Extreme Wealth in Perspective
The Guardian informs us that 314 of Forbes richest 400 people in the US lost $300 billion in the past year. I guess a takeaway might be that everybody has gotten hurt in the economic collapse. We could also say, "Gosh! Look how much money the richest folks have lost." Well, don't start taking donations for these poverty stricken billionaires yet.
According to the article:
1 Bill Gates, $50bn, down $7bn 2 Warren Buffett, $40bn, down $10bn 3 Lawrence Ellison, $27bn, unchanged 4 Christy Walton and family, Wal-Mart, $21.5bn, down $1.7bn 5 Jim Walton, Wal-Mart, $19.6bn, down $3.8bn
So after losses the five richest folks still had a combined wealth of $158.1 billion.
In trying to put such wealth and loss of wealth in perspective, I tried to find a comparison point. I decided to look at the budget of my state of residence - Oregon. The 2009-2011 budget for the state of Oregon is roughly $132 billion - or $66 billion a year. So the state of Oregon could run for about 4.5 YEARS on the losses from those folks. Or looked at somewhat differently, The state of Oregon could run for over 2 years on the wealth of the 5 richest folks alone. All of the schools, the roads, the courts, parks, fisheries, social services and Oregon Health Plan - for 4.5 years on the wealth of FIVE people.
According to Forbes "Fun Billionaire Statistics," the compined net worth of the richest 400 Americans is $1.27 trillion. The per capita of the U.S. in 2008 was $26,964 according to the U.S. Census Bureau Table P-1. Of course that includes those richest 400 people (and their near neighbors).
There is a difference between losing a few billion and what is happening to millions of people in the country. The graphs below appeared in the NY Times
One of the interesting things in the graphs - aside from the fact we have 6 unemplyed people for every job opening - is that for the entire period the number of unemployed exceeded the number of jobs.
An interesting read at Forbes is the 9/30/09 article by Keren Blankfeld "How Billionaires Control Our Lives."
Oh, those poor rich people.
October 1, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, but, if we would only cut their taxes they would create more jobs.
October 1, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, yeah, they'd trickle down, eh?
October 1, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Break out the Depends. Their "trickle" might be worth something.
October 1, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.delafee.com/edible-gold.php
October 1, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's trickling down and they're telling us it's raining!
October 2, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy, I'll break out my pitchfork.
October 1, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got a spare if u need it comrade.
October 1, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dear! Now they will think we're communists ... fomenting revolution, handing out pitchforks, next we'll be advertising for Capitalism: A Love Story.
The plebeians will be in the streets.
October 1, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I will hold off on donations right now. ha
October 1, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Gate's billions does not keep him from being a prick. It may even enhance it.
C
October 1, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He got his billions the way they all do - theft, illegality, and exploitation. Oh, I forgot, monopolies aren't illegal in the US any more.
October 1, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rich people? There's rich people in this country?
Wow. They must be pretty good at hiding from the rest of us, because I never see 'em where I live. ;o)
October 1, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
They live in "gated communities" and estates with their own military (excuse me security) forces. Then they try to say that they are just common folks. Gates even claims he's middle class. One has to wonder "the middle of what class."
October 1, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And again I ask, why are we not assessing FICA taxes on income over the current approx. $110k? Supposedly, this would fund all the shortfalls in SS for decades!?!
Anyone?
Personally, these people will not have to alter their lifestyles a bit! I reserve all my empathy for all who have lost their retirements, houses and jobs (not to mention access to any quality medical care).
October 1, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear! Aunt Sam!
Welcome to capitalist mythopia.
October 1, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear! Aunt Sam!
Welcome to capitalist mythopia.
October 1, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the theory (from which I personally benefit) is: your eventual benefits are capped, so therefore your current payments should also be capped. After I max out my social security each year, my pay shoots up a bunch, because some 20+ years from now, I won't be able to "get back" any more dollars even if I put more in today.
This theory is valid from one point of view, but from the "system-wide" view I prefer, it's stupid: yes, I benefit now, but eventually the "huddled masses" will figure it all out, and do something I won't like. (The super-rich, among whom I am not, will not like it either, but they plan to board their private helicopters and yachts, and flee the country, then spend the rest of their lives whining about those horrible Americans who stole so much of their wealth in the revolution. OK, they don't actually plan the whining, but that's what they'll do, like so many rich ex-Cubans in Florida. As always happens in history, it will take until they all die of old age for things to get better.)
October 2, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it better for the economy (and of course society) for this program to be funded? Think about it....
With the current retirement/pension debacles and job losses, many will only have this program to survive. If we have multitudes who must rely on only SS revenue (through no fault of their own) and this defaults, there will be massive drains on other programs, not to mention the base marketplace. These losses and costs will have huge negative impact on the wealthier's holdings and investments.
The FICA is at 7%. Perhaps there could be a reduction to half this for incomes over the current cap as an option too.
Like it or not, we're all linked and even for our own self interests, are reliant on 'the kindness and goodwill' of others.
October 2, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, is this a tax or a retirement plan? Since it was sold as a retirement plan, and benefits are capped, why wouldn't costs be capped? Does it make sense to pay millions into a retirement plan that will pay out a max of a couple thousand per month?
October 2, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks it has to do with responsibility.
At the end of the day, if someone is making millions of dollars a year or even hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, it is not because of the work of their own hands, but the work of thousands of hands, therefore, taking responsibility for the hands that actually generated the wealth is more of a responsibility then a penalty.
It is to the advantage of the wealthy that they refuse to disburse these dollars when the workers are employed, thus rendering them unlikely to work elsewhere, but we would all benefit if those employees could fend for themselves after their working years have ended. At the very least, we would not have to fund programs to support them and the employees to manage those programs. It is also to our benefit to have these dollars protected by the government rather then vulnerable to investors/Wall Street, who seek their own gain rather then sutainability of a program. It's been a social contract for decades and works quite well here and abroad.
October 2, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, but I believe the studies that show that, on the whole, the upper end of the economic-spectrum group gain more when we keep a smaller slice of a faster-growing pie, than when we keep a larger slice of the pie (which then ends up growing more slowly or, "net net" as we say, during the last eight years, not at all).
October 2, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just simply refuse to agree that these people earned the money. They simply exploited more people and, given the wealth created, it is absurd to agree that they were exploited at all. When someone has millions of dollars and loses a few. they remain housed and fed. Their employees, or former employees, not so much.
Frankly, if the wealthy find our taxes to extreme, let them leave.
October 2, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a moronic idea! Encourage the wealthy to leave, since they pay the bulk of all taxes in the country (the top 5% pay 66% of all taxes) I think you will miss them pretty quickly.
October 2, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the top 1 % controls more wealth than the bottom 95%. 66% taxes on 95%+ of the wealth? What a steal.
October 2, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last I checked taxes were on income not on wealth.
October 2, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they will miss us more quickly. It seems to me the wealthy have lost any sense of obligation to the country from which they extract their wealth.
October 2, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are they going to go for lower taxes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world#Graphs
October 2, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I like the Bahamas, no cap gains, no personal income tax, and no inheritance tax. There are lots of others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven
Remember, any place is nice if your rich.
October 2, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'ya
October 2, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bahamas? Now there is a bastion of industry. The Bahamas are a veritable wealth factory. Great place to make a fortune in the Bahamas. There's tourism and what, exactly?!?
October 3, 2009 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also can't let stand the idiotic comment that they did not earn the money, that they exploited people. Maybe some fall into that category, but not all. Many wealthy people got that way by hard work, they started businesses and worked hard and prospered. And they improved the lives of other people. Without them you would have only what you produce, which would be squat.
October 2, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And without workers, they would have only what they produce, which is squat, I believe is how you refer to it. And without roads or railways, what would they have? Or electricity, or phones? These monstrous utilities were created by the state and eventually absorbed by private interests. Now it serves the public much less efficiently.
October 2, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one hell of a nice argument Gregor and should get some sort of award (DD where are you?)
Exceptionally well stated.
October 2, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, don't they pay those thousands of hands? And pay SS and Medicare taxes for them? In addition to 401k contributions and health benefits and vacation pay. Huh, I didn't know they were all working for free.
October 2, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure they do, and the wealth of which we speak, their earnings, are what they have remaining AFTER they have done all of that. We tax what is left. Isn't it amazing that AFTER they have paid all of that, with the money they acquired by the works of the hands of others, that they still have such fantastic wealth. It was society and those workers who brought them that wealth and they are the ones scraping a lion's share from the income for doing very little work aside from developing the system that channels them such tremendous wealth.
October 3, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, why do they stop the real withholding somewhere up toward the top?
This is more than just a problem of equity. This has to do with the foundations of our society Rowan.
What kind of a country do we want?
Do poor white people in West Virginia, or Montana, or Florida, really want this kind of upside down justice?
I do not think so.
There is a war of propaganda out there and we need to participate and attempt to dissuade those who have bought the big lie.
October 2, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
DD, in my experience, people have no way of grasping what this type of wealth is. In my classes I talk sometimes about the big CEO's. I ask them to imagine winning the lottery and what would they do with the money. Then I ask tell them they won the lottery the next year, and the year after that. Every year they win the lottery. And that is the hired help - not these folks.
Anyway, even the CEO's lives are beyond the conceptualization of most of us. So folks support their own exploitation and that these Yahoos should be able to "make" as much money as they want, and not be over taxed, because they are just like us but a bit richer. And after all, one day we might be one of them and we wouldn't want folks taking our "hard earned gains."
Hell, I can't even wrap my brain around a million dollars - much less a billion. I have had insomnia since I was a kid. I used to count backwards from a million to get to sleep. It took me an incredible amount of time to get to zero - about a year I think. The most cash I have ever seen is $4000. What would a million $1 bills look like? What about a billion? 50 billion? That 400 people combined have 1.27 trillion - insane. What would it look like if they had to carry it around with them all the time? How many semi-trucks would they have to pull down the street?
I know that there are folks that can figure that out, but I can't grasp it, and I imagine the vast majority of folks can't either. So, they think the wealth is just slightly more than they can imagine and well within their dreams, and they believe the cultural and social lies that lets this kind of obscenity continue and grow.
October 2, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
October 2, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gracious, when will y'all understand that the uber rich need those tax breaks? How else can they continue to be the backbone of the global economy, providing employment, if not healthcare, for hundreds of people, not just at the office, but also in their private lives (because there is nothing they do for themselves).
Have you no empathy? Just consider the pressures and endless costs involved in owning and maintaining: multiple houses, plus cars for each, plus a yacht and at least one private plane. Every house must have a house manager, a housekeeper, a cook, a driver and maids and around the clock security. And all these people expect to be fed to work the shifts they do. The cost in fixed-location employee feed alone is astronomical.
Just consider the costs of the traveling entourage. The yacht and planes must each have a captain, a co-captain and crew. One must have a valet and a personal trainer; one's wife must have a maid, hairdresser and personal trainer. If there are children, there must be a nanny and an au pair. Personal assistants must be available, 24/7. All of these people eat and must have places to sleep, at your expense.
Not to mention the requisite phalanx of personal lawyers, accountants and brokers with their absurdly high fees, all of whom have a penchant for expensive lunches that you are expected to pay for. Thank god people aren't drinking two martinis at lunchtime anymore; the expensive wine they can put away is bad enough.
All these expenses, as if you are a cornucopia, before one even considers the expenses of not only one's nuclear family but also those of extended family and friends. One's current mistress costs a bloody fortune. One's friends expect to be housed, fed, and entertained in each of your locations, and many of them show up, when you least expect them, where you least expect them. One's less fortunate siblings persist in having children, for whom, in addition to your own children, you are to provide private school and university tuitions, vacations, clothing ..... It never ends.
It's really enough to make one feel quite sorry for oneself. All these needs of others must come before one spends one dime on oneself. Well, maybe not before, but frequently at the same time. Sometimes it's damned inconvenient. How, for example, are you to send your plane to pick up your sibling's child who is stranded in Paris when the plane is currently in China picking up your freshly laundered shirts? How can you be measured for your twenty suits from Saville Row with any sense of pleasure at all when both your wife and your mistress are going, unbeknownst to each other, to the same haute couture show?
And, at the end of each day, just when you might relax, there are those endless charity dinners and fundraisers where one must purchase a table for $10K or more and then the cheeky bastards expect you to write a big check for this cause or that...
But really. It's the food you mind the most. Why are all these people so hungry all the time?
October 2, 2009 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Wendy for that dose of tongue-in-cheek reality. Somehow it doesn't arouse my compassion. I imagine that some of us, myself included, were somewhat taken aback when John McCain didn't know how many houses he (or his wife) had. maybe it was because he's a man and that is one of those things that men forget. Or maybe it is because it's not his money but his wife's. But imagine being the employees (excuse me "staff") at the forgotten houses.
Now I am not saying that these folks don't have busy lives, and worries, and problems. I am not saying they are not people. However, the wealth they have did not, and does not, grow on trees or fall from the heavens. It comes from the rest of the population - us.
p.s. Wendy, you forgot the body guards that have to be posted on every member of the family to protect them from being kidnapped and ransomed.
;)
October 2, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
And we really didn't even realize that the gardeners and chauffers and Nannies and dog walkers WERE undocumented aliens, really and truly. Well, yes, we did pay them in cash, but that's only because they said that it was too far to walk to the banks. And anyway, we were helping them out giving them jobs, and they probably were sending money back to their poor relatvies south of the border. And we give lots of our hand-me-downs to them; I mean, how many maids do you know who wear Dior?
October 2, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh a belly laughin gotcha on that one!
October 2, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 2008, working Americans lost $2 trillion from their 401k retirement funds.
The losses among the very rich are big numbers for sure. However their lives aren't really influenced by those losses in any way.
Take a working class husband and wife though and between the tech meltdown of 2000, flat earnings during the Bush years, the recent collapse and they have suffered a serious financial downturn that does have a real impact on their lives.
Some might say such comparisons aren't valid. I happen to think they are. There is a big difference between having so much money, losing half, and still having billions or even millions and trying to figure out how you are going to pay your bills every month and seeing the possibility of retiring disappear in a flash.
And for good measure, throw in the worry about how you'll live when you get real old which didn't used to be the concern it is now. Because of what has happened there'll be a lot of people hit a financial wall during their late years who would have been fine except for the screwup of government and Wall Street. During the sixties and seventies government and business reinveted how retirement is financed in this coutry. The predicate to that reinvention was they could not screw it up. Well guess what????
October 2, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
All too true TPC. I'm glad you brought up retirement funds. In my opinion, the movement of retirement programs into the stock market was a scam to get more money to play with. "Get those little people in the market." Then they not only had other people's money to play with, but could make the claim that "most" people were invested in Wall Street. The reality being that most were invested in Wall Street because their retirement account manager invested the fund in the market. Then came the push to take social security and put it in the market as well. Now there's a really huge chunk of change to play with.
So the more of other people's money they had, the more like a game it seemed, and the risk taking got higher and higher. Then came the great idea of extending insurance to the riskiest of bets, and selling those as well. All one big game. And then it crashed, but no worry. Not only would they not "lose," but the biggest insurers of all - the governments of the world - would pay them back. Further, to make to make it look like "serious" action was being taken to control the situation, the only regulation really discussed was bonuses. HA! (as DD would say) don't change the regulation on the markets. Just get things back to "normal." We been there.
October 2, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Rowan that the reinvention of financing retirement was and is a scam. I have complained incessantly to my reps about all the money lost by regular working folks who really can't afford the 50% loss between the things I mentioned. Many people went the entire eight years of Bush without any real growth. The GAO has documented how poorly 410k investments did for that period.
I actually think this was a fully devised rip off. No way to prove that but earnings on 410k investments didn't measure up to even the meager earnings of the period. It has a very bad smell about it when you consider Wall Street was rolling in dough at least through 2006 and top earners did better than any others for the period.
October 2, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually many of the very wealthy were wiped out completely, from Madoff to the financial collapse, to the real estate bubble popping. Quite a few from the Forbes 400 are not even wealthy at this point, some are bankrupt. McAfee (the software guy) lost it all, as dig Hank Greenberg, from a billionaire to zippo. They were affected quite a bit.
October 2, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Madoff? You really want to use Madoff as an example? His 'wealth' was the result of unlawful activities which stripped many (not only the more affluent) of their much needed and deserved retirements as well as numerous charitable entities using their funding for benevolent causes. He's a criminal and worse....
Geez CB, major gaffe!
October 2, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously you misinterpreted what I was saying. I was listing the disasters that wiped out many people, and listed Madoff as one of those. He caused many people to lose a huge amount of money.
October 2, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Carlin once joked, that it was good news when he heard that "they lost the money" because that meant we could "find" it!
Where DID the money go?
October 2, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding. Madoff? Lost money? He was one of the more visible people who brought this down on us!! I don't know where you left your brain but go look for it and report back when you find it.
October 2, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, learn how to read. Madoff was a factor that caused many to lose money, like the real estate bubble popping or the financial meltdown.
October 2, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
CB, perhaps it isn't the reader but the way it is written? I've reread it and suggest you do same, then perhaps even apologize. Just a suggestion to encourage goodwill and less snarky put downs.
October 2, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I stated many of the wealthy were wiped out completely, then list 3 events that contributed to their loss :Madoff, the financial meltdown, and the real estate bubble popping. It seemed clear to me, and I'm pretty sure it was only because people were looking to go off on me that it was misinterpreted. I guess they just instinctively think that a republican would automatically defend a crook like Madoff, or would support pirate CEO's who rob from the shareholders.
October 2, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course those esteemed folks at the FED and SEC who are supposed to watch over all this mess and are doing such a fine job of it to.
C
October 2, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The American uber-wealthy are our Royalty, and many of us arguably love royalty. It's not neccessary to have Old Royal Surnames any longer, or taste or education, just piles of lucre. For crying out loud, that nasty-pants Donald Trump comes on my teevee all the time, he has his own program and now he's even doing ads! When Sir Allen Stanford gets out of prison, HE'LL be doing ads!
Why do so many lower-income people vote Republican? I swear it's because they really can imagine that one day they'll BE wealthy, and don't want to pay higher taxes when they do. It's the same thing at play, I think, when those same people defend the insurance industry's right to have no competition from any government health care options.
Many of us also thought that Trickle-down economics had been thoroughly discredited with the Big Meltdown. It doesn't appear to have been. Let the Bush tax cuts expire? Noooooo!
The Beltway pundits still believe that Wall Street is still the hallmark of the US economy; if the DOW is up, we're good. And many make the case that when the uber-wealthy lose 19% of their wealth in a year (on paper, it harms Wall Street, and therefore, American workers. The claim is that the uber-wealthy buy 40% of real goods in this country, so they help out workers. Not that the goods for the most part are even manufactured here any longer.
Hell, I'm ranting, and I'm even boring myself. Sorry.
October 2, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine what we could do with the money we'd have if only we would tax these uber wealthy people properly and cancel our insane wars in the middle east and asia?
October 2, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine indeed, except that the ongoing siphoning of the wealth of the nation has been going on for so long that many likely can't imagine. In fact we have been so mono-vision aimed that those "lazy welfare bums that are sucking the life's blood out of the economy" that many would be astonished that the rich and powerful could be the source of any economic problem at all.
October 2, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Oleeb. Here's something to hang our imaginations on
regarding the insane wars. You can input your state or city and
find out how much money
your locality loses on the grinding parts
of the war machine and what possibilities
those dollars hold.
"Taxpayers in Portland, Oregon will pay $14.9 million for proposed ballistic missile defense in FY2009. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
3,033 People with Health Care for One Year OR
14,014 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year OR
307 Public Safety Officers for One year OR
251 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year OR
2,554 Scholarships for University Students for One Year OR
2,787 Students receiving Pell Grants of $5350 OR
92 Affordable Housing Units OR
4,207 Children with Health Care for One Year OR
2,231 Head Start Places for Children for One Year OR
254 Elementary School Teachers for One Year OR
258 Port Container Inspectors for One year"
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
October 2, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your Forbes reference is a terrible article to begin with (the title is very misleading) and adds nothing to your discussion.
October 2, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
When will people go back to the real bottom line:
A great many people in Washington DC making the policy ARE part of the uber-rich.
Or did everyone miss the study which showed that there is strong evidence that politicians -- of both stripes -- use insider knowledge to trade stocks?
Here's a simply clue: if you want to represent the "regular person view", then you need to start electing them. Our dear sort-of-departed-Jason always talked (correctly) about how all of Americans go blindly along re-electing incumbents.
And a reminder how very few incumbents are challenged in primaries.
I swear, so many at TPM keep hitting themselves on a head with a hammer and then wonder why they have headaches!
October 2, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please; as if we didn't know that. How many of us have worked for and given money to Common Cause over the decades? How many of have our hair on fire whenever the Democratic House and Senate leaderships quash a populous candidate and throw a ton of money to their Chosen One? There are some schemes at bypassing the money in politics, but they have only worked so far in municpal and a few state elections.
Do you think we don't know how wealthy many Senators are, and at least a partial list of the corporations they are alligned with? And what their corporate donor lists look like?
McCain-Feingold is so full of loopholes as to be laughable. I just can't wait until next year when Congress passes True Campaign Finance Reform! And re-regulates Wall Street and the Banks! And enforces the regulations!
And there are actually a few elected Dems who vote for higher taxes on themselves...
October 2, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Wendy, by the type of comments I see here, I don't think many know and understand this.
As a simple example, many forgive Biden being bought and sold by the credit card companies. And many are hoping that his son takes over his Senate seat.
Or, more specifically, people decide to dislike the wealthy senators from the opposing party while making excuses for those of their own party.
October 2, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
My suggestion is to not engage provocateurs. This post is not about partisan anything. It is about inequality.
October 2, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leopold makes a good point here on Wall Street welfare. Too bad for us some of our money wasn't used to create WPA type jobs. Instead, the uberrich lost a couple of bucks relative to their stolen wealth and the rest of us continue to slide.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/the-forbes-400-shows-why_b_306228.html
Halloween ghouls still dress up like Dollarbill Gates and Mercenary Joe on TPM - the fantastical disguises of the thievery embedded in their socialization.
October 2, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When our money goes to the rich and corporate (or tax burden is shifted from them to us), it is called good for capitalism and the economy. When the consequences of that created inequality is addressed through "social programs" it is labeled "socialism" or "communism." More than a bit disingenuous in my opinion.
As someone who once made my living in the computer tech world, I have very strong feelings about Gates "the self made man" who "earned" his billions. Microsoft and Gates have skated on ethnically thin ice for its entire history. As noted in this article by James Gleick in 95 Making Microsoft Safe for Capitalism:
That Goliath is effectively a functional monopoly on a number of levels.
Halloween ghouls indeed. Yet another perversion of the Pagan and Wiccan holy day.
October 2, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apropos to that sentiment, I just listened to Olbermann from last night. He talked about National Flood Insurance, subsidized by the Federal government. It's totally socialistic; mandatory, no rules about living in flood areas, rebuilding after one or two floods, etc. A healthy boon to the insurance indusrty, and they have expanded it now to other kinds of property peril. He saaid soome of his info came via David Kay Johnston. If anyone has time, this would make a great blog.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann#33130898
October 2, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink