I've never liked politicians that demonize groups of people.

[Dem4Life1102]

This is what Trump has done with immigrants, calling Mexicans (who only come here to find work) drug dealers and racists. In fact the entire right wing has been doing this for decades, remember Reagan and "welfare queens". Whether it is immigrants, people of color, the LGBTQ community, Muslims; the right will demonize an entire group of people. That is wrong.

Unfortunately, there are now some on the left who have adopted this despicable tactic and continually demonize a particular group of people, millionaires and billionaires. Just like any other group there are good people and bad people among them. Not all are bad. Not all are good. The bad ones deserve everything said against them. But the good do not. There are many good people that have achieved wealth honestly through hard work, creativity and innovation. They do not deserve to be demonized. Painting a group of people with one broad brush is wrong whether the right is doing it or the left and it should stop.

[Voltaire2]

1. I knew somehow this was going to be a ridiculous argument.

Our republic has become, once again as it was in the late 1800's, a corrupt oligarchy serving the needs of a small group of vastly wealthy elites at the expense of the rest of the citizens.

So like no, 'billionaires' are not equivalent to 'mexicans'.

What the ever loving fork.

[Dem4Life1102]

2. They are

when you paint an entire group with one brush.

[Voltaire2]

3. I weep for all the poor put upon billionaires.

[Dem4Life1102]

6. Thanks for proving my point!

[Voltaire2]

7. Maybe we should add 'billionaire' as a protected class to the civil rights act.

[Dem4Life1102]

9. And proving it yet again!

[Voltaire2]

12. Or perhaps we could have billionaire sanctuary cities!

[Red Oak]

90. You made me laugh with that one!

However, they are already buying their own sanctuary cities:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/22/us/wilks-brothers-fracking-business.html

or

https://www.wsj.com/articles/billionaire-businessmen-buying-up-mega-ranches-1414076608

or

https://thehustle.co/09162019-land-billionaires/

or

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2017/06/10/the-shocking-doomsday-maps-of-the-world-and-the-billionaire-escape-plans/#59677e440478

or

well, you get the point.

[Dem4Life1102]

142. Thanks again for proving my point

[ChubbyStar]

11. Your point has been demolished

So much winning!

[demmiblue]

14. Indeed.

The comparison in the OP is offensive.

[Dem4Life1102]

17. So you support demonizing a whole group of people

So it is wealthy people now. Who's next? Lawyer's? Doctor's? People who work for insurance companies? Or maybe just everyone who disagrees with you?

[ChubbyStar]

19. Please proceed....

[Voltaire2]

20. How about "people responsible for wrecking our republic for their personal benefit"?

can we demonize them?

[Dem4Life1102]

26. The individuals that are proven to have done that

deserve whatever penalties that come their way. But there are many who didn't and should not be demonized.

But this is the same dishonest game the right plays. One immigrant commits a crime then all immigrants are criminals. Some rich people are immoral and unethical people so now all are. That is just wrong.

[hedda_foil]

83. So subjecting them to taxes is cruel and unusual punisment?

Nobody is taking their fortunes from them or making their lives an iota less comfortable or preventing them from donating to charity.

[Dem4Life1102]

88. Never said that

So please don’t dishonestly put words in my mouth.

But demonizing a whole group of people is wrong.

[hedda_foil]

95. No, that's precisely what you're saying.

Being disingenuous about your intention doesn't change the meaning.

[ChubbyStar]

96. Thank you

[Dem4Life1102]

102. No it is not

Stop dishonestly claiming that it is.

[blm]

65. Not ALL billionaires feel 'put upon', just the whiny ones.

Why are you insisting that V is saying ALL, when he clearly qualified his reply to address those billionaires who are feeling ‘put upon’?

[Dem4Life1102]

68. He didn't qualify anything

He posted:

I weep for all the poor put upon billionaires.

Where is the qualification?

[blm]

72. The poor put upon billionaires. Patriotic millionaires group doesn't feel

‘put upon’. They feel like they’re not asked to do enough.

[Dem4Life1102]

73. But that was not posted

Don't pretend that is was.

[blm]

76. BS. The qualifier is the description 'put upon'. Patriotic group could NOT

be described as ‘put upon’ billionaires as they are the ‘hey, we are the NOT feeling put upon group of billionaires who want to be asked to do more’.

So....you are the one who is the ONLY one claiming that the criticisms are aimed at ALL billionaires.

[Dem4Life1102]

80. That is not a qualifier

Stop pretending that it is

[blm]

85. It is. Like deplorable. Every HONEST person heard what HRC said, yet

she was accused of calling all Trump supporters deplorable.

[Dem4Life1102]

92. Actually Clinton said

“ you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”

So she did qualify it.

[blm]

103. There are billionaires who feel put upon and many who don't.

If criticism was aimed at the poor put upon billionaire, then why would billionaires who DON’T feel put upon identify with the criticism? They know exactly which billionaires are being referred to, so why don’t you? Perhaps because you are so dug in to accusing the members here of being against ALL billionaires that you now need to resist accountability.

[Dem4Life1102]

105. There was no qualification

in the original post. Stop pretending that there was.

[blm]

110. PUT UPON billionaires as opposed to those who DON'T feel put upon

Stop pretending they are the same. Patriotic billionaires don’t consider themselves put upon.

You already dug your hole. Enjoy it.

[Dem4Life1102]

113. Stop pretending there was any qualification

We both know there wasn’t.

[blm]

118. Only YOU are pretending here. I know the difference

between the idiot billionaires who feel put upon and the patriotic billionaires who don’t feel put upon at all.

And so does most of DU.

[Dem4Life1102]

124. There was no qualification

Repeating that there was doesn’t change that.

[blm]

127. Dig away.

[Dem4Life1102]

129. I have no problem with stating the truth.

[blm]

151. YOUR twisted version

that ignores logic

[Dem4Life1102]

161. Only twisted to those

blinded by their own hate

[SammyWinstonJack]

243. You're being ridiculous and argumentative. Why?

[Dem4Life1102]

244. Projection

[SammyWinstonJack]

242. You've got to be kidding.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

84. Seriously!! Boo-fuckin'-hoo!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[treestar]

150. What about the infamous

Soros? Look at all he has done for us on the left!!

[DonCoquixote]

153. an entire group

that unlike many others,actually has the power to control politcians. When the Mexican immigrants at the border, or the Afro americans in the ghetto,manage to be able to shut down discussions on texes and social services, then come back. Some Billionaire can be good, but our system has given them somuch of avoice that no one can speak.

[Dem4Life1102]

162. No one can speak?

[DonCoquixote]

249. yes...speech is stifled

when pbs has to beg forscarpsand have right wing people,when idneepnt newspapers are reduced toa fewscraps of papers,than it becoems apparnet who has the freedomof speech and who doesniot. Even DU only has somuch comapred tomost media

[Dem4Life1102]

251. We all have freedom of speech

Some may have access to better platforms but that is not suppression of free speech.

[demmiblue]

4. Malarkey. n/t

[backtoblue]

5. Income inequality is real and its a real problem

And it aint the poor folks fault...

[Dem4Life1102]

8. Never said it wasn't

But it is still unfair to demonize an entire group of people.

[Voltaire2]

16. is it ok to demonize nazis?

[Dem4Life1102]

21. Interesting that you bring up Nazis

Many Jewish people in Germany where more affluent than the average German. The Nazis used this wealth disparity as a weapon to demonize the Jews.

[Voltaire2]

27. Yes indeed, objecting to the oligarch class and the mess they have made of our country

is just like murdering 6 million jews.

You win the internet today.

[Dem4Life1102]

29. Please don't put words in my mouth

The point is that is it unfair to demonize a whole group of people whomever they are.

[Celerity]

128. lol

[Dem4Life1102]

130. So nice that you think

demonizing people is funny

[Celerity]

132. cry me a river

[Dem4Life1102]

135. Maybe you think we should take away there citizenship too

and then maybe round them up and put them in some sort of camp?

[Celerity]

138. sorry, I don't play bullshit non sequitur games

[Dem4Life1102]

141. Could have fooled me

[treestar]

226. It can be if the group is privileged

Black comedians will say things about white people that will get laughs from white people. Whereas the opposite cannot be done.

[Dem4Life1102]

232. Jokes are not the same

[Celerity]

125. [phone]

[backtoblue]

50. Deserved scrutiny

I dont see anyone demonizing, saying all billionaires are evil.

I see deserved scrutiny into wealth inequality. Corporate greed created the billionaire class.

I dont hate billionaires. But the truth of the matter is that money = power.

[Dem4Life1102]

70. Then you should read

some of the replies to my post.

[backtoblue]

214. Do you think your argument has been successful?

I read the replies. I disagree with your assertion that billionaires are being called "evil" and are demonized.


Perhaps a better way to state your opinion is that as humans, billionaires are not all evil. You would likely find more of a meaningful discussion if that is your intention.

If I say that a fair taxation of extreme wealth, in no way am I dehuminizing the wealthy.

If I make the point that extreme wealth is rightly criticized as being tied to low wages and poverty, I am not demonizing anyone.

I just dont see what you are seeing.

[Dem4Life1102]

215. It's your right to disagree

And you make some good points but there are some who have called wealthy people unethical and corrupt. To me that is demonization.

[Kurt V.]

10. oh my.

[ChubbyStar]

15. Reminds me of the billionaires for Bush

Billionaires for Bush was a culture jamming political street theater organization that satirically purported to support George W. Bush, drawing attention to policies which were perceived to benefit corporations and the super-wealthy.

[Voltaire2]

18. they were fabulous!

[ChubbyStar]

22. We need them RIGHT NOW!

I just loved those "poor" billionaires!

[Tiggeroshii]

13. FDR: Not your cup of tea, then?

[Dem4Life1102]

23. Depends

Not a fan of his interment of Japanese Americans or his support of segregation.

[Tiggeroshii]

25. "His support of segregation"?

If anything, he took the first steps to eliminate it. Ever heard of the FEPC? He also oversaw the first large shift of African Americans from Republican to Democratic due to those policies.

We are, however, on the same page with the internment.

[Dem4Life1102]

28. He turned a blind eye to it

to retain the support of southern democrats. And many New Deal programs with not open to African Americans in the South and FDR did nothing to stop that.

[Tiggeroshii]

38. Far different from "supporting it."

He could've done a lot more, all things considered. That being said, he still did a lot.

[Dem4Life1102]

40. Eleanor would disagree with you.

So would Japanese Americans.

[Tiggeroshii]

44. As far as African American segregation?

Forcing states to comply with fair employment practices isn't a big deal? Also, I am a Japanese American, whose Japanese American friends and family largely agree with. -_-

[Dem4Life1102]

46. Yes

Eleanor thought FDR should have done more for African Americans. She pushed him to go as far as he did. But he wouldn't go any further because he didn't want to lose the support of Southern Democrats.

[Tiggeroshii]

51. I fail to see where we disagree.

He did some great things, going as far as he did (whoever you want to credit, he was the president). That being said, he could've gone a lot further and your explanation makes a lot of sense to me for why he didn't. The only point of yours I disagree with is that he "supported segregation." I don't think he wouldn't have done any of what he did if he actually "supported segregation."

[Dem4Life1102]

55. That is semantics

As far as I'm concerned not fighting against segregation is supporting it.

[Tiggeroshii]

63. You said:"not fighting against segregation is supporting it."

Sounds a lot more like semantics than "He did nothing to support segregation, and passed historic laws that fought it." Because the FEPC was an attack on segregation.

[Dem4Life1102]

66. A few laws

which didn't end segregation. And ignored a lot of what was going on with New Deal programs in the south.

Plus he kept the Armed Forces segregated and didn't do a thing to end that.

[Tiggeroshii]

78. He started the fight. He fought it. To say he didn't and that he supported it is ridiculous.

A wideranging federal law employing millions of African Americans is not "passing a few laws." And that is not how African Americans who switched over in large swaths to the Democratic party during that time saw it, either.

[Dem4Life1102]

82. Then why didn't he end segregation in the military?

He was Commander and Chief. He could have done it with the stoke of a pen.

[Tiggeroshii]

134. He couldve done a lot of things he didnt do.

But even the political realities of the time prevent it from sticking, which he likely foresaw. Why do you think it took a democratic uprising in the civil rights movement to really change things?Judt because they didnt change it, doesnt mean fdr truman and eisenhower supported segregation.

[Dem4Life1102]

139. Truman ended segregation in the military

Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock to integrate the schools.

Lot more than FDR did.

[Tiggeroshii]

145. Fair enough

Last edited Fri Nov 8, 2019, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

But since they didn't do everything in their power to end segregation, would they too be supporting segregation?

[Dem4Life1102]

159. They still did more than FDR

And neither had a residence in Georgia to witness it first hand

[Hoyt]

74. Internment, segregation of troops in WWII, Soc Security didn't help Blacks initially,

were all reprehensible.

[Dem4Life1102]

75. Thanks

That is my point. FDR was a great President but he wasn't perfect. Yet some hold him up as some perfect ideal.

[ChubbyStar]

100. Do you ever stop with the HYPERBOLE?

It is quite tiresome.

[emmaverybo]

137. "What is less known is his racist and anti-Semitic worldview and white supremacist loyalties,

which contributed to the suffering and death of millions of the most vulnerable people.”

Snip——————————————————-

OP-ED
Disrupting the Myth of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Age of Trump, Sanders and Clinton
BY
Tim Scott, Mythos: Education, Political Economy and Culture
PUBLISHED
August 28, 2016


As a presidential candidate and during his four terms in office, Roosevelt had a close relationship with Southern Jim Crow Democrats (“Dixiecrats”) and often went out of his way to not disrupt the “southern way of life” of Jim Crow. Thus, he remained silent on segregation and in 1935 refused to support the federal anti-lynching legislation of the Costigan-Wagner bill. In 1937 FDR appointed Hugo Black, a U.S Senator from Alabama and known member of the Ku Klux Klan, to the US Supreme Court. Black went on to validate FDR’s decision to incarcerate Japanese Americans by writing the court’s majority opinion in the case of Korematsu v. United States. In 1941, FDR appointed James F. Byrnes, a former US Senator from South Carolina and staunch segregationist to the US Supreme Court. Byrnes left the court a year later to serve as FDR’s Director of Office of Economic Stabilization, and between 1943-1945 served as the Director of FDR’s Office of War Mobilization. Byrnes was on FDR’s short list for Vice President in 1944.

Catering to the demands of Dixiecrats, FDR excluded Black workers from key provisions of the New Deal, as Juan Perea of the Loyola University School of Law describes it, “to preserve the quasi-plantation style of agriculture that pervaded the still-segregated Jim Crow South.” To do so, the New Deal was crafted to exclude agricultural and domestic workers from the Social Security Act (old-age benefits), the National Labor Relations Act (union rights) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (pay and hours standards). At the time, sixty-five percent of the Black workforce were agricultural and domestic workers. Filipino, Native, Japanese and other subordinated groups also made up a significant portion of the farm and domestic labor force. Writing in the Ohio State Law Journal, Juan Perea goes on to explain:

End snip—————————————-

More:

https://truthout.org/articles/disrupting-the-myth-of-franklin-d-roosevelt-in-the-age-of-trump-sanders-and-clinton/

[betsuni]

144. Thanks for posting this!

[Hortensis]

24. + a million. Political bigotry and blind anger are that no matter

what flag the person chooses to wave. Being a LW demonizer is no different from being a RW demonizer.

For a positive note, how about these extremely powerful business leaders newly committed to achieving great change and good in their sphere. This is a huge and wonderful sea change for our nation, a delayed but natural reaction to abuse that's become dangerously destructive, which will accomplish a good part of what some think can only be achieved through government fiat. Having these guys shift their giant business power to support traditional liberal goals is drastically underreported but so incredibly important.

WAPO: Group of top CEOs says maximizing shareholder profits no longer can be the primary goal of corporations

A group representing the nation’s most powerful chief executives on Monday abandoned the idea that companies must maximize profits for shareholders above all else, a long-held belief that advocates said boosted the returns of capitalism but detractors blamed for rising inequality and other social ills.

In a new statement about the purpose of the corporation, the Business Roundtable, which represents the chief executives of 192 large companies, said business leaders should commit to balancing the needs of shareholders with customers, employees, suppliers and local communities.

“Americans deserve an economy that allows each person to succeed through hard work and creativity and to lead a life of meaning and dignity,” said the statement from the organization, which is chaired by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. “We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country.” ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/19/lobbying-group-powerful-ceos-is-rethinking-how-it-defines-corporations-purpose/

Wow!? And that's just one reaction to various problems that have forced new thinking.
Some people are so addicted to resentment and antagonism that they can't see and won't believe. We know some will be in denial for probably the rest of their lives because this is nothing new. But left and right, this is social weight that sensible, cool-eyed people committed to advancing wellbeing have always had to drag forward with them.

[Kurt V.]

32. shareholder returns aren't keeping up with ceo pay.

[Dem4Life1102]

34. Thanks!

[blm]

49. Jamie Dimon said that AFTER he was exposed by Rep Katie Porter on live tv

as being totally down with screwing the working class out of their ability to make ends meet, even at his own company.

He said that AFTER polls showed a surge for Warren.

He didn’t say it as an expression of his own thoughtfulness.

https://m.

[kcr]

146. Yeah, because Jamie Dimon cares so much for the everyday hard worker

Give me a break. When Jamie Dimon is being held up a working-class hero, a whole lot of people are going to look like "lw demonizers."

[aidbo]

30. Trump called Mexicans drug dealers and rapists, not racists.

I would say 'I'm sure some billionaires are good people.'

But honestly I'm not so sure.

[Dem4Life1102]

36. Are you sure that they are all evil?

[stopbush]

31. There's a difference with ridiculing people for the way they were BORN -

female, gay, Mexican etc - and ridiculing people for their choices - choosing to be religious, choosing to be a R, choosing to not help others when you’re filthy rich, etc.

[Dem4Life1102]

35. Some people were born rich

and some became rich. But not all rich people are bad. Are you saying that they are?

[blm]

41. Clearly that was NOT said in the reply from stopbush.

Why would you even ask that?

[Dem4Life1102]

43. Asking for clarity

[blm]

54. Why, when it was never even slightly implied?

[Dem4Life1102]

56. Actually it was.

[blm]

60. Actually it wasn't.

[Dem4Life1102]

62. No it was

From the post that I replied to:

choosing to not help others when you’re filthy rich

So please stop denying reality.

[blm]

69. Did not say ALL billionaires choose to not help. The criticism is

aimed at those who ARE filthy rich and CHOOSE to not help others. Where does stopbush say ALL rich people choose to not help others?

[Dem4Life1102]

71. You're playing semantics games

They didn't need to say all.

[blm]

79. That would be YOU. No one here says ALL

billionaires are bad people.

YOU wish to see it that way because you are dug in to the claim you made, and that many of us here know to be untrue.

[Dem4Life1102]

86. Trump never said all Mexicans are rapists either

He didn’t have to. We knew what he meant.

[blm]

97. What a reach. No one here at DU has ever stated ALL billionaires are bad.

You are the only person claiming that they do, because you alone know what DUers mean when they criticize the billionaires who don’t want to pay the same rate of taxation as the middle and working class?

DU members love Patriotic millionaires and billionaires who openly say, Hey America, tax me more, it’s the right thing to do.

DU members criticize the unAmerican millionaires and billionaires who helped rig the policies to avoid this nation’s tax system and any decent level of contribution to our societal needs.

You claim that the criticisms are aimed at ALL billionaires to demonize them all.

[Dem4Life1102]

104. More semantics games

The word all doesn’t need to be said.

[blm]

106. Enjoy the hole you dug for yourself.

[JonAndKatePlusABird]

33. Just gonna leave this here

[pfeiffer]

37. I'll ask the question again...

If we take the billions away from the billionaires...who out of the 97% is going to give to charity?

P.S...And I love people who rail against the wealthy - but then order their favorite book on Amazon - from their computer invented by Bill Gates - while sitting back on their couch watching Oprah - while at the same time thumbing through Martha Stewart's most recent cookbook - before they decide they'll just eat dinner out after seeing Marvel's Avengers: Endgame.

Reminds me of certain conservatives who rail against homosexuality...but then get caught with their pants down in an airport restroom stall.

[hedda_foil]

91. Straw man alert!!!. Nobody has suggested confiscating the billionaires' billions.

A tax of 2 or 3% is hardly confiscating or punishment. It's a minimal tax that will not affect their ability to do anything they want one whit

[Humanist_Activist]

98. Jesus fucking Christ, Bill Gates didn't invent the computer...

it was an invention a long time coming, from a combination of public and private financing. Microsoft started by licensing(not making) software for preexisting computers to port to other computer platforms. They were one of the most aggressive software companies out there, and once they held copyrights to even things they didn't own, they enforced them like crazy, eventually corning the market on IBM compatibles with some slick marketing and contracts with IBM. The rest, as they say, is history. It could also be argued that due to this monopolistic practice, Bill Gates, and Microsoft, set back innovation in the PC hardware sphere by at least a decade.

[bronxiteforever]

147. +1000

[pfeiffer]

252. thank you for your colorful response...

...sent to me from your computer, which was invented by Bill Gates.

Bawahahahahaha!!!!!!!

[blm]

39. Patriotic Millionaires have been arguing for increases in their taxes

for a few years now.

No one here has said all millionaires and billionaires are bad, so I don’t know why you think it’s a regular thing here. Replying to the selfish and stupid remarks some of them make publicly is fair game.

[Dem4Life1102]

42. Very true

Which is my point that all rich people are not bad.

But I would suggest that you read some of the other replies to my post.

[blm]

57. I think you're the one insisting it's about ALL when it CLEARLY isn't.

I don’t know anyone here at DU who has ever posted that ALL billionaires and millionaires are bad people.

[Dem4Life1102]

59. Again

read some of the replies to my post.

[blm]

61. You are the one insisting it's about ALL rich people.

[Dem4Life1102]

64. No I'm not

I'm saying that all wealthy people are not bad and shouldn't be demonized. And if you really had read the replies, you would see there are many he who disagreed with that.

[blm]

81. NO ONE here says all wealthy people are bad and should be

demonized.

You built that straw man.

[Newest Reality]

45. I don't think the term is correct.

Demonizing is what Fascists and tin pot dictators like Trump do when they want to create a scapegoat du jour. If it works, then the circle of scapegoats is widened out to include more people who are somehow vulnerable.

Why would demanding that those with the most wealth, (and therefore benefits) from a society be responsible and reciprocal be wrong or bad. It does not have to fall under the rubric of demonizing anymore than chastising people who throw litter on the street without concern.

The idea of the hard work of one individual, (or family) to achieve success and its relationship to acquiring multiple billions of dollars does not necessarily equate. There are many factors that also contribute to the ability to accumulate that wealth. The rugged individual is a cultural myth and it is often perpetrated by people of the caliber of Trump to trump up a facade of personal achievement that was merely the result of having money to utilize to get other people to do things.

The society, at large, provides the infrastructure, economic system, laws, protections, skills and labor to provide for the few billionaires who have maximized their capacity to take advantage of it and who continue to extract wealth from it because they have already achieved a level that fosters more and more acquisition and wealth. So, it is not at all demonizing, nor a disincentive to demand or require some sort of proportional return by way of taxes, investment, etc., that supports that system and the people all the way down the pyramid, who, essentially, hold it up as they enjoy life at the capstone. That's a lot of weight.

So, demonizing is not even important here and I see no need to feign sympathy where none is due. The wealthy have their own sphere of influence, protection and legal remedies that are transcendent to the average, working person and those in poverty. When a society as a while requires that the commons and its people be empowered and enriched, that should not be an incentive to complain, withhold support or avoid climbing the golden ladder of success. Otherwise, don't bother to try, I would say.

For the sake of all parties concerned, it is not a matter of mere opinion or being judgemental. Their is an often ignored interdependence that underscores the mythic character of the self-made man, (person) and that's now turning into another trickle-down joke on the rest of us.

[Dem4Life1102]

52. Actually it is

And if everyone else took the reasonable approach that you have then it wouldn't be an issue. But some are not as reasonable and engage in demonetization.

[DBoon]

47. Even worse there are those on this site who demonize Nazis

I mean violent white supremacists are people too, aren't they?

[Dem4Life1102]

53. False analogy

Or are you saying being rich is same as being a Nazi?

[DBoon]

149. The wealthy have made Nazis a real threat.

They have undermined democratic institutions to hold on to their power and wealth

Like the Thyssens and Krupps of Germany, they have made a bunch a crackpots (Trump and company) into a force controlling our government.

They do this because they find even the mildest attacks on their wealth and privilege to be unacceptable.

[Dem4Life1102]

160. So your answer is yes?

[Hortensis]

67. :) Wow. Mocking a call for honesty and decency, for

not treating whatever truth is about others with the same contempt as trumpsters, as being soft on Nazis?

That's exactly backwards: the Nazis refused the calls of intellect, morality, even religion to attack others.

[DBoon]

148. The billionaires who have bought property in New Zealand ...

.. to escape from the demands of their minions are not decent people.

A billionaire like Pete Thiel, who infuses himself with the blood of young adults to gain immortality is not a decent person.

A billionaire like Mercer who believes in the supremacy of the (white) master race and supports covert operations to undermine elections is not a decent person.

The billionaire class is drunk on their own power, and they ARE supporting neo-nazis to keep their power.

An attack on the billionaire class is an attack on unlimited raw power. The existence of the billionaire class is a direct threat to human decency.

[BeyondGeography]

48. Wow

[betsuni]

58. It creates a useful cartoon villain: "repeated-ad-infinitum sermons about billionaires twisting

moustaches, adjusting monocles, and jealously guarding their 'rigged system.'" I don't know who said this, I jotted it down.

A collection of powerful cruel enemies who are terrified and will stop at nothing to defeat you. You feel righteous anger. Brain turns off, emotion takes over. Details about legislation to regulate industries and change tax laws are, like, so: in comparison.

[melman]

77. "I don't know who said this"

I do. It was Michael Moynihan the libertarian former editor of Reason magazine.


''Still, the clamor from Bernie’s camp wasn’t that bizarre. Bernie understands that the frisson Sanderistas audiences experience isn’t activated by conversations about the Iran nuclear deal. No, Sanders disciples are slain in the spirit by repeated-ad-infinitum sermons about billionaires twisting mustaches, adjusting monocles, and jealously guarding their “rigged system.” It was this message that vaulted Sanders from the mayor’s office to Congress and into the Senate. But foreign-policy questions, The New York Times noted, had a habit of pushing him “out of his comfort zone.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-bernie-sanders-thought-castro-and-the-sandinistas-could-teach-america-a-lesson


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_C._Moynihan

[betsuni]

89. Very interesting article, thanks for the link!

Forgotten about this Sanders quote: "It's funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing! In other countries the rich get the food and the poor starve to death."

[melman]

101. No problem!

Libertarian writers aren't really my thing but I don't judge. We like what we like.

[betsuni]

114. I don't like to demonize groups of people.

[betsuni]

241. Heh. No archival evidence?

[Otto Lidenbrock]

87. Likening a demographic based on wealth to who Trump targets is silly

If you want to make the point about how we can try and take the discussion away from just billionaires and find more nuanced discussion than I think this tweet from a guy I follow sums it up better than OP

Link to tweet

[hedda_foil]

93. What kind of twaddle is that??? It's utterly nonsensical.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

120. You're entitled to your opinion

Kamala Harris put out a plan to help low income families by proposing the Family Friendly Schools Act yet she got mocked by so-called progressives. If their plan to allow parents of low income not to have to spend fortune on childcare is to revolution, good luck, but Harris's plan is backed up by data and backed up by education activists and deserved more than the typical glib responses about extending the school day.

[Humanist_Activist]

94. Billionaires have a vested class interest in keeping us living paycheck to paycheck...

in thousands of dollars of debt while in many cases paying them to support their lifestyles. And, just like in the past, they will not have any issue with using violence to keep this economic system going at the expense of the working class.

[Dem4Life1102]

108. Thanks so much

For proving my point.

[Humanist_Activist]

167. There is no ethical way to accumulate a billion dollars or more...

there is no comparison between that and people's inborn traits, that's insulting to exploited and discriminated against minorities.

[Dem4Life1102]

171. Thanks again for proving my point

[Humanist_Activist]

179. OK, how do you accumulate a billion dollars ethically?

Seriously, unless you have accumulated wealth of 50 million or more, why are you defending them? Certain groups of people should be demonized because of how they got to where they are.

This is like defending plantation owners in 1850s America by saying some of them were somewhat nice to their slaves, give me a break.

[Dem4Life1102]

181. I'm calling out demonization and hate

No group of people should be demonized. That”s what demagogues do. But thanks again for proving my point

[Humanist_Activist]

191. "No group of people should be demonized" That's an unrealistic standard to have...

everyone participates in such demonization on some level, whether that demonization is reasonable is the question.

[Dem4Life1102]

193. Yes it is unrealistic

But I’m a dreamer

[PETRUS]

195. You don't have a point.

You have a misunderstanding about the nature of the complaints regarding billionaires and/or lack clarity about the nature of capitalism itself.

[Dem4Life1102]

197. No I do

and you just proved it for me. Thanks.

[PETRUS]

211. No cross examination? No defense?

If you decline to argue, then you forfeit.

[Dem4Life1102]

212. I don't need to argue

My original point stands on its own.

[PETRUS]

234. ...

[Dem4Life1102]

236. ...

[Atticus]

99. My goodness gracious! And you've only been here 5 weeks! With your brand of logic and reasoning,

by Christmas you'll have us persuaded to write in Charles Koch for POTUS. (He's one of those poor billionaires, you know.)

[Dem4Life1102]

109. Thanks

for proving my point

[blm]

111. Lololol. Your hole. Is.Deep. Enough.

Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2019, 12:03 AM - Edit history (1)

[Dem4Life1102]

115. Yes you have

[Atticus]

117. You are the only one in this thread who believes you have a point. Please proceed. nt

[Dem4Life1102]

123. So?

[demmiblue]

173. Lol!

[Bettie]

107. Ooh, let me guess

it is unfair to suggest we tax these poor, put upon billionaires who are just trying to make it on a hundred million or a couple billion a year, I mean, they have to budget and sometimes it is SO hard for them to make ends meet...we should pity them in their terrible hardship.

Most of them pay a lower percentage in taxes than nearly everyone else, and yet, they become indignant at the idea that they might be asked to kick in a little more.

[Dem4Life1102]

112. Not what I said

Not talking about taxes at all. Just about demonizing a whole group of people. Which is what you just did. So thanks for proving my point.

[Bettie]

116. Jamie Dimon, is that you

crying about how someone wants you to pay taxes? Poor baby.

[ChubbyStar]

119. I'm waiting for breath holding or feet stomping next

Or does that come in Act 3?

[Bettie]

122. Maybe we need to have a telethon for the Billionaires

only instead of raising money, we'll have people donate their extra fucks, because I have none to spare for people who think that they have an onerous burden placed on them by the mere suggestion that they might be asked to pay taxes.

Spoiler alert: even after paying what they see as a terrible amount of taxes, they'll still have more than most of us (together) will make in a lifetime!

My guess though, is that there will be stomping and more glimpses of the sea lion!

[Dem4Life1102]

126. Again

Said nothing about taxes. Please stop dishonestly claiming that I did.

[ChubbyStar]

121. Well shit howdy look at this thread, where you ARE talking about taxes

Hm, your posts here pretty much clarify your point, don't they?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287340343

[Celerity]

131. but but

[Dem4Life1102]

133. Actually that was someone else's post

I never said a word about taxes.

[ChubbyStar]

136. Of course you didn't say the word taxes

Yet, that was the gist of the entire thread...so you know, SEMANTICS.

[Dem4Life1102]

140. My point was that we need modern solutions

to solve modern problems.

[bullwinkle428]

143. Does the guy you work for know exactly how you're trying to advance his cause here?

[regnaD kciN]

152. I don't think anyone's "demonizing" millionaires and billionaires...

...just insisting they pay their fair share, as they did back in the “Republican dream” Eisenhower 1950s.

[ChubbyStar]

155. But the OP has a new idea

Dem4Life1102 (277 posts)

7. True but we need new solutions
not old ones that may have worked in there time but won't work now.




Yes, "there" time, here is the thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287340343#top


New solutions! Uhhh, I guess they missed the part where taxing them is the solution. Those pesky 1950's, shit nothing good was implemented.

[dalton99a]

187. The point is there if you squint real hard

lo and behold there it is

Even if it is not visible it surely is there somewhere!

[Dem4Life1102]

163. If you don't

you haven’t been listening hard enough.

[Aaron Pereira]

154. Thanks for having the courage to stand up for oppressed billionaires.

Next they'll be insisting that centamillionaires should be paying taxes too and then decamillionaires. When will the madness end?

[Dem4Life1102]

164. Not the point

I was making but thanks for proving to for me

[boomer_wv]

156. Most millionaires...

are just regular folks who did a really good job of not spending their money over the years. The book "The Millionaire Next Door" talks about these people.

I'm not sure how it seems fair to take some person who worked their entire life and managed to accumulate a few million bucks and tell them that they only actually need x, so you're just going to take the rest, especially considering that they have likely already paid taxes on it when it was earned to begin with.

Sure, rich people may not seem like a vulnerable class like immigrants or minorities, but I bet the French aristocracy felt pretty vulnerable about the time that people started lopping their heads off.

We don't need to be radical. Take taxes back to where they were during Clinton, or atleast Obama, close up loopholes, and figure out what we are spending that we don't need to. Don't double down on the republicans fiscal irresponsibility, be the party who actually starts paying down the debt while protecting everyone.

[Bettie]

157. The wealth tax that is so feared

doesn't kick in until 50 million.

FIFTY MILLION.

And taking 2 percent of that...they will still have more than most of us will make in our entire lives, and they'll get more and more and more, even with taxes, they will end up with exponentially more every year, while the peons (the rest of us) get kicked a little harder every year by the minions of the extremely wealthy.

And the vast majority of those insanely wealthy people? They don't even think of us (the not-million/billionaires) as human.

[boomer_wv]

158. Do they?

Aren't you just trying to dehumanize them with that kind of talk?

You're also pining over a tax policy that would be absolutely certain to face a legal challenge, and one that the Supreme Court would be certain to take up. Do you think that a wealth tax has a chance to stand against the current makeup of the court? Pretty good chance that a democratic President elected in 2020, and serving for 8 years, would only have a chance to nominate two justices, both to replace current liberals. Alito and Thomas could both easily serve another 10-15 years.

So, I come back to the bigger point, why are you supporting policy that has no chance to be enacted?

[ChubbyStar]

165. Ahhh somebody has a sad

Poor thing.

[peggysue2]

166. Salient point to the question

So, I come back to the bigger point, why are you supporting policy that has no chance to be enacted?

Because when it fails, you can point a finger at the source of all pain: billionaires, corporations, banks, the entire financial industry. Which is the nature of populism, the need to have the enemy reference ready at the go.

Despite all the caterwauling, The Wealth Tax is a glitzy gimmick with little chance of being enacted and desperately over-optimistic in revenue collection predictions. It rests on the desire of most Americans that the rich pay their fair share, not an unreasonable demand. So, let's do it with one sweeping proposal, instead of looking at existing tax law and reforming from within.

For the US a Wealth Tax is a spanking new, bold idea. Doesn't matter whether it's a good idea, an idea that's been tried and failed in the vast majority of European countries that have ditched the approach, the fact that the problems of collection and enforcement are legion and revenue collection dicey at best. Oh no, this is America. We can make it work; we can make it work so well we'll tie $7 trillion of social programs on its success. Even though the plan will face serious constitutional challenges, tying up the works in litigation for years. And those revolutionary social programs? They will die for the lack of funding.

Hello?

But when the Wealth Tax flounders as it will surely do, we always have the street-led cry: Eat the Rich. That'll show 'em.

[Bettie]

168. Ah, of course, another person who

thinks our current system is perfect!

After all, it is VERY efficient at what it does, which is siphon cash up to the upper levels of our economy.

You are obviously right...the only people who matter are the very wealthy, the rest of us? Just ants for them to crush when they get bored.

[boomer_wv]

213. Lol

Try reading better.

[Dem4Life1102]

175. I don't think it's jealousy

but do agree that there is an assumption that all wealth is ill-gotten or criminal. And certain politicians feed on that to sell themselves. President Obama never did that. Clinton never did that. They didn’t need to.

[Autumn]

170. Stop. I weep for them.

No, I guess I don't. Equating Trump calling Mexican immigrants drug dealers, and rapists is so not like the people and politicians on the Left calling out the billionaires for not paying their FAIR share of taxes.

[Dem4Life1102]

172. Not about taxes

It’s about demonization, casting wealthy as all evil.

[Autumn]

174. What you see as demonization I see as truth. They do not pay a fair share of their money to taxes.

Mainly because they are greedy. And they should be required to pay much, much more than they do. You use a blanket statement there. No one is casting "wealthy as all evil". We are saying they have plenty and they can pay a fair share as the rest of us do.

They can't have it all.

[Dem4Life1102]

176. Then you've proved my point for me

Thanks

[Autumn]

178. I proved nothing for you. You haven't even proved your own point. But by all mean keep trying.

I would like to know why you think the billionaires shouldn't pay more in taxes.

[Dem4Life1102]

180. Again not about taxes

But thanks again for proving my point for me

[Autumn]

183. Yes it is all about taxes. Why else would they be in the discussion and being" demonized"

as you claim they are? I do wish you would attempt to prove your own point. Clarification is needed. Where have billionaires been demonized? For their good works?

Trumps a billionaire, is he off-limits? What about the Walton family that costs the taxpayers millions to subsidize their security and keep their employees on food stamp rolls. Are they off limits? What about the Sackler family, the ones making billions who created the opium crises? Are they off-limit too?

[Dem4Life1102]

184. My point is not about taxes

and again you proved it for me. Thanks.

[Autumn]

185. What is your point? Prove it please. What are they being picked on for? TIA nt

[Dem4Life1102]

186. Read my OP again

and try to see past your own hatred

[Autumn]

189. I did. By the way there is one billionaire I praise very often, because he gives so much back.

Tom Steyer. However, my question remains. How is saying Billionaires should pay more taxes demonizing them as Trump did when he called Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists and murders, not racists. Where and who has "demonized? billionaires. The only time they ever come up is when they are being discussed for the lack of taxes that they pay. And let's not forget an occasional half way good deed that they get a tax break for.

[Dem4Life1102]

190. It's not

and I never said it was. But when all wealthy people are called the oligarch class or that no wealth can be accumulated ethically, that is demonization.

[Autumn]

192. So "all wealthy people are called the oligarch class or that no wealth can be accumulated

ethically" is the same demonization that Mexican immigrants who are deemed to be drug dealers, murders and rapists, not racists by way, as the right and Trump do is the same as the left saying that the billionaires should pay more taxes. Alrighty then.

[Dem4Life1102]

194. Again not about taxes

Stop trying to divert the argument

[Autumn]

196. Not about taxes? So what is it about? What are they being demonized for? Give one example of

billionaires being demonized by the Left just like Trump demonized Mexican immigrants as murders, drug dealers and rapists. It's your opinion and you should have plenty of examples to base it on and be able to explain this demonization you claim the left is doing. You need to make your argument clear, that's on you.

[Dem4Life1102]

198. I explained

You just refuse to see past your own bias to understand it.

[Autumn]

200. Since you can't provide one single example of those poor billionaires being demonized by the left

like Mexican imigrants have been by the right I guess there is nothing more to discuss. Have fun with whatever you are trying to point out

[Dem4Life1102]

201. Read some of the posts

on this thread. You’ll see plenty of examples.

[Autumn]

203. Nope. Not going to happen. You can't rely on responses to your OP that you claim have nothing to

do with your OP, which has absolutely no examples to back up what you say to prove a point you claim you never made. But I do see what you are doing so, by all means, carry on.

[demmiblue]

204. Your next response should be this:

[Dem4Life1102]

205. So you ask for examples

and then refuse to read them. Interesting.

[Autumn]

206. Stop. You are attempting to use responses that you claim have nothing to do with your OP as proof

of your OP. Relax, enjoy this song.

[Dem4Life1102]

207. Read the responses

They prove my point. Which I assume is why you refuse to do so.

[Autumn]

208. Not going to do it. They are responses, they are not proof of what you claim your OP is not about.

They prove nothing. If you can't prove your point there is no point. Trashing thread

[Dem4Life1102]

209. The responses prove it

[dalton99a]

177. They are utterly helpless and defenseless against the corporate media

which they own and control

[Dem4Life1102]

182. Thanks

for proving my point

[NoMoreRepugs]

188. 180+ posts about Billionaires (really richfolk)? Seriously??

Who gives a flying F$#K if they are vilified or held in great esteem? They represent practically 0% of the population. Let's keep our eye on the big blue ball okay??

[Bettie]

210. They are a very tiny portion of the population

with an extremely large control over our entire nation.

They own politicians. Apparently, owning a Senator or two is highly profitable these days.

They own the media and thus control the messaging.

They own the machines that record our votes.

They decide who gets medical care and who doesn't.

[tinrobot]

199. Millionaires are very common these days, billionaires are rare.

There's approximately 18.6M millionaires in the US, or about 6% of the population. You probably know a few or may be one yourself.

There are less than 600 billionaires in the US.

Big difference between the two.

[Dem4Life1102]

202. I'm not a millionaire

or even close.

And you’re right, there is a big difference. Which is why it is wrong to paint all wealthy people with one brush.

[Bradshaw3]

216. They have demonized themselves

Through their unquenchable greed, avoiding taxes, and investing that is destroying the middle class. So you never liked demonizing people, yet you use a RW talking point to demonize those who are trying to do something about the growing and massive inequality in this country.

[Dem4Life1102]

217. Thanks for proving my point

[Bradshaw3]

233. That's all you got?

The fact you couldn't come up with anything to show that proves my point. But it's nice that in a nation with half a million people homeless and millions uninsured or going broke because of our medical system or losing their jobs because the already wealthy ship their jobs overseas that you find the time to defend those millionaires and billionaires suffering at the hands of the meanies who want to do something about economic inequality. You must be thrilled about Bloomberg's candidacy.

[Dem4Life1102]

235. It's all I need

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287338985

[Bradshaw3]

237. Another fail

[Dem4Life1102]

240. Yes you keep doing that

[treestar]

218. They can afford to be demonized; it is not going to hurt them

It will make no difference to them.

The issue is how much power they should have over the rest of us - that money talks too much.

[Dem4Life1102]

219. Thank you

for proving my point.

[treestar]

220. This is not an effective argument

You see no difference from "demonizing" a powerful group vs. an oppressed group?

The poor illegal aliens don't have power over you, but you are encouraged to blame them for your problems.

The billionaires do have power. Money talks, too much, unfortunately. You are not responding to that issue.

[Dem4Life1102]

223. Again

Thanks for proving my point.

[treestar]

224. That's all you have to say

It is not convincing. I told you a difference. You ignore it and repeat yourself. Proves your point not valid

[Dem4Life1102]

225. It's all I need to say

Thanks again

[treestar]

245. No it is not and you are not convincing

You have not convinced anybody with that. Look at the thread.

[Dem4Life1102]

247. Yes is is

or you wouldn’t keep replying

Thanks for the kick

[jcgoldie]

221. Episode V - Oberliner Strikes Back!

[demmiblue]

222. Lol!

Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2019, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

There was also a long-time DUer (now banned) years and years ago that would pull this similar stunt. He was some sort of fan of debating (but he always used logical fallacies every time he "debated" ).

I can't believe that this thread has recs.

[unblock]

227. 225 replies and only 13 recs.

Pretty telling.

[roody]

228. Somebody, call the whaaaaaaaaaambulance!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

229. DUzy.

[pat_k]

230. Demonization is a problem because it is not effective.

There is no need to demonize. Only to argue that any success enjoyed by segments of the private sector is built on the existence of an educated, healthy work force, justice system, roads and bridges, public transportation, effective safety nets that enable all to fully participate (which includes the end of mass incarceration), integrity of our elections to enable "we the people" to actually build the government we need, security through effective programs to reduce crime... on and on.

All these things have been, and continue to be destroyed by effective propaganda that has turned "government" from "we the people" into some evil thing that must be dismantled.

The so-called "thriving" economy is NOT thriving.

The only thing keeping the 1% propped up at the moment is an incredibly dangerous transfer of wealth from the 99%. The 1% isn't evil, but they do need to take responsibility for repairing an economy that is destroying more lives every year.

Is anyone old enough to remember Perot's long commercials with all his charts and graphs? They were very effective. He took a "facts, just the facts" approach. We need to do things like this to bring home the reality of how broken our economy is -- and how the solution is to ensure REAL prosperity by building a truly strong public sector.

[Dem4Life1102]

231. Exactly how the argument should be made

Thank you.

[TheFarseer]

238. There's really no need to demonize millionaires and billionaires

There's just a need to make them pay taxes on their investments and business income the same as any of us pay on our W-2 income and to make them follow a set of fair regulations.

[Dem4Life1102]

248. Exactly

and I wish more would just make a reasonable argument like this

[ronnie624]

239. All billionaires have hidden, untaxed assets, totaling in the trillions of dollars, globally.

They are not good people. They don't want to pay their share, because they're greedy sociopaths. If they weren't, they wouldn't be defrauding their their fellow citizens out of desperately needed revenue, when they already have far more than they need.

[BootinUp]

246. Hilarious thread. Nt

[BuffaloJackalope]

250. The :sarcasm: tag exists for a reason.

[LanternWaste]

253. Equally, I've never liked posters that pretend the false oppression of a privileged demographic.

However, I dig your allegation that your concern is predicated on ethical grounds.

It almost sounds sincere rather than merely self-righteous posturing.

[Dem4Life1102]

254. Thanks for proving my point

[LanternWaste]

257. You confuse proof with a biased inference of yours. Again.

But I get it... people often require self-validation from themselves when denied it from others.

[Dem4Life1102]

258. Thanks again

and for the kick

[LanternWaste]

260. "You proved my point..."

Though I imagine irony is far down on the list of your realizations.

[Dem4Life1102]

261. Again

Thanks for the kick

[Act_of_Reparation]

255. ...

[demmiblue]

259. ...

[The Valley Below]

256. With you 100% Dem4Life1102

Liberalism rests on rationality and reason.

Populism rests on fueling anger, rage, and division. And is antithetical to rationality and reason.

Populism is both its rightwing and leftwing variants is the greatest threat to liberal ideology and populist movements always go authoritarian/totalitarian when ever they gain power.

No pitchforks.

[ehrnst]

262. Yep. (nt)