fear-laden, hate-filled, need-a-rubber-room diatribes. Once in a while, someone tried to answer them, but it is useless. It just brings out the crazy even more, but adds "victimhood" into the mix. Ugh.
Yesterday an archaeology teacher Dem activist wrote in and suggested we hold meetings with a facilitator to try to talk things out. I really think he could participate, and I was overwhelmed by his goodwill and hope. I don't think I could do it at this point, which then, of course, makes me part of the problem.
September 6, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
We live in perilous times. Some groups are willing to fan that fear and then point out targets for political or other gain. The current inflaming is pulling out all the stops for the abusive side of the mainstream cultural ideology. It is a bad business indeed.
People build trust by working together. Most folks agree we have problems. Most even agree on what the problems are (economy, healthcare, environment, etc). If people are pointed at scapegoats (Obama, terrorists, "commie' creeps like me) it gives an object for attack - but no solution. However, when we are afraid, we do not think particularly clearly. We are vulnerable in many ways. One way out of that is to not mirror the person. In other word, responding to the person and not to the way they are expressing themselves. If someone is shouting - don't shout back.
Unfortunately, the effectiveness of such a strategy diminishes with distance (papers and the internet).
Wendy, we are all part of the problem ... and we can all be part of solutions.
September 6, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Rowan!
It brings several things to my mind.
The first is the remarkable video "Battle at Kruger" that shows a herd of water buffalo being manipulated and bullied by several lions whose agressive, predatory style intimidates the giant beasts who vastly outnumber them. The predators snarl and intimidate in hopes of keeping the herd scared enough to do nothing but perhaps run when they pick one of their kind off and literally eat one of their young for lunch. But as the predators go about their usual business something changes. Suddenly the buffalo, scared as they are, realize that they are strong and outnumber the predators. They realize that they can take action individually and collectively and put a stop to business as usual and prevent the predators from harming any more of their kind. It's just delightful to see the buffalo come together to rescue the calf and when they do the bullies suddenly don't seem so strong or confident. In fact, they get scared and run away. This is a very good metaphor for the class struggle here in America. All the real power is with the people, but when they allow the predators to intimidate and bully them they are all at risk despite being much more powerful. Once they act bravely and quit cowering before the bullies and unite things change rapidly. That is what needs to happen in America. I believe the people are ready to back them up if our political leadership will at long last demonstrate some or any courage in fighting the wealthy and powerful predators in our society. If you haven't seen it, it is worth taking a few minutes to watch the battle at Kruger. I think it is about 8 minutes. You can find it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
Another tid bit is the following...
This is from the IWW Picketline songbook... the Wobblies used to sing this at the factory gates in the morning (when workers were starting their shifts) to the tune of "Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow."
Praise Boss when morning work bells chime.
Praise him for bits of overtime.
Praise him whose wars we love to fight.
Praise him fat leech and parasite!
A-men.
One last item. The lyrics to a beautiful song titled "Bread and Roses" that was inspired by sign carried by a striking woman in the famous Lowell textile strike a century ago now. You see, what we are going through now has happened before. It was the hope of our grandparents and great grandparents that no American generation would ever have to fight this kind of fight again. But we allowed the repeal of many of the hard fought gains and protections that so many sacrificed so much for in the past century that we find ourselves having lost considerable ground and now must retake it or fall even further. Here are the lyrics:
As we go marching, marching,
in the beauty of the day,
A million darkened kitchens,
a thousand mill lofts gray,
Are touched with all the radiance
that a sudden sun discloses,
For the people hear us singing:
Bread and Roses! Bread and Roses!
As we go marching, marching,
we battle too for men,
For they are women's children,
and we mother them again.
Our lives shall not be sweated
from birth until life closes;
Hearts starve as well as bodies;
give us bread, but give us roses.
As we go marching, marching,
unnumbered women dead
Go crying through our singing
their ancient call for bread.
Small art and love and beauty
their drudging spirits knew.
Yes, it is bread we fight for,
but we fight for roses too.
As we go marching, marching,
we bring the greater days,
The rising of the women
means the rising of the race.
No more the drudge and idler,
ten that toil where one reposes,
But a sharing of life's glories:
Bread and roses, bread and roses.
Our lives shall not be sweated
from birth until life closes;
Hearts starve as well as bodies;
bread and roses, bread and roses.
You can hear an adequate version of Bread and Roses sung by Joan Baez on youtube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbtHlxGK5fA
September 6, 2009 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yay Joan. Yay the IWW songbook.
For those interested, There are several online versions of the IWW songbook. Here's one of them.
http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/iww.html
The IWW also has a web presence, a shop where one can buy IWW materials, and join as an individual. http://www.iww.org/ Might be a nice thing to do on Labor Day
September 6, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes let's revive the IWW! Thanks for the song.
Regarding the water buffalo analogy ... The second important point is acting together. "We the people" do have the power when enough of us act together. Individually, we become little more than object lessons. That is one of the things that I have seen get much more exaggerated in my lifetime - the creation of the isolated individual as the norm. Being told over and over that our vote doesn't matter; incessantly pushing a 'me against the world' attitude; everything as competition. Then people get anxious and depressed and there's big pharma with an answer (or your local drug dealer with another solution). But that too is a different topic.
Thanks Oleeb! Always have loved Joan Baez.
September 6, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The people, united, can never be defeated!"
September 6, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb said;
Truly, history rereating itself.
"The golf links lie so near the mill
That almost every day
The laboring children can look out
And see the men at play."
Sarah Cleghorn
September 6, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great poem, John. I had to look it up. A tragic story in four lines.
September 6, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jane Smiley has a piece up on one of major differences in attitudes toward unfettered capitalism. What is left out by economists is the fact that so many, when NOT blocked by laws or regulations or their enforcement behave in bad ways. "There can never be such a thing as a free market, because it is human nature to cheat, to monopolize, and buy off others so as to control the market." Etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/other-economists-in-the-r_b_277065.html
September 6, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Capitalism unfettered is a malignancy even unto itself. When we lose sight of this simple and self evident truth we always, always, always pay a heavy price as a society but the parasites who benefit most from the system suffer little. Instead, the further down the capitalist food chain one fins one's self, the more suffering is endured. This suffering manifests itself in increasing economic instability, under employment and unemployment, increasing poverty and all the attendant problems associated with it such as crime and violence of all kinds. This is what we have been seeing now for some time but all of these negative trends have been accelerated by the economic collapse caused by the criminal fraud, irresonsibility, and just plain greed of the rich and powerful who have driven our nation's economy and infrastructure into the ground in the unending pursuit of even greater riches for themselves and through the ongoing imperialism that is bankrupting our nation and eating our industrial base away from the inside out.
That is why regulation and control of the inherent/inevitable excesses and abuses of capitalism must be strictly maintained. We saw this proved out last fall when our financial system, unfettered by reasonable regulation and/or enforcement collapsed and brought the entire world economy down with it. If we do not re-establish such regulation of capitalism we shall either descend into a form of modern feudalism when the system finally and inexorably destroys itself or we will be forced to replace it with a more stable, human/worker friendly system that does not rely on self defeating competition and greed.
September 6, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Oleeb, unfettered capitalism is exactly what the conservatives, neo-conservatives, and libertarians are pushing for with the corporatist "free trade" democrats not far behind.
The healthcare disaster is just one MORE manifestation of a sick system - imo.
September 6, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely correct and why we must not let them succeed.
September 6, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb,
ALan Greenspan, champion of unfettered capitalism, ignored the history of greed and how the sharks in high places indulged themselves and the troubles that followed. He testified to a Congressional panel that his business model had a flaw, it relied on the sharks to police themselves.
Greenspan was such an ideologue that he allowed that ideology to keep him from thinking.
September 6, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appalling isn't it?
September 6, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Greenspan - an avowed Ayn Rand devotee - helped get us into this mess. At least he had the decency to admit he (and his ideology) were wrong. More than we can say for the the rest of the crew across party affiliation. I don't forgive him, but at least he gets a couple of points for honesty.
September 6, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link!
I think that one thing that gets lost is that the economy is not the society - just one feature of it. One of the changes that has happened over the decades is to move the economy - but particularly the financial market component of it - to the large center of the circle. It should not be this way, and is part over the overall problems we are seeing.
September 6, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And where is our New Pecora-like Commission?
And how many of our Congresspeople really want to re-regulate the financial sector? If the Credit Card Reform bill is any indicator, not enough even want to cap usury! And now Elizabeth Warren says that non-bank lenders are pressuring the Consumer Protection Agency...they apparently have had great success in gaiming the credit industry, and all unregulated, if I read her right. Oh, woe is us...
We are squabbling over health care reform while tons of egregiousness is swirling around us unnoticed except by a few. Arrrrggghhhh!
September 6, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fat chance of that. We are only looking forward remember?
September 6, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is one set of wealthy individuals you can at least fire: your members of Congress.
In all of these type of blogs, I never see mention that Congress (on both sides of the aisle) have so much wealth they none have to work again. (As far as those members who owe money -- let's say I'm uncomfortable with people managing the government's finances if they can't manage their own.)
Now, some may get the mistaken notion that I'm claiming that Members of Congress gained their great wealth by being members of Congress. (People like a Kennedy or Rockefeller clearly diddn't -- and there are many others.)
But that belies the point. The point is that these wealthy individuals are not like you and me. Kennedy concerned about the poor? Great. But what about the middle class -- which is the real backbone of the country and makes it what it is? The regulation we talk about affects the middle class most of all. After all, the current recession has changed middle class lives far more than that of the poor.
There is an intimate linking between power and wealth -- and they mutually protect one another. Wouldn't it be great to elect someone new to office? At least that way institutional creep would be harder to take hold.
You don't have the power to shove out a CEO or a Chairman of the Board. You do have the power to shove out that wealthy person "representing" you who has more in common with the CEO or Chairman of the Board.
Can you see beyond the trivial labels of Democrat or Republican? Or are you like the sheep in Animal Farm: "Four legs good, two legs better"?
September 6, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was exactly what my comment about our Congresspeople meant, clearthinker. The best government money can buy in too many cases. And then once you are out of Congress, you get to make the really big bucks lobbying.
September 6, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even holding the whip, you are right about one thing ct.
All of the people suffer from the oligarchy.
September 6, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What and excellent and appropriate quote. Orwell, may be seen as a prophet in the near future.
And yes all the people suffer when there is a foot on their neck.
September 6, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That real problem with the proles is that while they may have a mass strength in numbers, they have not historically demonstrated a mass strength in mind. Again, see the example of Robespierre. That's why it's so easy to manipulate the proles -- they tend to think with their emotions.
It is relatively easy to tear down a society. Building one up in its ashes is quite another.
I have been falsely called many things on TPM, but never uber-wealthy (as your whip quip implies). It's the first time that I wish the fallacy were true.
September 6, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me if I take offense at your use of the word "proles," and your description of us. Since you state that you are not of the bourgeoisie, your use of "they" instead of "we" adds to the offensiveness. Personally, I almost never use these terms, but but as Jason has spent several comments reiterating, context is important.
September 6, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are excused for taking offense. "Prole" is from 1984, a George Orwell book.
I agree, Rowan: Context is everything.
As far as you being part of the proletariat or an even wider "us"? Sorry, this is the Internet and I barely know anything about you personally. Nor would that change the logic of my arguments one way or another. I wouldn't assume to lump you into one group or another -- nor did I.
September 7, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the context was harshly realistic but not all that demeaning.
The "proles" are easily manipulated because of the intelligentsia that is in charge at any given time. The key theme to 1984 is that it takes a supreme act of will to break out of the Two Minutes of Hate. I know CT can be blunt but that hardly seems belittling to me, though that could be because the only people who seem to put me down around here are the ones who spend most of their time disagreeing with things I never said.
I take blunt and honest (even if critical of my ideas) to rude and dishonest everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
September 7, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the money comment from this thread.
September 6, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful, Jason, according to quinn, you are just agreeing with me because we are "friends".
And thanks...
(((((((((((((((((HUG))))))))))))))))))))
September 6, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is funny. I just don't understand what is so controversial about valuing context when assessing fantastic data points.
September 6, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like snide, small, and stooopid.
But to each his own.
September 6, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the part about quinn dismissing Jason's views because he and I weren't falling into line here?
September 7, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dismissed Jason's views because they were factually wrong, and he insisted on keeping on even when that was pointed out - factually wrong being something he later admitted.
You I just dismiss because you're a bed-wetter.
September 7, 2009 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I conceded the data may be accurate, on its face, and then asked a follow-on question which you deemed unimportant though it is central to understanding the data in question.
You can't simply point to a fantastic rise in "profits" over a given period of time without also knowing the corresponding rise in total revenue. It is the only way to put that number in context.
Cherry-picking data to suit one's particular rhetorical needs is not an intellectually honest way of discussing complex issues.
September 7, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You keep digging, against any evidence. This pattern is why I rarely bother with you anymore.
But, even if your apparently unfounded assumption were correct - and the insurance companies sure are extorting as much in premiums as they can, increasing them by quite a bit in the last few years, but presumably there would be a similar offset on their payable end - it neatly illustrates one of the problems of for-profit systems: nothing is ever enough.
If they had stuck to their already considerable profit level, they could have reduced people's premiums or offered increased coverage instead.
September 7, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you confuse profit with revenue.
Their margins are no higher than they ever have, despite the apparent rise in profit. What has gone up is administrative costs which include things like exorbitant salaries and cushy perks.
Focusing on profit to the exclusion of all other data points is what continues to be the failure of this particular argument, not that health insurance companies are angels in all this.
Is this thing on?
September 7, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why dont'cha fucking read what I said?
September 7, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you read what you fucking said?
Your response had nothing to do with my point that their profits, as a percentage of overall revenue, has remained essentially unchanged for decades. You are fighting the wrong battle with the wrong numbers and against the wrong problems.
Not sure how else I can make the point without smoke signals or braille.
September 7, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not trying very hard. If they had kept the same exorbitant amount of profit, rather than the same ratio, they would not have needed to raise their premiums and cut their coverages.
So why dont'cha try "making the point" by pulling your head out of your ass?
And your claim is still, as pointed out ad nauseaum, unsubstantiated.
September 7, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you understand what profit margin means? It is revenue minus expenses.
So what is the health insurance industry's profit margin? I'll give you a hint. It is no higher than most other corporate sectors in America and substantially less than many. That took me all of ten seconds to find, so I suspect you really don't want to debate facts and are here instead to add to the bonfire.
Your continued claims that health insurers have been sitting on some huge pile of filthy lucre, ad nauseum, remains unsubstantiated by any objective measure.
September 7, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really should know better; you are completely and utterly incapable of admitting having been wrong.
Per uncontested report:
See the word there, 'profits'? If the insurance companies limited themselves to $2 400 000 000 in profit - not revenue, profit - there would be $12 500 000 000 to go around to reducing premiums and providing better coverage.
Unless you demonstrate some type of intellectual honesty, this is the last interaction you will have of me.
September 7, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you had bothered to go to the link I provided, you would see that the profit MARGIN is the same for health insurers as in other large US industries.
The amount of profit is immaterial independent of the margin, meaning revenue minus expense. Seriously, this Econ 101 stuff. Concentrating on profit is the wrong number when most of the money is wasted in expenses such as Lear jets and over-paid CEOs.
This is why your side keeps losing. Basic logic gaps that are impossible to overcome with sheer volume alone.
September 7, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
September 7, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink