Krugman & Moyers: How the United States is becoming the Very System Our Founders Revolted Again

[KoKo]

Published on Apr 18, 2014

Economist Paul Krugman explains how the United States is becoming an oligarchy - the very system our founders revolted against.

Visit the Bill Moyers site to see more features related to this show:

http://billmoyers.com/episode/what-th...

[handmade34]

1. K&R n/t

[ljm2002]

2. Excellent segment...

...although I wish they had talked a little more about the book.

[merrily]

3. Becoming? East India Company? John Hancock.

Jefferson, owned of hundreds of slaves, including his own offspring? Washington, another slave owner, married to a well off widow. Any of these names ring a bell?

Ask slaves who arrived here in the 1600s exactly when we started "becoming" an oligarchy. Question is, when, if ever, will we stop being a plutonomy. (I agree with Citibank that, at this point, we're more of a plutonomy more than anything else.)

[JDPriestly]

13. Jefferson died a bankrupt.

Jefferson has a mixed history on slavery. In my opinion, he knew it was wrong but was caught in the culture of his time, essentially conforming to the status quo. I must point out that other slave owners freed their slaves and in the North in particular many people abhorred slavery already in the late 18th century.

Thomas Jefferson and bankruptcy.

1. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
Despite an ostentatious lifestyle – or perhaps because of it – Jefferson owed money to various creditors throughout his life. He inherited debt from his father-in-law as a result of unusual estate planning and was a creditor to many unreliable debtors. His main source of income, Monticello, proved inadequate to cover his debts. Poor management of his estate and price fluctuations of commodities cost Jefferson dearly. Towards the end of his life, he was so severely in debt that he petitioned the state of Virginia to auction off his land; the state refused. After he died, his estate was was auctioned off, and his surviving daughter was forced to rely on charity.

(AP Photo/File)

http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/finance-poorestpresidents/thomas-jefferson/


Madison had to sell part of his property because he could not pay his and his son's debts.

2. James Madison (1809-1817)
At his Montpelier plantation, Madison suffered similar difficulties to Jefferson. While his various agriculture businesses were occasionally profitable, in the end they lost him money. His stepson, a gambler, racked up debts. Madison absorbed these obligations and was forced to sell half of Montpelier to pay them off. Although he may have wanted to free his slaves, his financial troubles prevented him from doing so, and he was forced to sell some of them to pay off debts. Some historians suggest that he had his memoirs published posthumously in order to better provide for his family.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/finance-poorestpresidents/james-madison%20/

Washington was truly wealthy as you point out, thanks in part to the wealthy widower he married.

[merrily]

19. None of that alters the fact that the US is not just recently becoming an oligarchy, does it?

As I am sure you realize, that was my point, not whether some of the framers eventually lived beyond even their considerable means. Maybe the East India Company eventually went broke too. If so, that would not alter my point, either.

BTW, I've read that Jefferson willed his slaves, including, I think, at least most of his children with Sally Hemmings, to his children from his marriage. I don't know how that squares with his having died a bankrupt. But, again, none of that is relevant to my point.

If Warren Buffett were to die broke, would that mean he was not an oligarch while he was rich? The existence of an oligarchy does not depend on the identity of the individuals who make up the rich class at any given moment. How many people who were know to be poor in the later 1700s participated in writing of the Constitution? That's relevant.

[JDPriestly]

20. People came here, worked for some time and were more easily able to buy property than we can

now. Later, people were able to buy land cheaply and then those who had been here a while and purchased land sold it to newcomers.

Some of my ancestors were here quite early. They were not oligarchs. Some of them fought in the early wars.

I base my information on the experiences of people in my family. Does your family have a history going back to the Revolution and before?

Owning property was not as difficult back then as it is now. Jefferson saw our country as a country of farmers. And in fact, we were to a great extent a nation of farmers. They were landowners but they were poor. Limiting voting to landowners did not disenfranchise as many Americans as it would today.

"After declaring independence on July 4, 1776, each former English colony wrote a state constitution. About half the states attempted to reform their voting procedures. The trend in these states was to do away with the freehold requirement in favor of granting all taxpaying, free, adult males the right to vote. Since few men escaped paying taxes of some sort, suffrage (the right to vote) expanded in these states. Vermont's constitution went even further in 1777 when it became the first state to grant universal manhood suffrage (i.e., all adult males could vote). Some states also abolished religious tests for voting. It was in New Jersey that an apparently accidental phrase in the new state constitution permitted women to vote in substantial numbers for the first time in American history."

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-8-1-b-who-voted-in-early-america

Have you ever visited the log cabin in which Abraham Lincoln was born? Any of the really early sites that commemorate the pioneers in our country? They did not live in huge, wealthy homes.

Jefferson built Monticello. He was an architect. Monticello is beautiful, but it does not compare to the great houses and castles of Europe. Jefferson was accepted in France, but in this country he did not live in a palace as did many in the French aristocracy, the oligarchy of that period.

George Washington was wealthy and of course had served in the British military. He might qualify as an oligarch. But at Valley Forge, he chose Thomas Paine to rally public support and inspire people to help the revolutionary cause and encourage the soldiers to fight well. Thomas Paine was not an oligarch.

Here are some quotes from Thomas Paine's Common Sense:


“One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.”
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense


“Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.”
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense

“The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying of a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is”
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense

http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2548496-common-sense

http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/thomas-paine.html

Benjamin Franklin was born poor. In addition to his newspaper, he was a postmaster. He was not an oligarch.

There were some wealthy people involved in starting this country. But mostly the soldiers, the revolutionaries, were country folks who were fighting to have a fair economic system, resisting the corporation of the day, the East India Company which was the symbol and tool of the British oligarchs and monarchy.

I don't think you can say we started as an oligarchy. Many we would classify as members of the oligarchy supported the British crown and were dispossessed and left the US after the Revolution.


Thomas

[merrily]

21. Interesting again, but again, does not refute my original post.

I don't think you can say we started as an oligarchy.

Obviously, I disagree and nothing in your Reply refutes that we we not always an oligarchy.

Where Lincoln was born is as irrelevant to that point. So is whether my ancestors or yours were in this part of the world when the revolution was fought. Your assuming that a DAR membership criterion is in any way relevant to knowing better today who ran the country in the 1600s or the 1700s is interesting, though.)


If Lincoln were really a zombie, as Hollywood recently portrayed him to be, Lincoln himself would not tell you that poor people made government policy in this country in the 1600s, the 1700s, or when he was President.

[JDPriestly]

23. How do you define oligarchy?

oligarchy
[ol-i-gahr-kee]
noun, plural oligarchies.
1.
a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2.
a state or organization so ruled.
3.
the persons or class so ruling.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oligarchy

Have you ever read any of the Lincoln/Douglas debates?

Have you read Thomas Paine, Washington's theorist and philosopher and author for the pamphlets advocating for the American Revolution?

Of course, we always have leaders, and they tend to be well educated and well known. But they are not this horrible clique of mostly folks who inherited their wealth who form the oligarchy of today.

I grew up in the Truman era. I assure you. He was no oligarch although the CIA at the time and many of his aides were.

Whether we are run by the oligarchs is up to us. Who do you think belongs to today's oligarchy?

[merrily]

25. Candidly,

your questions do not seem to me to be conducive to arriving at any honest and mutually respectful discussion between us of whether or not the US is an oligarchy--neither your questions about whether my ancestors got here before the revolution (as yours did) or your questions about what I have or have not read.

For one thing, should I choose to overlook that defect and answer every one of your questions, we would be not be discussing whether or not the US has made a sudden turn toward oligarchy or not.

So, what is the point of your questions?

[JDPriestly]

31. The US veered toward oligarchy in the Gilded Age and during the 19th century to the 20th century

when the big family fortunes were made. The Rockefellers, the Fords, the Vanderbilts, the Morgans, the many, many families that had their money from one generation to the next, the families who live on their capital and the rents and returns on their properties, etc.

[merrily]

22. P.S. As to Madison, read the once secret notes of the

Constitutional convention.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

He feared even those who were Constitutionally entitled to vote, even though they had to own land and pay a poll tax in order to vote. Madison wanted to put as much power as he could in the Senate, which was then elected by the state legislature, rather than in the hands of the House, elected by the general population. And, he was none too complimentary about the rabble.

Madison and those who agreed with him are the reason the Senate, and only the Senate, has a say on things like treaties, whether or not a President or Supreme Court Justice gets convicted in an impeachment, whether a President's nomination gets confirmed. etc.

I have noted that, on message boards, the right tends to quote the Federalist Papers more than the left does. That is not surprising, given Madison's fear of the general populace.

Madison was, at the time, in communication with Jefferson by diplomatic pouch. However, although Jefferson is named as the founder of the Democratic Party, his party's platform was very different from the platform of today's Democratic Party (The same, of course, can be said for Stephen Douglas's Democratic Party.)

[JDPriestly]

24. But after the American Revolution, the original oligarchy, those who did not support the

Last edited Tue Apr 22, 2014, 12:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Revolution, pretty much left the US and went to Canada or back to England. That original oligarchy was the true oligarchy.

Madison may have feared mob rule, but the House was from the beginning intended to represent the people and be very close to the people.

The oligarchy at the time our nation was founded and our revolution was fought were for the most part those who were still loyal to the crown. I don't think you can call our Founding Fathers the oligarchy of the time. They were the outsiders, the rebels. Had they been the oligarchy, the ruling class already in charge, there would not have been a revolution.

[merrily]

26. "the House was from the beginning intended to represent the people and be very close to the people."

It was called the People's House because only states could vote for the other house, the Senate.

And, as I have already stated, the fact that even a sliver of "the people" could vote for members of the House was also the reason that the Constitution limited the powers of the House much more limited than those of the Senate. I don't know how one can know that and still claim that the nation began--and was intended to begin--as an instrument of the population as a whole.

Madison may have feared mob rule,

What mob rule are you talking about? If you truly fear a mob, you arm yourself, or hire bodyguards or an army or something along those lines. We are discussing here simply the vote of white male citizens of of this country who owned property and could afford to pay a poll tax for members of one house of Congress. Are you saying their votes equaled mob rule that a sane Madison actually feared? Or was that just language a politician used to try to sell his POV, much as politicians have always done and still do? Indeed, the very fact that he referred to voting for reps by a small segment of the population in the same breath as mob rule is very telling as to whether Madison considered the nation an oligarchy or something representative of the general population.

BTW, with those requirements, the people entitled to vote were a very small percentage of the population.

The oligarchy at the time our nation was founded and our revolution was fought were for the most part those who were still loyal to the crown.

Other than your apparent belief in what you say, which facts do you think makes your statement true?

Both rich and poor were loyalists, members of the same nuclear family sometimes. A father might stay, while a loyalist son might run to Canada or England. Who left and who stayed was not based on wealth or power, but on agreement or disagreement with violent overthrow of the British government, in a move without precedent in recorded human history.

On the other hand, if you mean only the 13 British appointed governors, then, yes, probably many or all of them ran. But, what does that prove?


There was no disabling power vacuum after the only people you are willing to see as oligarchs ran for their lives. The new oligarchs had already begun replacing them in the power, or they would not have had to run.

Moreover, we have so far, I thought, been discussing this country, not the UK or any British colonies. There was not a United States of America before the revolution. Of course, there was a ruling class after the Revolution--and it was not the slaves or some penniless farmers, or the population as a whole.

Before then, for that matter. The revolution did not happen on a dime. The vote of the 13 colonies to revolt was planned and cast by people organized and in charge. Boston had already been occupied for two years precisely because the British know rebellion was a threat.


Nowhere in 1776 or 1789 was it written that rebels could not also be wealthy and powerful, or that only the poor and powerless rebel--and rebel successfully against the world's best army, no less?

Anyway, I thought we'd already covered the wealth bit. I named you some people who were at least perceived at the time of the Revolution and drafting of the Constitution to be men of wealth. Your response was to ignore my mention of John Hancock, a critical figure and instigator, concede that Washington was wealthy and say that Jefferson and Madison died in debt, which was not relevant anyway. And, of course, they were not the only men of wealth at the Constitutional Convention. Slaveowners from the South, not slaves or tenant farmers, etc. Men of business and power from the north, not the people who swept out their factories.

The Framers wrote the Constitution without a single right in the people or the states. (Stricken matter incorrect, IMO.) Inasmuch you are so interested in my reading list, let me ask you about words capable of being reproduced on a single page: have you ever read the Constitution without a single amendment and wondered, as to each clause, why it was put there? I don't mean the official story. I mean reality.

For example, which poor people was the government granted powers, at the expense of the nation, to deal piracy on the high seas? Poor, powerless people did not own ships or engage in the import and export of goods and slaves.

What about federal power to regulate interstate commerce? Before FDR, the idea that the clause was there so that the feds could regulate business for the benefit of the entire US population was not shared by the SCOTUS. It took the threat of so-called Constitutional crisis to persuade the Justices they and their predecessors had overlooked that nuance in the Constitution.

BTW, on one of his trips to Europe, wiley Ben Franklin discovered an excellent wordsmith in England and brought him to the US to help Franklin and his colleagues foment the revolution. The wordsmith did a bang of job of that, then, after the revolution disclosed government secrets. Lord only knows what would have happened to him today, but no one then even bothered to prosecute good ole Thomas Paine.

But never mind all that. Let's you and I name all the poor and powerless people who got to attend those secret Constitutional Convention meetings, write the US Constitution and set policy for the new nation in its formative years. You will have to start because I can't think of one.

[lunasun]

28. +1

[JDPriestly]

29. Let's take Alexander Hamilton.

Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757 – July 12, 1804) was a Founding Father of the United States,[1] chief of staff to General Washington, one of the most influential interpreters and promoters of the Constitution, the founder of the nation's financial system, and the founder of the first American political party.

. . . . .

Born out of wedlock and raised in the West Indies, Hamilton was effectively orphaned at about the age of 11. Recognized for his abilities and talent, he was sponsored by people from his community to go to the North American mainland for his education. He attended King's College (now Columbia University), in New York City. After the American Revolutionary War, Hamilton was appointed to the Congress of the Confederation from New York. He resigned to practice law and found the Bank of New York.

Hamilton was among those dissatisfied with the Articles of Confederation—the first attempt at a national governing document—because it lacked an executive, courts, and taxing powers. He led the Annapolis Convention, which successfully influenced Congress to issue a call for the Philadelphia Convention in order to create a new constitution. He was an active participant at Philadelphia and helped achieve ratification by writing 51 of the 85 installments of the Federalist Papers, which supported the new constitution and to this day is the single most important source for Constitutional interpretation.[4]

In the new government under President George Washington, Hamilton was appointed the Secretary of the Treasury. An admirer of British political systems, Hamilton was a nationalist who emphasized strong central government and successfully argued that the implied powers of the Constitution could be used to fund the national debt, assume state debts, and create the government-owned Bank of the United States. These programs were funded primarily by a tariff on imports and later also by a highly controversial excise tax on whiskey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

Those who believe that our country was founded just for the rich and powerful forget that Alexander Hamilton, the conservative, pro-business, pro-bankers of the bunch was orphaned and sent to school in New York only thanks to the charity of others. Hardly an oligarch.

To me, the work oligarch suggests established wealth, inherited wealth, or a position based on a close relationship and identification with an entrenched interest such as a large corporation.

John Hancock?

According to the Gregorian calendar, John Hancock was born on January 23, 1737; according to the Julian calendar then in use, the date was January 12, 1736.[2] He was born in Braintree, Massachusetts, in a part of town that eventually became the separate city of Quincy.[3] He was the son of the Reverend John Hancock of Braintree and Mary Hawke Thaxter, who was from nearby Hingham. As a child, Hancock became a casual acquaintance of young John Adams, whom the Reverend Hancock had baptized in 1734.[4][5] The Hancocks lived a comfortable life, and owned one slave to help with household work.[4]

After Hancock's father died in 1744, John was sent to live with his uncle and aunt, Thomas Hancock and Lydia (Henchman) Hancock. Thomas Hancock was the proprietor of a firm known as the House of Hancock, which imported manufactured goods from Britain and exported rum, whale oil, and fish.[6] Thomas Hancock's highly successful business made him one of Boston's richest and best-known residents.[7][8] He and Lydia, along with several servants and slaves, lived in Hancock Manor on Beacon Hill. The couple, who did not have any children of their own, became the dominant influence on John's life.[9]

. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock

John Hancock was born into a minister's home. Lots of education most likely but not all that much money especially at that time. His uncle was a businessman and rich by New England standards, but hardly by international standards at the time.

Hancock was a man whose uncle owned a middle class and who became wealthy by New England standards. But I don't think those standards at that time were all that high.

Shipping companies were not the huge conglomerate corporations of today.

The US was measured by the standards of France or England or Spain of that day not a major economic power. We were the equivalent of a third world country of today. We really did not have the kind of wealthy people that I think of as an oligarchy.

Jefferson had a plantation, but if you think about his notebooks, the notes he kept on his farming and his work, his architectural work -- the University of Virginia and Monticello, etc. He was a hard-working man, not a man who lived off his capital. Hardly what I would call an oligarch. Was he a leader and a brilliant intellectual? Yes. But when I use the word oligarch, I mean someone with power due to his vast wealth. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, even Hamilton were not born into wealth of that magnitude. And they were not oligarchs. Not as I see it. Not even Hancock was born into wealth or position of the kind I think of when I think of oligarchs.

[JDPriestly]

30. As an oligarch, would you be thinking of Robert Morris?

Robert Morris, Sr. (/ˈmɒrɨs/ (January 20, 1734 – May 8, 1806) was a Liverpool-born American merchant who financed the American Revolution and was signatory to the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution. He was elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly, became the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Committee of Safety, and was chosen as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress, where he served as chairman of the "Secret Committee of Trade" and as a member of the Committee of Correspondence.

From 1781 to 1784, he served as the powerful Superintendent of Finance, managing the economy of the fledgling United States. As the central civilian in the government, Morris was, next to General George Washington, "the most powerful man in America."[1] His successful administration led to the sobriquet, "Financier of the Revolution." At the same time he was Agent of Marine, a position he took without pay, and from which he controlled the Continental Navy.

He was one of Pennsylvania's original pair of US senators, serving from 1789 to 1795. He invested a considerable portion of his fortune in land shortly before the Panic of 1796–1797, which led to his bankruptcy in 1798, and he spent several months in debtors' prison, until Congress passed a bankruptcy act to release him. After he left prison in 1801 he lived a quiet, private life in a modest home in Philadelphia, until 1806 when he died.

Again, he was middle class -- a businessman. In a letter to John Adams dated July 9, 1786, Jefferson said that Morris had cornered the tobacco market. Certainly a rich man for a time, but again his wealth was not great enough or entrenched enough to save him from bankruptcy in the end. He is probably as close to an oligarch as you get, but does not make it.

The age of the great moguls and the making of the great American fortunes took place during but mostly after the American Revolution.

The other person who might be considered an oligarch is John Jay.

But there was far more balance among middle-class working people like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and wealthy businessmen than there is today. And the wealthy businessmen of the early US post-revolutionary period would not be considered that secure in their wealth by today's standards. There were no Rockefellers. Vanderbilt wasn't born yet. We just did not have the wealthy families with a century of political pull who could join with relative newcomers to run things, not like we have today.

[merrily]

33. As I previously stated, the life stories of individuals do not determine if

the form of a govenment at any given time is an oligarchy or not. Yet, that is the only thing you seem to want to discuss is the bios of individuals

You might try reading each of these two articles and then integrating what each says with what the other says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

Just one of the highlights of many of the article on Founding Fathers that might interest you: most of the Founders were wealthy. But, wait, there's more....

One of the highlights of the article on oligarchy that also might interest you: whether a government is an oligarchy or not does not depend on wealth (certainly not the wealth of any individual before or after that individual was exercising power, but not wealth, period. ( Wealth is but one way to become an oligarch and not all wealthy people are, or even seek to be, oligarchs. However, if they do seek it, they have a hell of a better chance of success at it than I do.)

As an aside, did you happen to watch Jon Stewart this week, rebutting Hannity? He said Hannity was a fan only of the Founding Father's early work, before they sold out and became "The Man," or the men of wealthy white men? Sounds like an oligarchy to me.

However, as my first post on this thread indicated, I don't think they sold out as much as continued on in the vein of the earliest days of this country, when the East India Company was bent on exploiting both the natural resources of this country and the sweat of the earliest colonists.

[WillyT]

4. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[blue14u]

5. Excellent post..

This needs to be on top of the best of DU imho

Thank you for posting it..



We know this is true ...we have become

an oligarchy. It's already...
The thing is now, what do we do to resolve this? Is there a peaceful revolution to be had?

We vote, we protest, we sign petitions, we campaign and post endlessly about the problem...

Is a violent war the only answer left?

Then we ask this smart group of people on DU to support someone like
Hillary Clinton to continue this trend, and reign over us like a queen.

I won't do it.
I will fight first. I will fight for my child, and nieces, and nephew's to have a better government than this. I will fight for future generations to have better than this oligarchy. ..We deserve better and they deserve better.

Why so many of you don't see Hillary will only carry what is now happening now well into the future, if she runs, and wins....well

It is beyond me that is ok with you...

[LongTomH]

6. I like the fact that Krugman says we shouldn't give up......unlike many here!

Keep fighting!

[sorechasm]

11. Fight on!

Starting with 'Responsible Taxation' which is a better term than the 'Redistribution of Wealth' (a dead end term) that means essentially the same thing: those who benefit the most from the economy should be paying more taxes to keep it thriving.

[cantbeserious]

7. The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Own And Control The Politicians That Own And Control Us

eom

[merrily]

8. Most of the politicians who own and control us are themselves oligarchs.

Many multimillionaires in Congress per square foot. And they are not controlled by their wealthy colleagues unless they choose to be.

[cantbeserious]

9. All Too True

eom

[merrily]

10. The people whom we elect have a lot more choices than we do.

Aside from that, I have no way of firing a lobbyist, a corporate officer or a banker. I'd need to own a lot more stock to do that. However, I do have a choice about who gets my vote. So, I am going to focus on them for starters. They are not getting any more passes from me! Not a one of them.

[colsohlibgal]

12. Will Enough Non Rich People Wise Up?

I'm convinced that a huge number of people here are confused when they hear about tax increases. Some think it will hit them though it won't, many think a high top marginal rate would be on all that rich person's income.

I was surprised to hear Krugman a bit more optimistic about some effective pushback versus the oligarchy in the not too distant future, I hope it occurs but I highly doubt it. There are more of us non filthy rich than filthy rich, but too many non fat cats are asleep at the wheel and thus carry water for the Waltons, etc.

[merrily]

27. Or actually outright serve on the board of Wal-Mart?

Don't mind me. I am just nonpartisan in my critiques of the 1% and 1% wannabes.

[think]

14. May the better angels be. K&R

[Enthusiast]

15. Before anything changes in this country will we throw

the elderly, the poor and the disabled into the streets to die a death from starvation and exposure? If we listen to the words from the right that would seem to be their objective.

God forbid we tax Wall Street trades or add a few more percent on unearned income.

Will the greedy win? It looks like they have already won.

The cruel words we hear from Fox "News" and the others are frightening to those of us that rely solely on "government handouts" for our very existence.

[Enthusiast]

16. Third Way = Wealth Disparity Perpetuation Machine.

This is what we will have with Hillary Clinton. We will get much of what we have now. It's called the status quo. And you best not vote against the status quo or you will get something worse like Rand Paul or Paul Ryan.

Since 1999 they have made sure the right wing candidate is truly horrible. They have been so bad that they have to be intentionally bad.

McCain and Palin? Are you fucking kidding me? Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan? And you fucking kidding me? With Romney's inherited wealth, predatory capitalist ways and 47% remarks? And Paul Ryan's privatize medicare scheme?

[swilton]

17. Try Jeb and Condosleeza

the handwriting is already being written on the walls as we speak.

[Enthusiast]

18. I thought exactly the same thing.

Apparently people think highly of Condi. I don't understand it. Well, the media is trying to elevate the status of the Bush Administration. They haven't been criticized nearly enough for their crimes.

If the Democrats want to win in 2016 they will have to paint Jeb and Condi as warmongers. Which won't be much of a stretch.

[bananas]

32. Was just going to post this. nt

[Electric Monk]

34. kick nt