What is the real reason that Republicans want to bankrupt America

[The Backlash Cometh]

and Americans?

With the move to privatize social security and the dismantling of social service safety nets, it's obvious that bankruptcies will rise under this Administration's policies. It's so obvious that the Republicans at the top must know that this is inevitable. The one thing I cannot understand is why? Why would they do this to a country they claim they love? The only thing I see is Bush's agenda for continual war. With people out of financial options, they may be pliable for enlistment and the draft.

But is there another reason out there that I'm not seeing? Is there another country out there that is benefiting from America's very deliberate implosion?

Is there an agenda that I'm missing?

[shoelace414]

1. being enslaved to those with the most money?

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Okay, but if enough people do without, the level of crime will rise

They can live in their gated communities for so long. Sooner or later they'll want to come out to eat at a pricey restaurant and the chances of them bump into a mugging will increase.

And, they can't travel abroad either since Bush made sure that all Americans that travel will be received with less than a warm welcome and that's from our allies.

I'm playing D.A., here. So, feel free to play along if you like.

[Mandate My Ass]

62. Private security will be the only growth industry

and they'll be able to hire tons of it dirt cheap. I can even imagine in my darker, pessimistic moments they'll put desperate starving people who steal to stay alive in labor camps. If they die there, that's one less person using up dwindling resources. They don't refer to us as useless eaters for nothing.

The third-worldization of the US is coming. It's what they have wanted for decades. The Bush admin does not serve this country or even the republican party, they serve the haves and have mores and soon they'll become the have it alls.

[itzamirakul]

118. Maybe that's why they are making the prison camp on

Guantanamo permanent? To house Americns who are too poor to live in this country - away from prying eyes and outside of American legal control?

[radwriter0555]

50. Profits.

What else motivates the GOPnazis?

[murielm99]

2. If the country is deeply in debt, they will have an excuse to

stop funding all social programs. That is what they want.

They want to destroy public education, too. That way, there is a large, ignorant underclass willing to do their bidding. The underclass will be fit for nothing but cannon fodder and burger flipping.

Those too old to be fit for either can just die. They don't care.

[rurallib]

8. I agree, let me add

that the money they are bilking from the country is going in their pockets. So a part of it is simply greed. They are in control and the pickens are easy and they are a-picken.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. They can't ignore the suffering of their own countrymen forever.

Desperate people will do whatever they have to do in order to survive.

There was a group that goes around and provides a little experiment to its employees. It goes like this:

They separate the people into 3 or 4 groups. Maybe 6 people per group. Group A has all the resources; Group B has the ability to help people; Group C has nothing. The session takes a morning and is composed of several meetings. First, all the groups come together to lay the groundwork to discuss a ground rules, then they go to their respect rooms, in their respective groups to strategize, then they come back to the main meeting room to discuss what they resolved.

Well, after the first meeting, Group C (which had nothing) stole the chairs from the main meeting room so they had something to sit on when they went to the backroom. When asked what they did when they had nothing else to do, they laughingly said, we had sex and had babies. In the second meeting, Group A was given the right to make all the rules. They came back and said, that if people didn't work, they should starve to death and that to make sure they worked, they limited Group B's ability to help Group C in the form of financial loans. Well, by the end of the day, all the members of Group B & C had died. Group A actually had fun finding ways to kill them off.

In all the years that this organization has offered this test, they said that it was the cruelest, lack of cooperation that they had ever seen between the three groups.

So, perhaps you're right and we in America have reached a level of meanness which many of us at the bottom are having trouble comprehending, but at the same time, the test didn't include one thing, and that is that desperate people don't just die without kicking a few stable doors.

[Tansy_Gold]

74. They don't ignore the suffering; they enjoy it

Their underlying rationale is that their success is a measure of Their God's favor and grace. The more they have, the better God loves them, or actually it's the other way around. *IF* God has granted them grace, they will succeed at whatever they do, no matter how "evil" it may appear. Thus, if they succeed, it's because God wanted them to.

They have no compassion as we think of it. Their "compassion" (to have feeling with) is actually to share the same feelings as God, and since God withheld grace and favor from the poor, they will do the same.

They want a medieval theocratic feudal state, with a very very tiny upper tier of have-it-alls and lots of have-nothing slaves.

Don't think of it in terms of "they might want to get out of their gated communities to eat at a nice restaurant." There will be no nice restaurants outside the gated communities, i.e. walled castles. All the nice restaurants will be inside the gates.

Don't think of it in terms of "they might want to travel to other countries." They won't and they don't; they will make the luxuries -- ski resorts, beaches, etc. -- within their green zone compounds. As for other cultures, they don't give a shit about that.

Don't think in terms of "why would they want the greatest economy in the world to fail." That greatest economy produced a thriving and powerful middle class. They don't want a powerful middle class; they want a divine aristocracy. They don't want factories making cars for everyone; they want private shops making luxury vehicles for the few. They don't want assembly lines churning out tvs and stereos for the many; they want high-end electronics hand-made for them.

The danger is in thinking, "No, it could never come to that." It can, and it might.


Tansy Gold, in therapy

[barb162]

81. "No, it could never come to that" It will come to that

[MemphisTiger]

29. Agreed, I think Paul Krugman has published a book

about this subject, which is a collection of his columns. The repubs want to repeal all New Deal/Great Society programs. This keeps the rich richer and the poor poorer like before income taxes and creates the need for political machines to keep the unfortunates(poor) living off of the rich mans scraps.

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. Political machines?

Please describe political machines?

[MemphisTiger]

38. Do a search

this was probably covered in your social studies or High School american history class. I know it's been along time for some of us to remember those days, but I think you'll find it intersting. A little primer, these polical "bosses/machines" were thrown out of power due to the new deal programs like welfare.

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. Cheat sheet.

I'm asking for the cheat sheet. What something means to one person, doesn't always translate to what someone else is thinking. I take it from your gist that you're referring to "malevolent forces."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. I think they are trying to create a sort of feudalism.

They are doing everything they can to depress wages in order to increase corporate profits. If their policies are successful, most of us will be reduced to working for wages barely sufficient to keep us alive. Those of us who still have jobs that weren't outsourced to other countries will be completely dependent on the corporations that employ us because there will be no social safety net. There will be a small number of very wealthy people who will own almost everything, and the rest of us will have no choice other than to work for them on their terms. We will have no union protection, no OSHA, no unemployment compensation, no workers' compensation for injuries, no employer-provided health insurance. We'll be like the medieval peasants who were little more than the slaves of the aristocrats who owned the land.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. I can't refute what you said.

[nascarblue]

33. feudalism is exactly what they're doing, I never heard anyone say that b4

[davekriss]

107. 1976

The year Robert Heilbroner published his slim book, Business Civilization in Decline, in which he predicted the rise of a new corporate feudalism. A rather old (and true) idea.

[Dora]

59. You're right on the money - read this book:

It's a book I read last year and it completely opened my eyes. It's entirely on this subject (the new feudalism) as well as what we can do to stop it from happening.

The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy

I think the author's name is Marjorie Harris. I posted about it in the DU non-fiction books group a few weeks ago.

I ordered mine from Amazon, but I'm sure you can find it also at Powell's online.

[Tansy_Gold]

75. Divine Right of Capital, by Marjorie Kelly

The problem with Kelly's theory is that it perpetuates an "ownership" tier of society, that those who own corporate stock -- as opposed to actually owning a company in which they have an operational interest (capital) -- have a legitimate place in the social economy if they are socially responsible.

I disagree, because I don't think there's any way to make them socially responsible. Kelly carefully avoids almost any mention of Marx or Marxist theory, and yet it is exactly what she's trying to incorporate (pun intended) into an anti-corporate thesis.

IMHO, it doesn't work.

But then again,


Tansy Gold, marxist-socialist

[Dora]

86. I'm not an economist

And neither am I very well informed about political theory. I think you make an interesting point. I'm rereading the book right now (verry slooowly), and I'll keep your argument in mind as I make my way through it.

I do think Kelly's book is worth reading, especially as an introduction for those like myself who hadn't given these ideas much thought. I found it a real eye-opener, and it had quite an influence on me and my spending habits. It caused me to examine my spending, which is a simple activity that more and more people are waking up to. A super example is our own Economic Activism group at DU.

Waking up to see the demons that are disguised as corporations can come slowly - we can't all become marxists overnight.

As an aside: did you see the movie "The Corporation?"

[Tansy_Gold]

90. Economist -- not me! ;-)

Dora, I'm not an economist either, and I came to marxism (lower case)by steps.

I read Kelly's book a couple years ago, and I could see much of Marx in what she was writing, so I consciously looked for references. I don't think there are any direct references; IIRC, she only mentions his name once.

For those who aren't ready to take the plunge -- my hubby, for example -- Kelly offers a transitional phase, and that's good. I have no problem with that.

But she is in the business business, so it's to be expected that she would not entirely diss the corporatist/consumer system.

What I haven't seen much of, and don't know enough about it to do it myself, is a comparison of Marx's concept of capitalism with our current constructed corporatism. If anyone has some suggested reading, let me know! I will appreciate it muchly!

TG

[Just Me]

64. Yeah,...they just CALL it "free market". eom

[gorbal]

67. Trying?

What do you mean "Trying?" I'd say they have been quite successful already.

[Skidmore]

4. Have you considere that if many people are bankrupted,

what will happen to their real property? In addition, this is a handy dandy way to drive wages down.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. What happens to the real property? What happened the last time

foreign investors will buy it.

[sportndandy]

5. My anal ysis

Drive up the value of real estate, which a)causes more people to try to buy a home, and b)locks them into mortgage that is much higher than the historic value of the property. When the real estate market "tightens", it will be harder to sell your house because of the dollar loss involved and because of rising unemployment. As foreclosures rise, property values will spiral downward as banks try to move re-possessed property. Many people will have to simply default, thus losing all the money they had thrown into the house in the first place. The bank gets the property. For those that are not forced to leave or simply unable, they will face climbing property taxes and be reduced to economic serfdom - working hard just to maintain an oversized mortgage and high taxes. The rich will take everything left at a reduced price.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. "The rich" are not just Americans. The land will be up for grabs

by foreign investors.

[bvar22]

84. There are no "REAL Foreign Investors" anymore.

They are ALL members of the NEW Ultra Rich that exist OUTSIDE the old limits of Nations and Governments. They are the ones who are seated at the tables of the WTO and IMF.

They aren't regulated by laws or treaties.

They don't answer to governments or voters.

They are accountable to NO ONE.

They meet in SECRET and dictate to nations.

They won't be the ones trying to live in gated communities with private police forces. When the crunch comes, these people will own entire Island Nations. No poor people will be banging on THEIR doors.

[Must_B_Free]

106. Actually I worked on an Immigration website once

"Exceptional Wealth" is an actual categoty for the justification of granting of citizenship...

[The Backlash Cometh]

113. kick

[bogey18]

7. Read up on Grover Norquist

You will learn why neocons want to bankrupt government - they are really trying to return the country to the 19th century, the before income tax days.

[Chalco]

48. Yes, read up on this guy

Norquist rules Washington. He determines the economic agenda. Check him out and you will find that he sets policy. He's a very scary guy. I remember he was on Terry Gross's Fresh Air one time and she was flummoxed by his audacity and insensitivity.

He espouses the dismantling of social security, no taxes or a flat tax (can't remember which), no government, etc.

[Shakespeare]

61. Yup. Just what I was about to say.

Anybody on our side who doesn't know this guy's agenda inside and out needs to read up on it FAST, because it's exactly where Bush is taking the country. The guy is delusional and dangerous, and makes Rove look like a puppydog in comparison.

[porkrind]

99. Jeez, I just read up on him.

Thanks for the heads-up. Norquist is a real brown-shirt scumbag. He won't be happy until america is returned to feudalistic gilded-age oppression. In the upcoming class-warfare, he would squarely be the enemy of working Americans.

Why does he hate America?

[Jurgis]

9. In general....

they do it because they are selfish greedy bastards--read: I got mine they can get thiers. And they do it because they can; because no one has had the cojones to hang a few of the bastards from a lamp-post.

[Ironpost]

11. welcome to DU

as Will Rogers once said, there ought to be a politician hanging from every tree from here to Washington

[w4rma]

43. The heck with hanging politicians. Point your anger at the folks *backing*

these policies (and *only* the folks backing these policies) who have power because of what they own and therefore cannot be unelected, and will continue the attack on our nation regardless of who is elected.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Well, if the right has more cojones than the left, then that's the

appendage we should hang them from. :-)

[Lost4words]

23. the saying goes "Ive got mine to hell with you" GOP MOTTO!

Not, I got mine they can get theirs., they, the pukes dont wont you to get any. The opportunities they make are for themselves and are quickly closed off to the rest.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. Not just Republican. Libertarian too.

[masaka___]

53. Don't diss the libertarians

They're totally against the current regime, too.

[The Backlash Cometh]

57. They are co-opters of parties.

Don't get too cozy with them. I worked alongside one of them and... well, this will illustrate everything:

We both fought the city to get it to follow public records laws. I worked the process and got results. And though we both had a common interest in getting the city to adhere to the Sunshine laws, he was doing it to help developers get information to avoid set asides and I was doing it to get the city to get developers to provide set asides. i.e. public infrastructure. Well, the libertarian was feeding his developer cronies all the information that he could get from me, and believe me, it wasn't much. But, in the end, it probably cost the public in negotiations.

[Tansy_Gold]

76. Libertarians want no laws restricting property use

No income tax -- your income is your property and you should do what you want with it.

No property tax -- your property is yours. If you want your kids to go to school, you should pay for it.

No environmental laws -- your property is yours to do with as you want, even if what you do spoils your neighbor's property. It's up to him to defend it, not the government.

No workplace safety laws -- the factory owner should not have any limits on how best to make a profit; it is up to the worker to either make his workplace safe or find another job. If enough workers leave, maybe the factory owner will clean up his act, but he shouldn't be forced to.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

[Jurgis]

63. Get a rope boys...

n/t

[bvar22]

128. Every man for himself!!!

"Every man for himself," shouted the elephant as he danced among the chickens!---Charles Dickins


One of my favorite Dickins quotes. Applies equally to Republicans, Libertarians, and those assholes that don't know that Ayn Rand wrote FICTION!

[The Backlash Cometh]

131. That's how I feel in my community.

These Repubs don't realize that the world they are creating is going to be a whole lot worse than the one they left.

[Mend]

10. Lots of servants bowing and scraping....

the article on the bush twins drinking at night clubs around New York and not paying and not tipping.....and expecting that just their presence would be enough. The ultimate self-esteem booster for these pigs.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Are you kidding me?

Why is this a secret? This is disgraceful!

[Mend]

54. This was posted on DU

please see the DU State and County Forums, Minnesota, Nov. 24th about the bush twins. The original report was in a newspaper gossip section called Gawkers. The restaurant was Freemans in New York City. After they were tossed out and told to come back in 2008, the entire restaurant broke out in cheers. I love New York!

[The Backlash Cometh]

58. This should be posted in the Demopedia.

:-)

[Debbie13]

12. I think they want to bankrupt America because they want to go Global

They want a global world for their corporations and don't care about the U.S. They want to control the world.

I guess that sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. Well, I can see how our loss could be Saudi Arabia's win.

I know Kuwaitti's and Saudia Arabia spent a lot of money on real estate in the U.S. the last time around. Now it will be Japan, China and just about anyone else out there with outsourced money. Sort of a new immigration program.

But, that's D.A. I don't really have any facts to back that up.

[itzamirakul]

120. They already own HUUUUUUGGGGGGGE chunks of Manhattan...

Imelda Marcos owns half of Fifth Avenue. The Saudis own major hotels at Central Park. The japanes own ( or at least they USED to own) Rockefeller Center, where katie and Matt chirp from everyday.

[nascarblue]

36. not ridiculous at all, they've made people afraid to say this..

...outloud. This next year or two is going to be scary. They will bombard us with neo christian theocracy, they will drop bombs, they're pushing hard for NASA to get space shuttles going, and a bunch of other shit. THese guys are psychotic and they scare the shit out of me with their "rapture jesus is coming" nonsense. They believe they have to start armaggedon so Jesus can come back. No wonder Europe thinks we're so dumb. I knew this was going to happen. No one paid attention to the Rev. Moon/Falwell/Bush connection.

[elehhhhna]

39. No it doesn't . If you wanted to rule the world,

what country would YOU take over first? THIS ONE!

[rman]

13. it will strengthen the rule of the elites

economic collapse will hurt lower income groups and the middle class,
but it won't hurt the upper class.

"a country they claim they love"

They claim a lot things. they claim to be in favor of things that the people like, such as democracy and freedom.
But it should be obvious by now that this is simply part of the deception they practice in order to gain ever more power.

Forget what they say; judge them by the fruit of their labor - the effects of their actions.

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. That may be what they think is going to happen, but it's going

to backfire on them. At least in my area, people don't focus on the corruption as long as they don't get cheated too badly. But if they're facing financial difficulty, they will look for the source on a local level, then work they way up.

[chefgirl]

14. Easy

Because people who are already rich/wealthy will never have to worry about bankruptcy anyway.

It will create a society where the middle class will be completely dependent on them for our very survival, and will be forced to take whatever low paying jobs they are willing to give us, thereby virtually eliminating the middle class.

The middle class is the only socio-economic class that threatens them, by having the ability to accumulate wealth, and therefore elevate their socio-economic status, as well as their ability to create and maintain their own power structure.

Consolidating wealth = consolidation of power which ensures the status quo.

-chef-

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. Key words: ensures the status quo.

[McKenzie]

26. sounds plausible enough but there are potential repercussions

I tend to agree with you about the undertow of wealthy elites manipulating the economy for their own ends. However, that would also have the effect of increasing the likelihood of civil strife immensely. If people have lost everything they have nothing else to lose. That makes them mighty dangerous to the establishment imo.

regards

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Key words: Civil strife.

[chefgirl]

56. Dangerous? Maybe, but..

How willing or able to fight them do you think people will be when they have to spend 24/7 looking for jobs and food to 'put on their families'?

Did people rise up during the great depression? NO, they couldn't. They were too hungry and beaten down.

The ruling elite were robber barons then and they are robber barons now. They were the ones that caused the collapse and the middle and lower income classes were the ones that paid the greatest price.

Also, I think its helpful to bear in mind that they won't make the same mistakes this time that they made the last time.

I think that makes THEM infinitely more dangerous than the ordinary citizens.

-chef-

[B Calm]

25. So they'll earn a good % on tax free bonds...

[AG78]

30. Social Darwinism

Money, power, and religion all fit in there.

Why do they want to bankrupt the government? Because they've never liked the middle class, and have been trying to eliminate it from day one. It's really only been around for 40 years, where every citizen has had a chance.

They don't like government. They don't want to have any regulations. They want child labor. They don't want health care. They don't want public education. They want private police forces, and private firefighters. They want everything privitized. Honestly, who the hell are we to want access to clean water?

And I completely agree that some of it has to do with the military. In some shape or form. You could be talking about private police. Or the military in general. Or if you want to take it a step further, one day in the future, each individual corporation has it's own army. There are barely any countries left as it is. It's basically just corporations today. Borders don't matter.

They just want complete control. That's all people like Grover Norquist want. Power for power's sake. It's no more complicated than that.

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. Just adding one point:

Is it possible, that American cabals, under Jim Baker's grand plan, have moved their corporations off-shore away from American restrictions so that they now have the least labor overhead concerns such as minimum wage, health care, worker's comp. AND, to quell the discontent at home, they'll enforce a draft to keep our young men subservient to them and busy fighting off anyone who challenges their corporations on foreign soil?

[indigolady]

71. of course, it's possible and probable.

[leesa]

32. They don't love this country. They are globalists. They make their money

no matter what happens to this country. The want to have a select few own everything and the rest of us will be serfs. We will fight their wars for them. We will provide hard labor for them in exchange for a bit of food and maybe a shelter. They will be the barons. It's what this group was after when they caused the Great Depression and it's what they are doing again.

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. I just reached this conclusion, in the post above yours.

[ret5hd]

37. ask tinoire to post pictures of the palatial homes of haiti...

with their horses, mercedes, etc.

look at pictures of the elite in jamaica, colombia, philipines, etc.

the rich aren't just rich...they are uber-rich. bill gates rich. maybe not in dollars, but certainly in lifestyle.

look at the scenery of the big sur area of the california coast. it is an affront to their senses that they cannot own that, fence it off, make it theirs, and keep YOU off of it.

look at the majesty of yellowstone. they want it for THEIRS. not ours, the collective riff-raff that they must endure, with all of our odors and elbows and bratty kids, but THEIRS, with a bedroom window view of hot springs and geysers.

the gilded age is their dream for themselves, their due, their birthright. and the destruction of OUR lifes is both necessary and desirable.

think i'm a little over the top? spouting a little hyperbole?
watch them. watch their moves for a year...the stock market, the gold market, the moves and manipulations of employment, unemployment, school funding crisis, sports stadium building, etc. watch them for a year with these thoughts in mind. then, after a year, ask youself again if i was over the top. nothing, NOTHING, they do is for our benefit. NOTHING. if it once appears on the surface that they have done a right and honorable thing...look again. scratch the surface. see who truly benefits.

[mikelewis]

41. This is simply ridiculous Repubs don't want to bankrupt America

The goal is not perpetual war or the enslavement of our population. Thier goal is the same goal that every powerful country in history has sought, the retention of power. There are people who are very concerned that America is failing, not just the Dems but the Repubs too. The European Union is growing economically, China is growing economically, these pose a very real threat to the idea that America is the most powerful nation on earth. The problem is, we aren't doing the things that have made us the most powerful nation on earth. We gained this title by our ability to work as one nation of united individuals and now that is being challenged. It's being challenged because certain leaders feel that to make the changes that are necessary they need to remove the voice of the people from the debate.

The new policy isn't one of leadership, its one of rulership. This is destined for failure because we are not a people so easily ruled. This contention causes instability and instability causes economic friction. They are stifling our growth by trying to make us grow. This concept is at odds with the idea of the free market. The free market was not intended to grant corporations the ability to run roughshod over a middle or lower class. It's intent was to allow all persons with vision and desire a chance to suceed. This is what is bankrupting America.

Corporations seek to perpetuate thier existance and one way they do so is by applying pressure on the government to give them an advantage over competition. Is this inherently wrong? No, it's survival. But it is a self-defeating policy. If they continue on this course, they will, for a time, bankrupt America. They will stagnate our economy and that is not what the framers of our Constitution intended. They knew the nature of corporations as well, if not better than we do. Don't forget, many of the colonies were corporate ventures that had strong governmental oversight. For some, the Revolution was not simply a break from tyrrany, it was a break from governmental constraints on the economy of thier individual colony. The same situation is being created today. Does this mean that we are destined for poverty and third world status? No, don't be defeatist. It means that when this policy fails, as it is destined to do, a new policy will take hold that will allow us the freedom to grow and not force us to grow.

The American people will not simply go down without a fight. When the people begin to lose faith in our economy, they will lose faith in the people who are guiding our economy. This will allow for new ideas to take hold. It just takes time. It sucks now and may continue to suck for a while but by our very nature, a change will happen. We are a dynamic people with a strong sense of individual liberty. Don't give up on us so easily.

Sincerely,
Michael Lewis

[Jurgis]

45. If, by free market...

you mean capitalism, it has always been its intent to run roughshod over the middle and working class. In capitalism, labor is simply another commodity like steel or coal that goes into the manufacture of a product, the end purpose of which is to turn a profit. Ideally, under capitalism, when laborers can no longer perform at maximum capacity or become obsolete they would be cast off onto the scrap heap and forgotten. In the free market, labor is to be aquired at the absolute minimum price required. The free market now comprises the entire world, including some places where labor is extremely cheap, and in some instances, free--such as prison labor in China. The result of this is that we are literally competing with prison labor in China for our jobs. This is just wonderful for keeping expenses down and profits up, but not so great for us.

[SoCalDem]

88. The "middle class" is/was an "accidental" blip on the radar

It was created by the confluence of hard-fought unionization, followed by WWII, and a sense of gratuitude to the soldiers when they returned.

Had any other president been in charge (than FDR), there would have been no GI BILL, No VA housing, No expansion of unions in the 50's.

That 25 year span from '45-'70, was the last REAL era of middle class expansion. It's been contracting ever since, because the "guys at the top" do NOT like to share "their" wealth, and they saw middle classers as a danger to their own prosperity.. The last 3 decades have been ALL ABOUT taking things back..

taking back pensions
taking back rights won in the 60's
taking back access to college for low and middle classers
taking back access to unions
and much more.

[dpibel]

89. Much overlooked point

Those of us who grew up in the pre-Reagan years have an utterly skewed view of this country. When we were growing up, the USofA actually was headed in the direction of the rosy pictures in our civics books.

But it was an anomalous time.

By way of example, we think it shocking that the Supreme Court might become a bastion of reaction, a friend to corporations and wealth, and a defender of the big over the small. But take a look at the history of the Supreme Court. It's the institution that gave us Dred Scoot, and endorsement of forced sterilization by the revered Justice Holmes, corporate personhood (albeit by the back door), and a host of anti-people decisions. It was the accidental combination of FDR's 4 terms and Eisenhower's self-confessed mistake in appointing Earl Warren that produced the rights-friendly court we think of as the norm.

Similarly, as you point out, the leveling effect of the GI Bill and the post-war economic boom made it look as if we were all headed up. That worked only so long as it was to the advantage of the moneyed class.

But this has never been the norm in this country. The dark reality is that this has always been a country ruled by the oligarchs.

It's just that it was such a wealthy country to begin with that the oligarchs were able to peel off more than their counterparts elsewhere to keep the masses fat and happy.

We all have this rosy ideal that the point of the USofA is to make us all rich. It's not. It never has been. And now that the resource base is depleted and the principal economic activity is churning money, the mask is off, and so are the gloves.

[Jurgis]

96. I hadn't thought of that...

That my view was skewed, but you're absolutely right. We just accepted that things had always been that way and expected more. I remember the teachers in grade-school telling us that we were the best and brightest generation and would accomplish wondrous things. We have, but to what end? To create an American empire that pillages resources from unfortunate piss-ant third-world nations? To become involved in a Darwinian struggle with our own countrymen (who, by the way, don't believe in Darwin.) The toys and wealth have been used as a means of control: its easier to control people if they have something to lose. Now they're being withdrawn and we're dealt the back of the hand and a cheery "fuck-off maggot, and oh, merry Christmas. Jesus loves you."

[The Backlash Cometh]

98. Thanks everyone who posted to this offshoot.

My father lived the era. He's not a professional writer, but he did write his story and I know what he and his family went through to get to where we are today. He told me sometime in the 80s that he couldn't see how anyone could make the leap that he had made without the help of government programs. (From abject poverty to solid middle class.)

Well, to be fair to the Republicans, we know that people don't need government. Anyone who has the ability to lie, can sell anything in this country and make millions. But my father is a man of integrity, and he raised us to believe that we must live good lives, because if we did something wrong, we may never recover from it. Well, we know that's not entirely true anymore either. Because integrity doesn't matter. Just the appearance of integrity matters, and that's why Republicans get away with so much crookedness. They are masters of the veneer.

[SoCalDem]

114. Youngsters today do not realize that "single family" homes

came about BECAUSE of the VA housing program. MOST young famillies in the 50's were returning-veterans. Prior to the war, young people would marry, and end up living WITH their parents (and maybe a grandma or two, an aunt or two..maybe some cousins) If they were lucky, they lived on a farm, and Dad would portion out a bit of land and help them get a small house built, but they were still on the familial homestead.
In cities, LOTS of people had turned large houses into boarding houses where whole extended families lived, and rented out rooms to make extra money.

Suburbia and home ownership by the "masses" was due to FDR and WWII.

Suburbia has turned out to be less the blessing it was thought it would be, but without FDR and his innovative governmental plans, there would be no "true" middle class.

Union wages were the "engine" that made it happen for so many young people. Back then a husband could support a stay-at-home wife, and larger families than we now see...and he could even afford to send them to college

We are living with the remnants of that American Dream, and it's hard to come to terms with the fact that the "Greatest Generation" will probably be the LAST generation to improve their standard of living..

They had a good "run", but what they had, cannot be "passed on" to future generations.. They just "borrowed" success for a generation, and now it's been returned to the moneyed classes.

[The Backlash Cometh]

116. The American Dream is dying.

Republicans do not have a plan that will help the many. They will support a few shooting stars, and use them as false-inducers for others, much like a Ponzi scheme.

[SoCalDem]

121. A fantastic resource for "the way we were" 1940-49

http://kclibrary.nhmccd.edu/decade40.html


a snippet

FACTS about this decade.
Population 132,122,000
Unemployed in 1940 - 8,120,000
National Debt $43 Billion
Average Salary $1,299. Teacher's salary $1,441
Minimum Wage $.43 per hour
55% of U.S. homes have indoor plumbing
Antarctica is discovered to be a continent
Life expectancy 68.2 female, 60.8 male
Auto deaths 34,500
Supreme Court decides blacks do have a right to vote
World War II changed the order of world power, the United States and the USSR became super powers
Cold War begins.

[The Backlash Cometh]

46. Well written.

[indigolady]

68. Thanks for that reminder

The market corrects itself. I just don't want to be part of the discomfort of the transitions.
Does it have to get so bad before the powers wake up?

I think the "free market" is inherntly cruel.
Can it be controlled?

[The Backlash Cometh]

82. I'm sure the fall of Rome was a market correction.

[dpibel]

72. How very sweet

You seem to have this lovely idea that, but for a few bad apples at the top, we're all in this together. Wherever did you get that idea? As matters stand, it really is class warfare, as out in the open as it's been for a hundred years.

The history of the founding of the US, even as you state it, does not necessarily imply an interest in the economic freedom of all. It reflects something closer to the truth: that the moneyed interests didn't like sharing the wealth with the Crown. Tell me when it was in the early history of the US that there was this great emphasis on the good of all. Was it granting the vote only to the landed? Was it slavery?

You correctly identify that corporations are a big part of the problem. You seem to feel, however, that corporations are something that stand outside the government (as it exists), and that those in power are struggling to fulfill the promise of America; they're just a bit misguided. I see no evidence of that. What I see is that those in power are wholly owned subsidiaries of multinational corporations.

When, as is now the case, wealth and power operate outside the constraints of national boundaries, what does that do to your notion that "Their goal is the same goal that every powerful country in history has sought, the retention of power." It's no longer an issue of "powerful country," it's a matter of powerful corporations and those who serve them. When that is the case, the question becomes, "Power over whom?" And the answer is, "Over everyone." Do you really believe that these people give a damn whether their serfs are Chinese or American? Do you really believe that they think we're all in this together, and that they'll take care of you because you're an American? I see no indication of that.

Finally, you place your trust in the vaunted individualism and freedom of the citizens of this great and free country. Could you fill me in on what makes you think that such a thing exists? Some very large number of Americans just voted for the very people who are pursuing a course of multinational feudalism, and they defend their choice angrily and vociferously. Where in that do you see American individualism and ingenuity in action? Those people are demanding that the folks at the top continue to do just what they've been doing. In fact, it appears that people are doing precisely the opposite of what you predict: In the face of growing evidence that things are going to hell in a hand basket, their loyalty to the people in power grows.

Your analysis comports with standard textbook presentations of America, the land of the free, the home of the individual, and the very embodiment of all that is good in capitalism. What it doesn't comport with much is the real history of America and the reality of what's going on right now.

[Tansy_Gold]

79. The element left out, of course, is the role of religion in all this.

It's not just economics -- it's the close tie of the economy to that wonderful "opiate of the masses."

Religion -- specifically fundamentalist calvinistic protestant christianity -- is a very powerful political tool of the theocratic elite. When wealth is believed to be a sign of God's favor, not even the poor will rise up.

Nixon believed if the president does something, it can't be illegal. Fundies (and those whom they serve) believe that God alone determines who's in power, who's rich. As God wills it. In'sh'allah. Same fucking difference. The Islamist fundamentalists don't want a viable middle class either. We should take a lesson from them -- our fundies are the same.

[itzamirakul]

122. The GOP appealed to their baser fears

which at its bottom line is based not on class but on race. The GOP promises poor whites a better, stronger position than blacks have and makes superiority a major factor in the way they convince them to vote. They will scream "NO!" and try to twist things to say that any mention of racism is politically incorrect, but there you have it folks. An old tool is to make their white skin their "property" even if they do not own a pot or window.

Why else would home-schooling books perpetuate the lie that slaves lived simple, happy lives filled with "pleasures?" As they admit themselves, it is to remove any lingering feelings of "guilt" from young white minds over racial inequities.

As I heard one white man say on AAR, "I would be willing to work for $1 an hour if only segregation would come back."

[CBHagman]

42. The thing that crosses my mind...

...is that the whoreson liars and cheats and plotters, like Bush and Norquist, may be insulated from the ill effects of their policies, but even the wealthy cannot completely escape from their dependence on the middle and lower class. What they're doing is going to create disruption and rage in the members of the military, cops, firefighters, nurses, teachers, government workers, and the like. They can't be ensured that there will be faithful servants at their beck and call.

I don't know where to go from there, but I do know that one way to destabilize a society is to destroy the middle class. The Republicans have made a herculean effort to do so, and may their sins be upon their heads. May they get what they deserve and deserve what they get.

[Geek_Girl]

44. I believe they are doing it to Dismantle Government Institutions

Like Public education, Social Security ect.. They also want to redistribute the wealth back to the top. While our stock market tanks look what markets do better. China and the Asian markets have been doing very well. Look at the investments of those who are running the show like the Carlyle Group they have major investments in China and around the world particularly in Asian Markets. This is all about a major power/money grab by a small handful of folks running the show. They couldn't care less what happens to the United States. The sad part is most Americans are too stupid to realize that they are being raped and robbed. All I can say is hunker down, pay of debt live frugally and survive it the best you can. Because this ship is sinking fast.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. "most Americans are too stupid to realize"

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

[indigolady]

69. Not un-intelligent, but stupid...

made stupid by TV? If it's on TV they believe it. If it's not on TV they don't believe it. That's why they make fun of internet blogs. (of course there are a lot of unsubstiantiated opinions on internet forums.... and talk radio and Fox news.

[RealLiberal4U]

49. So That When Democrats Return To Power

There will be no money for social programs.

[The Backlash Cometh]

51. A return of Democrats is a return to taxes, but it also means

a return of government paid jobs. And with people earning money, there will be an increase in the consumer base. And with the increase in the consumer base, they will be a return to the demand side of the economic forumla which in turn, creates jobs.

[oc2002]

52. They just want to turn the USA into a kind of Suadi Arabia..

..owned and operated by one family, The Bush family.

The Imperial Feifdom of Bush.

opose them, and die.

[TrustingDog]

55. PNACers like Wolfy and their dual country loyalities....

but sssssssshhhhhhhhh! we're not allowed to talk about That one.

[GreenPartyVoter]

60. A return to feudalism, of course.

------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Mandate My Ass]

65. Yup, work for the company's slave wages, "live" in the company

house, buy your food at the company store. It's feudalism with a few empty gestures of capitalism thrown in to keep up the delusion that the workers are not really serfs.

[indigolady]

70. except companies don't provide housing, or food or stores anymore.

[indigolady]

66. "Market Capitalism"

The so called "free" market economic model is dependent on some sort of slavery (low operating costs, ie labor) to be profitable for the business owners. Labor is the most expensive cost of doing business. The costs of doing business can be adjusted on the cost of labor or the price charged for the product or service. Compitition controlls the price. That's why Wall Mart is successful; it pays low wages, and offers low prices. This forces other businesses to lower their prices and pay their employees less...or lay them off.
It's evil, but it's more sacred than the Bible to right wing capitalists.

I just finished tutoring my son in high school economics (he stopped going to the classes he didn't like, so the school told him he had to do "independent study" for his last four classes.) The textbook, printed in 2000, was enlightening, even though it was biased towards "free market capitalism" and confused it with "democracy." They believe that the market is "self correcting" and will always find equalibrium. That philosophy fails to consider that people are involved.

I think that people who were born into wealth (or at least, comfort), are well educated, and who also work very hard and are very successful believe that anyone can be successful and if they are not, they must not be working hard enough. They fail to take into account the level of assistance they received (without even noticing it). They (like most people everywhere) only see the proplems they may be facing personally. Like payroll taxes. Like workers compensation premiums. Like personal income taxes & property taxes and estate taxes. Whitteling away at their holdings. Meanwhile, at home, they have undocumented housekeepers, gardeners, and nannys, who are paid in cash to avoid payroll taxes and deprotation.

They're "nice" people, they just don't have a clue. They probably do lots of chairity work, and go to church, as well. But they have no empathy nor do they realize that they couldn't maintain their lifestyle if it weren't for low wages to their employees and household wokers. I take that back, they do realize how important low wages are to their standard of living, they just don't understand why that's wrong.

Now, there may be people associated with Bush's neo-con, religious right wing, dispensationalist ("raptureites") who are trying to force the end of this world so they can hurry up and go to heaven. That's another story. ( By the way, there is no mention of "the rapture" in the Bible, it's a 19th century hoax.)

[Yavin4]

73. If You Want To Know Why They're Destroying Social Programs

See Saudi Arabia as a reference. That's our future. That country sits on the largest oil reserves in the world, and YET, they have high unemployment. Astronomically high. Why, because a tiny elite, the Saudi Royal family and their associates, own everything and live like Kings while their people starve in the streets.

So, how do they keep order? Through a repressive, non-democratic government, scapegoating Israel for all of their problems, and hiding behind radical Islamic leaders.

So how will the tiny elite here keep power? Stripping away democracy through Diebold, scapegoating Gays and Lesbians, and hiding behind radical Christian leaders.

[Kablooie]

77. Cheap Labor!

If the government doesn't have money they will be forced to eliminate services. This will cause those who rely on the services to become desparate. Desparate people will work for anything, hence cheap labor!

Rich producers, having created a system of depressed wages can reap even bigger profits and since they don't rely on government service themselves, there is no downside at all!

Capitalism at it's best!
Just the way it was back in Dicken's time!
Wonderful!

[mikelewis]

78. In a free market, enslaving the work force is counterproductive.

"If, by free market you mean capitalism, it has always been its intent to run roughshod over the middle and working class. In capitalism, labor is simply another commodity like steel or coal that goes into the manufacture of a product, the end purpose of which is to turn a profit. Ideally, under capitalism, when laborers can no longer perform at maximum capacity or become obsolete they would be cast off onto the scrap heap and forgotten. In the free market, labor is to be aquired at the absolute minimum price required. The free market now comprises the entire world, including some places where labor is extremely cheap, and in some instances, free--such as prison labor in China. The result of this is that we are literally competing with prison labor in China for our jobs. This is just wonderful for keeping expenses down and profits up, but not so great for us."




That's true if you bleed the humanity out of the market but you don't need to do this. In fact, it's better if you don't. The Republican concept of social security isn't really a bad idea in principle. I don't think it'll work because of the transition from state run social security to privatized social security in a time when we are to have the largest amount of people recieving benefits compared to the number of workers available. But had there not been any program in place this may have been the best option.

Because of it's volitile nature, I also don't trust the stock market as a means to guarantee the financial security of our elderly. I think there must be a better way. Clearly, we have problems in social security. I also think that we should have a public hearing on the mismangament of taxpayer funds. It is my understanding that the money in the social security fund had been "dipped into" to the point to which there is very little left in the fund. There should be some ramifications for this as this is illegal and immoral. It mimicks the Enron ordeal but far exceeds the damage by epic proportions.

But to say that it is ideal to use up a workforce and then toss them away as rubbish is absurd. There is no benefit to this and does not maximize the usefulness of the employee. That's the problem with today's marketplace. There is far too little emphasis in maximizing the quality of the individual. Your reference to China is a good example of which I speak. The short term gain that these chinese companies will recieve does very little to ensure the conitnued success of any of thier companies. It comes down to the old axiom, "you only get what you put in." An unskilled slave labor force does not allow you the fliexibilty for the change that is necessary to remain competitive when your market changes, as it is destined to do. This has been and will hopefully remain to be the leading reason for our success thus far.

Also, a smart company shouldn't merely throw the human garbage away into a trash heap. This is stupid as these people often times know more about the workings of a company than the management does. A smart company would find a way to give it's employee's a vested interest in the company. Look at Microsoft. I know, it's an evil conglomerate bent on world domination but it has also produced more millionaires than any company in the history of the world. Why? Because the management vested the employees in the success of the business.

Take Wal-mart as another example. Right now, Wal-mart has an image problem that they had better address. The best solution for Wal-mart would be to turn over stock options to thier employees and work to get them good quality health care. This would be a very small cost compared to the massive benefits they would recieve. The price of Wal-mart stock would rise so fast thier collective heads would spin. The employees would be happy, thier future would be in thier own hands and thier image would improve dramatically. There is no down-side to this arrangement at all. The fear is that if this option is pursued the inmates would be running the prison. But what they fail to realize is that the inmates aren't as stupid as they think they are. People are more than willing to turn over control for security. It's when greed begins to infiltrate the organization that the whole thing breaks apart.

Your perception of the free market is flawed not because it isn't the current state of affairs but because this is not the intent of a free market. It has become perverted over the years as some people have figured out how to manipulate the system to thier own advantage. A free market can benefit everyone if it is utilized the way it was intended. Ask yourself this question, if the company that you work for suddenly instituted a program by which you would recieve a increasing vested interest in the company the longer worked there and more productive you were, how would your perception of the company change? Would it stay the same or would you begin to see that there was a direct correlation between the success of the company and your individual success. Also would you care which employee was the one to bring a new and successful idea to the company as long as the price of your stock continued to rise? You can grow a company quickly by instituting policies that produce more and waste less. It's a win-win situation for both the company and the employees in the short and long term.

This is close to the idea the Republicans are putting forward for privatized social security. In theory, it's a good idea, the problem that we have now is that we have a large percentage of the baby boomers who will need to remain on state run social security. How are we going to cover this cost? I have no idea. I don't think they do either but something's going to have to happen or where in for a very real and tragic problem.

Sincerely,
Michael Lewis

[Tansy_Gold]

83. First of all, there is no social security crisis.

I believe Krugman's column "Inventing a Crisis" can be read at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html, but if that doesn't work, I'm sure someone will provide the correct link. That's what I have in my files, but they aren't always 100% accurate.

Second of all, even in theory, investing in the stock market to fund the retirements of the nation's workers is impossible. The stock market is a gigantic casino. You bet that one stock will rise, I bet that another will rise. The income is generated by the buying and selling of stocks, which must be timed to when the buying price is lower than the selling. In a sense, it's a gigantic ponzi scheme -- because you have to keep bringing in more and more money, more and more disposable income.

Investing in companies to fund one's retirement is entirely different. One buys the stock of companies one thinks will prosper and pay handsome dividends year in and year out as one progresses into one's non-working years.

The problem is that both the performance of the companies AND the performance of the stock market are unreliable producers of income. The privatization of "social security" is an oxymoron -- and a very stupid (one might almost say, a stupid Republican) idea.

There is also every rationale for using up the work force and throwing away the discards. If there is a massive supply of cheap labor, and only a small portion is needed at any one time to supply the needs of those who can afford to buy, then there is no reason to maintain the work force. Use 'em up, toss 'em out. Yes, there will always by the ass-kissers who will provide some value to The Company, but those workers will be retained. We're talking about the warm bodies, the grunts, the burger flippers and call center slaves and retail clerks who are easily replaced.

When there are more workers than there are jobs, the workers will fight each other for the privilege of accepting slave wages, driving wages further down and profits up. And when there is little beyond survival to live for, when sex is the only pleasure, women will become objects, children will become capital. Sinclair's The Jungle wasn't about the unsanitary conditions in the meat packing industry which affected the consumer; it was about the exploitation of the immigrant worker whose labor and misery sustained that industry. Middle class consumers who read the book complained about the sanitation, but to this day no one pays attention to the fate of the packing workers. As long as our hot dogs and filets mignons are safe to stuff down our gullets, who the fuck cares how many workers get their arms or legs caught in the machinery?

"Social security" means that the social corporation -- not private investment/speculation -- funds the financial security of those either unable to work or who have put in their time. Privatizing it is an oxymoron, and an obscene one at that.

Tansy Gold, thinking names but not calling any

[mikelewis]

102. Call me what ever the hell you like

I have a lot of respect for Krugman and will continue to but in this I think he is wrong. I believe there is a problem in Social Security and, as I have stated previously, do not believe investing in the stock market with Social Security funds is a good idea due to the volitile nature of the market. I do not believe you have accurately represented my statement. But you are wrong to say that

"the stock market is is a gigantic casino. You bet that one stock will rise, I bet that another will rise. The income is generated by the buying and selling of stocks, which must be timed to when the buying price is lower than the selling".

The value of a stock is also a real asset value of a companies holdings and rarely exceeds this by any great margin. There has been times when a stock price has risen to unrealistic proportions and has fallen just as quickly. The Tech Stock boom was one such occurance. One could have made a lot of money playing in this market but a long term investment strategy requires diversification across a broad spectrum of companies. Long term growth companies also have real value assest to secure the investments. If this was not the case, you would be correct, this would be casino gambling. But it is not. But again, I don't think changing the program in such a manner to place these funds at risk is a good idea at all.

This type of investing is not a realistic example of the investment intent. A diversified portfolio is a little more risky venture than a savings account but hardly a high risk venture. It is that there is risk that I do not like the plan. I agree that Social Security should be maintained but something must be done to give solidity to the program and allow for real value assest of the social security trust fund.

Currently, the trust fund consists of government bonds. Six years ago, the value of these bonds would have guaranteed a positive cash flow in the social security fund. But unfortunately, thanks to the Shrub, the value of these bonds is going in the other direction, quite quickly, I might add. The government used the money from the sale of these bonds to finance the deficit reduction programs in the 90's. I thought that was a bad idea then and I think it is going to cause problems down the road. In reality, there is no trust fund, it is simply an IOU the government has written to itself. It would be like me writing a bond to myself. That's ridiculous. What if the value of the dollar continues to fall? What if the strength of our economy does not return? By investing in government bonds the government has essentially invested in a stock market. I don't believe that America will lose the economic war we seem to be in but I do believe that we will get hurt by it, because we are. Placing the future of our elderly at risk was not the intention of the Social Security Trust Fund.

I would like to back up this statement with a statement from the House Budget committee.

"HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE
http://www.house.gov/budget/press/sstask/6899hearing.htm
SOCIAL SECURITY TASK FORCE

Rep. Nick Smith, Chairman

Is There Really a Trust Fund?
Task Force Hearing, June 8, 1999
Introductory Statement of Chairman Nick Smith

The problems facing Social Security as our society ages are well known. We on this Task Force have been studying the pressures on its pay-as-you-go financing system and various options for modifying and strengthening it. Today, the Task Force directs its attention to the Social Security Trust Fund.

The Social Security Trust Fund has existed as an accounting entity since 1937. The government credits it when payroll taxes exceed Social Security payments, and debits it when benefits exceed taxes. It was created to keep track of all the funds that the government collected for Social Security benefits.

The 1983 reforms, however, changed the role of the Trust Fund. At that time, Social Security stood on the brink of default. In response, Congress passed the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission which included a payroll tax increase, the taxation of some benefits, and an increase in the retirement age. The higher payroll tax caused money to come rushing into the Social Security Trust Fund, to the point that the Trust Fund now stands at more than $740 billion for Old Age Survivors and $90 billion more for Disability Insurance. We must find an effective way to hold and pay back this enormous sum of money for the retirement of the baby boom and future generations.

It is in this role as a savings account that the Trust Fund could fail. It cannot work because it holds no independent assets. Though the Trust Fund is backed by government securities, these have a different meaning than they would for you or me. If I hold a government bond, I have an asset that the government will give me money for or that I can sell at any time. If the government holds a bond, however, its obligation to give itself money is meaningless. The government cannot make these bonds good, as needed in 2014, except by borrowing, reducing other expenditures or taxing citizens.

Clearly, the Trust Fund means less than the public imagines. But what does it mean? Does it exist? Can Americans depend on it? Some, including the AARP, have said that Social Security is OK until 2034. But what will the government have to do to honor the Trust Fund beginning in 2014?

These are our questions for today. I look forward to our witnesses’ presentations. "


Now, about tossing away the human refuse. While this is the current business rationale, it does not mean that it fits into the capitolism or free market ideology. To create human garbage was not the intent of these philosophies. I'm not sure what to call what we are doing today. It damn sure isn't capitolism nor a free market. The idea of Capitolism was to allow business to grow while placing restrictions on how business is conducted to ensure the well-being of the consuming public. It's not a true free market otherwise I'd be selling weed on the corner sitting in a recliner. There needs to be restraints on the market. The fact is, there are restraints placed on the market. It's just that those restraints have been mainpulated by greedy power-hungry bastards. The GPH's have bought our government and sold the workers out. This was not the intent of a free market and will ultimately fail. It always has failed so why would it succeed this time? Think of the Robber Barons of the 1800's, the Carnegie's , the Rockafellers. They failed because the labor market refused to continue to be subjected to thier will. It wasn't a total loss by any stretch of the imagination but things did get better for the American worker. I guarantee you, you are not working as hard as your grandparents or your parents for that matter. God willing, our children won't need to work as hard as we do today. But to insist that Capitolism is a flawed philosphy requires that we have some alternative. I have yet to see a better system for the market.

The problem that exists is that the "warm bodies, the grunts, the burger flippers and call center slaves and retail clerks who are easily replaced" are not vested in the companies they work for. If they were, they would not be so easily replaced nor so easily ignored as they would own a part of the company they work for. By all rights, they should.

I know many people who have developed new ideas and recieved patents for thier work. Unfortunatley, the company that they work for retains the rights to those patents. How is this logical? I agree that by facilitating the environment by which the work was created grants the company a sizable portion of the patent interest but the people who used thier own intellectual property should be granted certain rights to the long term financial benefits from their labor. This practice is wrong. It does not fit the mold of Capitolism. It does not serve the best interests of the market. It robs the incentive from the individual to create within the company and add to the overall value of the company. This is stupid.

I think you may have mistaken me for a Republican. Just because I do not believe that they are evil does not mean that I adhere to thier philosophy. I believe some of them are bad, very very very bad. But I will not throw the baby out with the bath water. Many republicans are decent hard working people who feel that government has taken too much already. They feel that if the government simply managed the money that they had, instead of wasting it, the country might be better off. I happen to agree with them on this. Our government pisses our money away like it means nothing. They have no respect for the laws that they enact. They have no respect for the generations that thier self-serving interests has doomed to an uncertain future. So you can think or even say whatever the hell you like about me. But it is closed minded people like you who make it difficult for people to find a common ground.

Sincerely,
Michael Lewis

[dpibel]

85. There's a fly or twelve in that ointment

Your devotion to the notion that we're all in this together is truly charming.

The biggest problem with your analytic is that it presumes some sort of equilibrium between the labor supply and demand. That doesn't even come close to existing.

Your rosy scenarios where the skilled are valued, and all boats rise on the swelling tide just doesn't exist any more. It happens when there's a shortage of skilled labor, but that doesn't exist. In case you hadn't noticed, unemployment is rising, and it's rising just as fast amongst the skilled as the unskilled. Maybe faster. Note the local effects of outsourcing IT work to India.

When skilled workers are forced to work for whatever their masters elect to offer, there's no benefit at all in doing anything but use them up and throw them away. There's another one where that one came from.

Your examples of good business models is truly hilarious. Microsoft and WalMart? You jest. Microsoft minted millionaires early on. Now it hires temps to avoid paying benefits. WalMart is doing quite well on their current model, thank you. Their stock price is based on using offshore slave labor to provide marginally lower, but much advertised, prices. You suggest that they take steps which they will pass along in higher prices, which will remove them from their position as default shopping stop, and you believe this will make their shares skyrocket? Again you jest.

Another problem with your analytic is that you seem to think that the masters of the universe take the long view. There's no indication of that at all. Profits for next quarter are all that matter. Why build for the future, when you can make billions today.

You seem to perceive that the current policies are driving right off the cliff. What you seem to miss is that those implementing the policies are pretty sure they can fly, while everyone else can just splatter on the rocks below.

A few side notes:

China is doing quite well with its slave-labor model. I'm not at all sure why you think it's doomed to failure. As long as you have a substantial supply of those quick-on-the feet adjusters to market realities supplied with a vast force of slave labor, you can do pretty well.

You are confusing a free market with American unbridled capitalism. They're not the same thing. No multinational corporation is interested in a free market. They want, and get, a highly controlled market, with all the controls in their favor. Perhaps some idealized free market would work the way you think, but there's never been such a thing.

Finally, you cleave to the warm notion that the Republicans are actually trying to do the right thing about social security. Surely you can't be... Oh. I guess you can.

[Tansy_Gold]

92. Excellent post, dpibel

:thumbsup:

[dpibel]

94. Yours likewise

I was thinking about posting something to the effect that I didn't read yours before I posted mine.

Great minds... ;)

[The Backlash Cometh]

97. Yeah. I liked it too. I hope we can all put our heads together to

figure how we can take this country back from the robber barons.

[mikelewis]

103. I was speaking of the intent not the reality, also believe many of the Rep

are good decent people. I know many, I don't agree with many of thier ideas but I refuse to label them as evil simply because they think differently than me.


My reference to Microsoft was an example of how a company can serve it's own interests and the interests of the employees at the same time. The fact that they have altered thier business ethics to this new model is irrelevant to my point. The same goes to Wal-mart. By vesting the employees in the company and providing them with health care would increase the positive perception of the company and increase the price of the stock. The transition of stock options to thier employees would not cost them anything, in fact it would raise the value of the stock. You are probably thinking that they would have to buy back stock options already sold when this is not the case. A company does not sell all of its stock, it has plenty to award it's employees and not detract from the value of the company. Adding health care would be a burden to the company but would require a modest 1.5% rise in prices at the most. This would not knock them out of their market and their public image would increase to offset any damage this slight rise would cause. Also, the rise in stock prices would go along way to offset the health care costs as they would have more capitol by which to fund this program and expand. They may not even need to raise the prices. The long term benefits to the employees and the company would be immeasurable.

I am not ignoring the fact that we have serious problems that need to be addressed. I was simply stating the intention and not the reality. I would rather work towards an realistic ideal for the future than complain about the surreal reality we find ourselves in currently.

How would you like to structure our markets? I prefer to believe that achieving a situation by which everyone stands to benefit is much more desirable than simply bitching and name-calling. I also practice what I preach. I own a company and the people who work for me own part of the company as well. I have been growing this business for the past 4 years and have been doing much better than my competition. My "workers" seem to like the arrangement as well though they would laugh if they read that I called them workers. Hell, most of the time, I am the "worker". I use thier ideas and they follow my lead. I am not better than anyone of them but I have the industry knowledge to make good decisions. I believe a lot of them respect the situation they are in. I can tell you that they work thier asses off and I have not had to deal with any bullshit. Hell, if they keep at it and we grow even larger, they can keep 90% for all I care. I know that our future is more secure than if we were working for any other Burglar Alarm Contracting Company and the quality of our service far exceeds that of any other company in Cleveland, so our customers benefit as well.

Oh and yeah, by the way, a few of them are "Repugs" and I appreciate them all the same. In fact, I get a lot of enjoyment arguing politics with them. I always win by telling them that I am going to switch over to become a Republican. By the way, I am not a Democrat either. I am not sure what party best suits my beliefs but I have many people who I have a profound respect for and they happen to be Democrats. I was not aware that one had to be a Democrat to believe in democracy. If this is the case, then I will kindly leave you to your mocking and bitching. I came to this site because of my work on the vote fraud issue and have met many very nice and very intelligent people on this site. I believed that this site was a forum that would allow people to voice thier opinions in a free an open way. If you want to mock anyone who doesn't believe the same things that you do, then that's your perogative, I guess. It's just not the way I choose to lead my life.

Sincerely,
Michael Lewis

[dpibel]

105. Fair enough

Let me see if I can curb my tongue, then.

You say:

I was speaking of the intent not the reality, also believe many of the Rep are good decent people. I know many, I don't agree with many of thier ideas but I refuse to label them as evil simply because they think differently than me.

I do not recall labeling anyone as evil simply because they think differently from me. I'm willing to be corrected, and if I did such a thing, I will happily and humbly apologize and retract. FWIW, my recently deceased mother was a Republican all her life. I thought she was misguided. I thought she was wrong. But I didn't think she was evil.

On the other hand, I think the current occupant of the White House is evil. I don't think he's evil because he's a nominal Republican; I don't think he's evil because I disagree with him. I think he's evil because he does evil things.

You say:

My reference to Microsoft was an example of how a company can serve it's own interests and the interests of the employees at the same time. The fact that they have altered thier business ethics to this new model is irrelevant to my point.

Actually, I don't think they've altered their business ethics because I don't think they had any to begin with. I think that Gates started out handing out fistsful of stock options because he didn't have the ready cash to get people to work long hours. I see no indication that he set out to create millionaires; that was a byproduct of necessity.

While neither of us knows Gates' mind (well, I don't, anyhow), the fact that, once the company was established he changed from options-enriched employees to benefits-free temps indicates to me that the original model was not altruistic.

You discuss what WalMart might do and what might happen if it did.

I cannot claim a thorough knowledge of WalMart's finances. The retail business, however, is one which runs on razor-thin margins. Since WalMart's "always" lower prices generally beat the competition by a mere few cents (when they beat them at all), a 1.5% price increase would, I think, damage their main claim to fame quite a bit.

Your analytic of what might happen to employee morale if the employees were vested in the company ignores the reality I mentioned in an earlier post: WalMart employees are at the very bottom of the ladder; they are fungible. WalMart doesn't care whether its employees are happy and, much to their collective shame, neither do the people who shop at WalMart. If a WalMart employee is unhappy, WalMart is very happy to tell them to take a hike.

I think you are mistaken about the effect of share price on the cost of doing business. Your idea that a rise in share price would provide the company with more capital just isn't right. Once a share is issued, it ceases to have anything to do with the company's capitalization. If you buy a share of WalMart on the stock exchange, zero dollars goes to WalMart. I suppose you could argue that a rise in share price would allow the Walton children to sell shares for more money, which would allow them to provide benefits for their employees. But the company sees no change in its capitalization when its share price changes (except for the initial offering of any given share). In fact, what you suggest--releasing unreleased shares/options to employees--would dilute the value of the Walton heirs' shares.

You say:

I am not ignoring the fact that we have serious problems that need to be addressed. I was simply stating the intention and not the reality. I would rather work towards an realistic ideal for the future than complain about the surreal reality we find ourselves in currently.

I honestly don't understand the intention/reality part of this. The only intention I recall you discussing is the intention of the Republicans with respect to social security. On that issue, we will simply have to disagree. I do not believe for an instant that the Republicans have any good intention here. I believe they have the intention of transfering a great pile of money to Wall Street. I believe they have the intention of impoverishing a whole segment of society. I believe they want nothing less than to destroy social security, and I am not alone in this belief. Read, inter alia Paul Krugman on the subject. According to him, and a whole gang of other knowledgeable folk, social security's not broken. But the Republicans plan to break it.

I can understand your impulse toward seeking solutions. As far as I can tell, especially given your description of your business, you're a good guy, your heart's in the right place, and you have the best of intentions. But when it comes to your proposed solutions, I respectfully suggest you are committing the error of generalizing from your own particular. While it would be nice if all business owners thorught and acted as you do, there's little evidence that they do now, or that they ever will. Both your examples of businesses that might someday behave well are, in fact, examples of businesses founded and run on greed and ruthlessness (read Sam Walton's autobiography some time; I have).

It would be great if all businesses ran on your model (it would also smack a bit of socialism). But they don't, and the Republicans are doing their best to make sure that the model of predation is the one that's winning.

As far as I can tell, you and I agree that the business model of rampant, ruthless greed is a bad one, and that the best way to get out of that is for people to change their minds.

But this actually wasn't a thread about that. It was a thread about why the Republicans are trying to bankrupt the country. You appeared expressing an opinion that they're not; that they have good intentions. On that, you and I strongly disagree.

You say:

I believed that this site was a forum that would allow people to voice thier opinions in a free an open way. If you want to mock anyone who doesn't believe the same things that you do, then that's your perogative, I guess. It's just not the way I choose to lead my life.

Actually, this is a private forum where the First Amendment does not apply and, as a matter of fact, the owners of the site reserve the right to ban people for voicing their opinions, if those opinions do not comport with the rules.

Within those rules, you are assuredly free to express your opinions to your heart's content. I'm sorry that you found my tone not to your liking. I respectfully suggest that if you think what I wrote constitutes some sort of out-of-line mocking, you haven't spent much time on internet forums.

I don't mock anyone who doesn't believe the way I do. To the extent that what I said constituted mocking, it was mocking what I see as rather ill-formed ideas based on some very rosy assumptions. The preceding sentence is not mocking, it's just a statement of my opinion. I will argue with those with whom I do not agree; I will point out to them where I think their ideas are flawed. One of the risks of voicing your opinions in a free and open way is that you will encounter people who disagree with your opinions, perhaps very strongly. People like that may use a variety of rhetorical devices to express that disagreement, and you may not like all of them.

But you are assuredly entitled to your opinion, both of my tone, and of the way I live my life.

[barb162]

80. the top corporate zillionaires are making even more money as they

fire experienced workers with good benefits and hire cheap Asian labor. Greed is the main reason, get as many zillions as they can and leave everyone else im the lurch. "Pigs at the Trough"

[bvar22]

87. Some people aren't happy being rich....

...unless everyone else is starving.

The Great Depression was a very GOOD TIME for the 1% that owned everything.

[Paranoid_Portlander]

91. Maybe Mexico is the Repub's economic model..

Another DU poster claimed that about 60 families in Mexico own most of the wealth, including 14(?) billionaires. We may be headed in that direction (except for the military adventures).

[chaska]

93. They're sensualists. They want to experience it all, including...

a life that's "nasty, brutish and short".

[MsConduct]

95. Because those who have all the toys, win. n/t

[Disturbed]

100. Globalization is unstoppable?

Amerikan workers are no longer needed except as temps. Most Multi-Corps don't consider that they are Amerikan Korps. They don't pay taxes nor need to adhere to any environmental or labor laws. The U.S. Govt. is propped up by the Multi-corps and supports the goals of Capitalism. the Military and the Intell. Agencies our defenders and gaurdians of the Capitalists. Police are mainly defenders of private property and property owners.

Amerika is not and never was a Democracy. It has been and still is an Oligarchy. Now we have a Govt. that is Facsist backed by the Corps. and the Right Wing so-called Christians. The Middle Class will become the Working Poor and Amerika will become a Facsist Police State but the delusion that America is the best country and the most free will linger. The brainwashing of that fairy tale will remain.

[MsConduct]

111. Great points! Thanks. n/t

[Jose Diablo]

101. With our military

and a constant source of troops and the economy trashed, Europe will be next.

It's a continuing agenda of the corporate globalists (as good a name as any) to reduce governments to little more than a way to protect themselves from the people.

We have seen them operate in South America, Africa and Asia. They practiced on New Zealand and won there for awhile. The 'outside' threat is not a country but a group of wealthy corporatists, bankers, some politicians with crooks thrown in also. Some are American, but it is a group of people from many countries. That Bilderberg stuff is a false flag, to discredit stories about them as conspiracy theories. They are actually outside of any laws. Mark Lombardi came the closest to identifying them. Their roots are various criminal organizations around the world, a loose association of thugs and crooks, operating through intermediaries in practically all countries. Guns, drugs, diamonds, gold, slavery. They are into everything. Many corporations have been subverted and are being run by proxies.

Vote fraud is nothing new to them. They cut their teeth on vote fraud in Chicago and New York. Piece of cake. So what if Chicago or New York is Dem, it makes no difference. Why is the media so silent, you think the media fears the government. I don't, but they will fear an organization that never fails to get its target, never. CIA my rosy ass, its the underground, in the traditional meaning.

Think of all the politicians, I'm sure most of them have something they wouldn't want published. Everyone has some thing better left unsaid. Politicians would be easy to subvert, they like to bend over, except they call it compromise and reaching concensus.

They want to eliminate nations as a threat to their power. World government, with them as the barons. Knocking country after country down. That's why they need USA to be next, because of the riots going on around the world and just starting here before Bu*h got in. The IMF, WTO thing. They needed firm control of the USA or they would have lost the whole thing. And they fear the communists and anarchists like a cobra fears a mongoose. Thats why the cold war. If they as individuals are identified before they bring it off, then they are finished.

And they think they can do this with mercenary militaries or militaries that are fighting for freedom. Eventually turning one army against another until all thats left is the paid help. Be kinda like China before western contact, with them as the very top class and the rest of us, that are left, at a subsistence living. Its not enough that they are wealthy, everyone else must be poor. Thats the nature of power.

There is no compromise possible with these people. The sooner we see them for what they are the easier it will be to stop them. Wait too long, its adios muchacho. But I don't think we will win this one. I doubt most people will even see it coming, until the end. It will seem like every other war, mostly confusing, not really understanding what is driving the whole thing.

And who allowed them to get a real good start? Why it was Edgar J Hoover and his fearless Fosdicks with help from the prohibition law, this was the first large group to form and organize. La Costa Nostra, but it is far far beyond that now, its not even ethnic. True botherhood.

Pardon me while I adjust my..this is all a joke..right??? Of course it is. I am just a crazy loonie. And because I am a loonie, naturally there are no links. All speculation. But who else can it be, that can capture the world like is happening now. It's an inside job, but in every country and no country. It has to be organized crime, but on a scale never seen in the world before.

:tinfoilhat:

[Cobalt Violet]

104. They want tons of cheap labor and tons of enlistees. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

108. 21st Century Feudalism/Slavery

That's it in a nutshell.

[cryptocommie]

109. They know what we are unwilling to accept...

the gig is up.

The American Century ended in 1973 when the Saudis proved that
they and other oil exporters controlled the world. Our ability
to prop up their lousy monarchy is reaching its political and
military limit.

BushCo knows that they face the final opportunity to secure
the future for their own. They are desperate and have pulled
out all the stops to mask their actions with the greatest
distractions possible: never-ending war around the world, and
the theocratization of government at home.

This is class warfare. We must claim our identity and power to
bring down the ruling class as surely as righteously angry
Arabs will bring down theirs.

[idealista]

110. the power-mad are sick individuals, why do we create them?

I read all this with great interest, and want to add my 2 cents, not in disagreement, but a certain perspective.

Not all individuals seem to have this selfish and cruel lust for money and power to the extent that these big wheels, neo-con, Hitler types do. But there are seeds of in in all of us, even if some of us would never, under any conditions, persue it to their extent.

I often wonder what kind of world these despoilers imagine, that they are trying to create? Because they end up isolated, and can't possibly be enjoying some of the things that are most important to me and many I know. If they were capable of enjoying nature, they would not be destroying it. For all their wealth, I question if they live as fulfilling a life as a normal person with a nice place home and community, close to family and friends, work they enjoy, intellectual stimulation, a love of the arts, and someone who finds meaning in trying to help the world in some way, like many people here.

In sum, I think they are very sick fuckers. Probably miserable and mean. I think the torturers of the world are acting out a desire to externalize their own inner pain, which might have had, say, origin in emotional rather than physical cruelty (which our society tends to ignor and mis-name). I think part of the human disaster is on the psychological level, that we can't produce enough mentally healthy people, but instead we create these monsters whose (natural) need for security (money and power) runs completely amok, growing like virulent cancer. And then there are too many people who are not aware enough to recognize these crazies and neutralize them before they can tie us all in a knot.

Maybe we are a failing species. I'm depressed.

[ever_green]

112. Totalitarian agenda! Martial law!

The elites will always be on top, they will never go hungry, however the rest of us will be in chaos trying to merely eat when the economy collapses, and it will soon...this is when they declare martial law.

[bvar22]

129. Google Romanov, circa 1917.

Also see:
Louis the Last, French, 1793

also:
Fulgencio Batista, 1958
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDbatista.htm



The rich only get to keep it until the poor get hungry enough to take it!

[The Backlash Cometh]

132. I respect your sig.

I don't know why the Repubs haven't figured this one out. It's a tale that has existed from the beginning of time.

[ComerPerro]

115. Because you will actually have to work harder, for less

When it is hard to find a job, you will gladly settle for a $10,000 a year paycut as long as you can stay employed.

Besides, they never really destroy America. They are just transferring wealth to themselves. They are getting richer and richer. And, the poorer everyone else is, the more "greatful" people will be just to have a job. Who cares that it pays less than your last job. Who cares that you can't get health insurance.

Just listen to how conservatives talk about buisness owners. "Big businesses should get tax cuts because they hire people and keep people employed."

I say, fuck that. Who gives a shit? The corporations owe the workers, not the other way around. The workers are the ones producing. I shouldn't have to feel greatful to my employer. Especially the way some companies lay off five or ten thousand people without a worry just to make their stock go up a point.

[NoSheep]

117. Thank you for saying all that for me!

:toast:

[kerry-is-my-prez]

119. They want to get rid of all social programs & return to pre-Roosevelt time

We'll also return to the old days when there was the very very wealthy and the poor and nothing in between. Similar to most of the countries in Central America.

[itzamirakul]

124. Botom line is that they will all die...

eventually, and although they will die very rich, their children will follow the old adage of acting like heirs and will occupy themselves soley in spending the money that their mothers and fathers fcked the world to accumulate. If nothing else, I can satisfy myself knowing that even with science to keep them alive for years and years...eventually....they will die.

[IntravenousDemilo]

125. What you need is a good ol'-fashioned revolution

Nothing is going to get solved, apparently, until the streets run red with the blood of the freebooters.

But as a measure to forestall this last resort, it's necessary for certain pieces of legislation to be enacted:

1) One that requires US companies to pay their outsourced employees in other countries exactly the same wage earned by American employees. You'll find a lot of those foreign plants closed down in very short order, because they'll be far too expensive to run.

2) One prohibiting windfall profits and usurious interest rates (anything more than 3 per cent above prime is usury).

3) Just for good measure, one that prohibits any company that has had within the last 15 years, currently has, or will in the next 15 years have any dealings whatever with any cabinet secretary or staffer, from profiting through the reconstruction of Iraq or any other occupied country.

Wait two years, and if these things haven't been done, commence firing. Or maybe just commence firing Republicans from Congress.

[The Backlash Cometh]

126. I agree with everything but the reference to bloodshed.

Non-violent measures are the best, but we can scream, shout yell from the highest mountain and let the right-wingers know that we aren't taking it any more.

[Greylyn58]

123. Do Any Of You Ever Feel

like you're in the middle of a movie and you keep waiting for the end to come so you can leave.

John Carpenter made a movie back in 1988 called "They Live". If you've never seen it you should because I swear I'm beginning to feel like I'm stuck in that movie and can't get out.

Basically it shows America in the middle of an economic crisis - sound familiar. Tons of people out of work and they live wherever they can...on the street, vacant buildings, in camps. Yet at the same time there is an elite group of people who seem to run everything...have everything.

John Nada(the hero of the movie) is a down on his luck construction work just trying to find a job when he discovers a special pair of sunglasses made by a resistance group. Wearing them, he is able to see the world as it really is: people being bombarded by media and government with messages like "STAY ASLEEP", "NO IMAGINATION", "NO INDEPENDENT THOUGH", "SUBMIT TO AUTHORITY", "OBEY". Money itself even says, "THIS IS YOUR GOD". Even scarier is that he is able to see that some usually normal-looking people are in fact ugly aliens in charge of a massive campaign to keep humans subdued.

In this current day and age I swear it's enough to make me want to find a pair of those sunglasses and find out if Shrub and Co are human or from another planet.

Personally, I'm betting on outer space. No way these are local boys.

:D

[The Backlash Cometh]

127. Your computer and DU are those glasses.

Yes. And I liked the movie.

[donhakman]

130. response #5 by sortndandy

is the most accurate

[tom_paine]

133. Other than the sheer Joy of Theft a More Ominous Reason

It seems to me that the Busheviks with their Citizen Corps and especially their "Citizen Corps Councils" are forming an alternate governmental infrastructure.

As The Imperial Congress becomes more bankrupt and ceremonial, the CCCs (and those initials are no coincience believe me) rovide alternate routes for the Emporer to DIRECTLY rule and fund the Provinces and Localitities.

But there are even more reasons than those two, I'm sure, and many have been articulated excellently in the thread above!