Something is seriously wrong in our society

[Ardent15]

Why, for example, are teachers, nurses, the poor, the elderly, the young, the injured, etc., when there are hard times, like in my state of California-why are they always the ones that have to pay the price of corporate greed, of anti-tax, anti-welfare political policies?

Why, when there is a budget deficit, the wealthy are defended and promoted as being "off-limits" to taxation, to paying their fair share, and to facing the consequences of their actions?

This system, this cycle of the corporate predators being free to exploit and destroy, of communities being ravaged by the results of those actions, and of those same communities being forced to pay for those actions-this needs to stop.

This is not just. This is not fair. And this is not right.

[arcadian]

1. Time to party like it's 1789

[readmoreoften]

20. +1

[sasquuatch55]

106. Because we are not represented by our Government,as you know they represent...

..Corporations and Financial interests along with obtaining influence and control all over the planet. We are fodder for their wars and money for their extravagance.

[MissDeeds]

115. +1

We have the best government money can buy.

[driver8]

130. Bingo! That is exactly right.

Our government does not give a flying fuck about "the people".

Money talks, and bullshit walks...

Guess who has the money?

[tiptoe]

210. It's all about Election Fraud, fraudulent representatives, Proposition votes manipulated...see #209

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8445501#8457898

[leftstreet]

34. +1

[Sherman A1]

51. +1

[pundaint]

52. more like 1775

[WinkyDink]

76. I believe the 1789 allusion includes the guillotine. :-)

[pundaint]

114. OK, I'm in.

[JVS]

60. 1917

[unpossibles]

110. I've sometimes tried to explain that angle to the 'trickle down' types

who complain about how the rich over pay now and complain about how "half of America doesn't even pay taxes" (insert eye rolling here), I always point out that although I neither condone nor advocate violence, at some point people who feel they have nothing to lose will rise against the Haves of society. History shows this happens time and time again, that there's only so much blood to be squeezed from a stone before it starts squeezing back.

What's funny is, some have interpreted that as me somehow threatening them, which is a joke. I was just trying to say, "ok, I get that you have no interest in altruism or even in how the well being and stability of a society you live in directly benefits you even if you don't understand the many ways how, but if you keep pushing desperate people into a corner they will eventually fight back with what they feel like is all they have left; their lives."

[pansypoo53219]

128. fortunately for the haves, americans have teevee.

which is way better than circuses to pacify. tho, not getting bread or digital reception may stir things up.

[Lena inRI]

134. Allons enfants de la paaaaatrie. . .

. . .le jour de gloire est arrive. . .aux armes, citoyens! Formez vos bataillons. . .marchons, marchons. . .(La Marseillaise, 1792, French anthem today)


Un sans-culotte, French street revolutioinary c. 1789-98


French Women's bread march/riot toward King's palace, 1789


Beheading of royal guards at the Bastille fortress debtors' prison, 1789

The day next week scheduled to approve $33 billion more for Iraq/Afghanistan should be the day we storm the U.S.Congress like the Bastille. . .think about it. . .

But it'll NEVER EVER happen in this country. . .NO leader. . .NO fire-in-the-belly movement. . .PLENTY of corporate-controlled technology to wipe out any spontaneous revolt. . .

And the corporate masters know this all too well.

We're cooked, fried, and done for. . .enjoy your simple lives while ya can. . .live in the present while ya can.

:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

[awoke_in_2003]

162. More like 1776...

Jefferson was a much better writer than Madison:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[tiptoe]

209. 1789 didn't have ELECTION FRAUD favoring the RIGHT-WING almost 100% (like today). Check it out:

Exit Polls vs Vote-Counts:  Vote-margin shifts favor the GOP in the vote-count 98.5% when a ±3% MoE is exceeded (66 of 238)

From Proving Election Fraud (2010), pp 81-91:

Exit polls are used to collect demographic data about voters and to find out why they voted as they did. Since actual votes are cast anonymously, polling is the only way of collecting this information. Exit polls have historically and throughout the world been used as a check against and rough indicator of the degree of election fraud.

The 2004 exit poll report was released on Jan 19, 2005. It showed that Kerry won the unadjusted State Exit Poll aggregate by 52–47% and the [preliminary] National Exit Poll by 51–48%, before they were forced to match the recorded vote, won by Bush 50.7%–48.3%. The pollsters concluded that the 7% discrepancy (WPE) was due to the Kerry voters responding at a higher rate than Bush voters to be interviewed. It was dubbed the "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis (rBr). The pollster's Final National Exit Poll, which indicated that returning Bush voters outnumbered returning Gore voters by more than 7 million, refuted the theory. Not only that, there were more returning voters than were alive in 2004.

It is important to keep in mind that the [adjusted] Final National Exit Poll (NEP) is always 'forced to match' the official recorded vote count.
...
An analysis of [unadjusted] State Exit Poll discrepancies for the 1988-2004 elections yields an interesting pattern. The data is from Edison Media Research/ Mitofsky International: "Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004" (January 19, 2005).

E-M provided unadjusted exit poll data for 238 of 255 state presidential elections from 1988 to 2004. They define "Within Precinct Error (WPE)" as the difference between the unadjusted exit poll share margin and the recorded vote-count share margin. “Error” implies that the exit polls were wrong. But millions of votes are un-counted in every election (nearly 11 million in 1988 and 4 million in 2004). Therefore, it is more accurate to refer to Within Precinct Discrepancy (WPD). A positive WPD indicates that the vote shift favored the GOP; a negative WPD favored the Democrat.
...
Unadjusted exit poll data has not been released for 2008. Is it because the data would confirm what the 1988-2004 exit polls indicate?  In every election, the Democrats do much better than the official recorded vote indicates. As always, the Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote-count. A True Vote Model (see below) indicates that Obama won by over 22 million votes.

1988-2004 ±3% MoE exceeded in 66 of 238 State Exit Polls  (65 favoring the Republican, 1 the Democrat)

[NC_Nurse]

2. Perhaps we are finally coming to the point where the masses will start to wake

up to this injustice. The tired old slogans about "punishing success" and "trickle down" are feeling pretty hollow
to a lot of people by now.

Dare we hope that a few people have wised up over the last few years? :shrug:

[secondwind]

3. The entire world is starting to wake up, and see that capitalism is NOT ON THEIR SIDE.

[Tejas]

18. and the alternative is......?

[readmoreoften]

22. Uh. The alternative is called international socialism.

Not war communism, Stalinism, or sabotaged socialism. Not European social democracy that's still impossibly dependent on slave states like China and Indonesia, but workers seizing control of the productive apparatus they design and use for the benefit of society--not BP and the rich.

[Usrename]

31. Eliminating capitalism doesn't guarantee liberty or justice.

There is a criminal element that rules through bribery and corruption. This can happen (and has) under any economic system.

[proteus_lives]

32. Shhh, they hating hearing that little fact.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Usrename]

118. That's nice how you include a strawman with your ad hominem.

Are you arguing that the criminal cabal would somehow magically change their stripes if we would only declare socialism to be the superior system.

That seems like a shallow argument to me.

[Zix]

61. No does perpetuating it...

:shrug:

How do we compare like with like?

[Enthusiast]

65. You are right. nt

[WinkyDink]

77. It helps eliminate the billionaire capitalist thieves.

[Usrename]

83. That should be done under any circumstances.

Thieves are rewarded under this system when they steal an enormous enough sum.

The Supreme Court has endorsed bribery and fraud when committed by a certain class. This is not equal justice under the law.

[Jackpine Radical]

91. I think socialism is a good start, but we have to figure out a way to beat

the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Whatever system you create will inevitably go sour on you over time. That's the problem our Founding Fathers couldn't beat. What started as at least a partially idealistic system has now been corrupted through continuous assaults by what I can only think of as self-serving, psychopathic forces. Socialism is no less susceptible to these forces than any other system, as the Soviets proved with their disastrous example.

[Usrename]

96. That's right, it has been a continuous struggle.

There will always be a tension between tyranny and liberty, the oppressors and the oppressed.

Right now we are losing.

[William Z. Foster]

139. it is always a struggle, always has been

That is the story of the human race, it makes us what we are.

Sitting back musing over imaginary "alternative systems" that could be imposed or installed is to avoid the struggle and to confuse, discourage and frighten others. The question is this - in this version of the struggle, right now here and today, which side are you on?

Only those confident of protection from the ruling class, who speak for the ruling class, can afford the luxury of spending time on pseudo-intellectual discussions about ideology and alternative systems and make authoritative sounding pronouncements about "human nature," about the futility of engaging in the struggle, about the dangers of fighting back against our tormentors.

I can remember 40 years ago when we heard this talk from mouthpieces for the aristocracy in Latin America. It is amazing to hear people here sounding just like that now, the same condescending and paternalistic tone, the same advocacy of resignation and complacency - "we all hate to see such terrible poverty, but this seems to be the way of the world, and the alternative could be worse. Do things really get better when the people rise up and overthrow tyranny, or does the cycle just repeat and bring us back to where we started?" All of that saccharine pseudo-sophisticated smug and arrogant double talk was so obviously false and merely propaganda to protect the wealthy few. Now we have people here - Democrats! - saying the same things, making the same arguments to defend the existing state of affairs.

Your message here is "fear, fear fear, give up, give up, give up."

[rhett o rick]

103. I agree. Many have the fantasy of the poor uprising and setting up a free democracy. This is not

workable. I dont believe it has ever worked thru out history. The American Experiment was unique. There were special geographical and social circumstances that allowed the development of a free Democracy. I say free although one could argue that even in the US, all have not been "free".

The nature of people seems to make it easy for tyrants to get control. People seem always to look for the easy way out which is always the route the tyrants promise.

[Usrename]

116. This reminds me of something another member once said:

"Revolutions that only include one class generally end with people declaring themselves Spartacus as Roman Soldiers nail them to crosses along the Apian way." - Allentown Jake

[William Z. Foster]

140. it is hopeless

Give up. No sense in trying. It never works. It is human nature. Things can never change. Best to go along and get along, do the best you can for yourself, and work for little changes here and there to improve things.

"One could argue that even in the US, all have not been 'free'?????" you say??? And you put the word free in quotation marks?

[rhett o rick]

147. Are you interested in discussion or merely mocking? I think Howard Zinn might also put free in

quotes.

For your information, I am very active, I will NGU, I dont recommend anyone else give up, and I am ready for whatever comes and will fight shoulder to shoulder. My point is that many of those that call for revolution are just dreamers and will never do anything one way or another. It gives one a good feeling to threaten to revolt. Very romantic.

Besides those in DU calling for a revolution will find that most likely the masses, the tea-baggers will be on the other side. The 'baggers want to revolt against the liberals not our corporate overlords. They would welcome Cheeney as their dictator.

We need to take actions that are effective. Calling for armed revolution is romantic but counter productive.

[William Z. Foster]

149. you are mocking, not I

"...many of those that call for revolution are just dreamers and will never do anything..."

"Very romantic."

"...those in DU calling for a revolution..."

"Calling for armed revolution is romantic but counter productive."

[Usrename]

174. You have to admit, we ain't going to out-Blackwater the bad guys.

Armed resitance is a stupid idea. We don't even know who to point our guns at, but they know who we are, don't they?

[rhett o rick]

186. More importantly, the tea-baggers are most apt to start a revolution.

They are easily lead and have lots of guns. But they wont be going after the corporate overlords, but the intelligent, the liberals, doctors, lawyers, and professional people. Remember the killing fields. Blackwater will be on their side.

[William Z. Foster]

192. not a chance

This is a fantasy, fed by the false assumptions people have about fascist movements such as the Nazis - the assumption that they were a bunch of uneducated thugs. The Nazi leadership, the top 100 or so people, were almost all highly educated - the intelligent, the liberals, doctors, lawyers, and professional people.

You are being led to defend the ruling class with these arguments.

Fox news and Limbaugh have done a number on liberals - convinced them of this massive dangerous tea bagger movement, and scared the crap out of them.

While you are mesmerized by the tea baggers, the real enemy is sneaking up behind you.

[Usrename]

197. You are making a common mistake here.

The teabaggers are not leaders, they are followers. Xenophobic morons just like the xenophobic morons the Nazis preyed on. And, if you want to make the argument, the ones who are astroturfing the teabaggers are just as well-heeled as the gang that supporte Hitler. There really is no difference between them.

[rhett o rick]

215. I think that is a great point. The 'baggers are similar to Hitler's Brown Shirts

If they revolt it will be against democracy and not for democracy. They are being used by the corporate elite to disrupt attempts by the left to re-establish freedoms taken away by Bush.

[rhett o rick]

200. You mischaracteize what I say again. Maybe you will understand if I tell you

I believe the tea-baggers are like Hitler's Brown Shirts, not like the Nazi elites. I do not think they are our biggest danger. I fully recognize that the corporate ruling class is the danger.

Again, what I am trying to point out is that if there is going to be a revolution, it most likely will not be the middle class against the corporate overlords, it will be the tea-baggers revolting against the Government (Democratic controlled government). In fact the ruling class, thru their talking heads, are already trying to make that happen.

Again, I am curious why you continue to try to paint me as supporting the ruling class?

[William Z. Foster]

206. no idea

I am not following what you are saying. I apologize if I am misunderstanding you.

Could you explain this a little more for me? Thanks.

[rhett o rick]

214. If you truly want to understand and not just cause trouble, then answer a couple of

questions. Do you think a violent revolution is viable? If not, then you agree with me. If you do, please explain to me how it will come about. Who will be involved on whose side.

In this OP, I was trying to give my thought on this. But people like yourself, either jumped to conclusions or just wanted to be disruptive.

[Usrename]

196. I don't think there's any up side to that sort of thing for anyone.

It won't save our economy or anything, that's for sure. So it seems like a poor choice of options.

I am leaning towards them maneuvering a nuclear first strike somewhere. A full blown nuclear confrontation is probably looking better and better to the ones who can make these things happpen, at least from a cost/benefit standpoint. Even more so than when Bush was in office. The inevitable economic fallout from the devastation in the Gulf may be what tips the balance for these masters of the universe.

[rhett o rick]

185. Yes maybe I am mocking those that pretend they are interested in revolution. But I wasnt mocking you

I never said to give up, nor do I believe it. You have me confused. In the post where I said that it is fantasy that the poor will overthrow the rich and set up a Democracy, you mock me by saying things like "it is hopeless. Give up. No sense in trying. It never works. It is human nature. Things can never change." But then in your post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8449442&mesg_id=8450211 you seem to be saying that it is hopeless, "We are hamsters on a wheel - "keep running people! Keep believing!"".

May I ask if you believe an armed revolution can be effective?

[William Z. Foster]

191. there aren't any people advocating that

This is a common right wing smear of the political left - claiming that they are advocating violent revolution, and so should be feared and dismissed.

The ones advocating violence are those spouting conservative talking points and defending the murderous status quo.

People are advocating justice, equality, and freedom. They are advocating a planet we can live in. They are advocating an end to economic tyranny. Calling that "advocating violent revolution" is to oppose the movement for justice, equality, and freedom, for a livable planet, for economic fairness and equality.

[rhett o rick]

213. If you havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. nm

[Joe Chi Minh]

107. But the left always pay tribute to virtue by defending the poor. The right can't be bothered even to

that, other than in terms of personal morality. Which, admittedly, is something, nevertheless.

[Usrename]

117. Even worse, the right wants to criminalize being poor.

Not a very Christian view.

[Shadow Creature]

180. where

Eliminate capitalism and where does the revenue come from for all the government programs?

It is either you and me or they don't have the programs any more.

[Usrename]

184. I don't understand what you mean.

I think there has been a generational change in the meaning of the word capitalism. Today most people who use it mean "free markets" although when I was a pup it was more synonomous with the concept of "free enterprise" where the markets are controlled or regulated by the government to the extent necessary to protect the public interest and keep the economy in balance.

I personally don't think competition is a bad thing, but I think some who rail against Capitalism do see the competition aspect as being inherently bad.

[Shadow Creature]

40. international?

We need billionaires lording over the 98% who are dirt poor, standing in line with ration cards?

Because that is what happens in Cuba and North Korea. There is no equality there.

Of course there really isn't such an animal as "international socialism" is there? Sounds so good and yet the closest thing to it in history was a giant slave empire of the USSR.

[laughingliberal]

41. We don't have billionaires lording over the 98% who are poor now? Could've fooled me. nt

[Shadow Creature]

42. not really

Our country is fat, dumb and happy (and mostly middle class) in relative terms to the rest of the world.

[laughingliberal]

47. Well, I'm from the un-fat, un-dumb, and unhappy portion who sees the top 1% stealing us blind.

Just because a portion still live with the illusion they are middle class and, therefore, safe, does not mean the billionaires are not lording it over them. It just means they are not aware, yet. It's astonishing how quickly people can be knocked out of the middle class. And not just a little out of it but all the way to destitution. More are starting to see it. Eventually, it will reach critical mass.

[Enthusiast]

68. +1, The overlords

will live high until it reaches critical mass.

[BobbyBoring]

93. exactly!

We live in The Matrix. Too few of us realize that. Our indoctrination begins at birth when we are taught what's good and what's bad. Cowboy good, Injun bad. The only good commie is a dead commie. Eat a hot dog on Friday and go directly to hell. We are taught to live in fear and I'm not playing anymore. Our country has created the ultimate evil illusion. Many of us thought that if you worked hard and played the game, we would succeed. That illusion was swept away at least to me in 2000 when Bush was installed. His final fuck you to us was Sept of 08 when he completed his task of destroying the middle and working class. There's a thread of hope but it's a thin one. If people don't wake up soon, it's over!

[HillbillyBob]

104. They are blissfully unaware..I could add more

derogatory shit about murkins. Anti intellectual bs is strong in this lot. I have a hard time understanding why fools want to live in a imaginary world.
I have seen that wilfully ignorant shit for a very long time.
I have been homeless 3x and each time it was something beyond my control that happened to me. First time was foreclosure(partner took the house payments to buy drugs and hid the notices).
3rd time was when current partner was outsourced 2x in less than six months and the house guest from hell and our bizpartner and accountant absconded with our business funds.

The 2nd time was after BlueCrossBlueShield did not pay the bills that they were contractually obligated to, but they did not and I got to be homeless, jobless, lost my car, my clothes everything, because they called my pneumonia (not aids related) a preexisting.

The way I see it the bastards still owe me for the 30,000 I had to spend my life savings to pay, plus lost income for the last 22 yrs @ 35,000 reg salary plus what ever I would have made on my sideline of antique restorations that I charged 45$ an hour for(usually an extra 20g per year.

Im really tired of the idiotfactor and the thieving sobs on wall street and elsewhere.

We live very close to the bone..we don't have much choice. We do the best that we can and we don't by BP products since a couple of years ago we got gas in our truck and our car at the same time that had a bunch of water in it..that we had a hell of a time getting them right again. The truck never was..and now needs a new motor, which I believe is a failed oil pump..but don't have 3g to replace the blown motor.


Also I still am amazed that the first thing budget breakers go for is our youths education..more dumbshits for our future.

[William Z. Foster]

141. they are in cahoots

People are given privileges and perks and security and status to the exact degree that they are willing to promote and defend the system that serves the needs and whims of the wealthy and powerful few. People are punished if they refuse to do that or if they challenge that system. There is your "middle class."

People like their perks and status and security, and they know which side of the bread the butter is on. That is why they defend the system.

[tabasco]

86. Educate yourself and stop blabbering nonsense.

www.lcurve.org

[patrice]

121. Have you seen that MoveOn graphic that is going around? Shows the average U.S income at $47K!

An average that is skewed quite HIGH by including all incomes, especially the highest incomes.

Talking about the Median U.S. income, as this graphic does, makes much more sense.

[Shadow Creature]

179. 47K is solid middle class

You want poverty, go to Cuba or North Korea.

Heck even in Europe they rarely can eat like the vast majority of Americans can.

Imagine everyone in America - except the government leaders and their friends who are billionaires- living on a few hundred dollars per month. That is what the future could look like. It's not pretty.

[patrice]

201. My point is that an average is not a good measurement of the central tendency of a group

To get an average you add up all of the values, lowest through highest, and divide by the number of values in the group.

In this group, the highest values are sooooo high, there is soooo much difference between them and even the next highest set of values, let alone in comparison to how much difference there is between them and the mean/average, the median, or the mode for the group, that their inclusion in the average/mean raises the mean proportional to how high those highest values are. As an experiment, pretend the highest scores are only half of what they are and calculate the mean/average again and see the difference between that average and this one.

The point being, telling us that the average U.S. income is $47K is not a valid representation of what's going on in this country, because that figure is affected by (highest incomes) data that is characteristic of only just the tiniest number of Americans.

An average doesn't tell us much without its standard deviation, which is an average of the differences between the individual values and the group average.

The median figure would tell us more about us, because that's the value at which the number of different incomes above it is the same count as the number of different incomes below it. I have seen references to the median U.S. individual income at being somewhere between $20-$30 K. The L Curve graph earlier in this thread puts it at $40K.

Another figure I have looked for but couldn't find is the mode: the most frequent value in the data, i.e. the most common income in the U.S.

[patrice]

123. Some sources say the MEDIAN U.S. income is less than $30K.

[Hannah Bell]

57. huh?

[Enthusiast]

69. A real 'Shadow Creature'? nt

[YOY]

81. Try Sweden bud. or France even.

When you have one party lording over everything things are bound to go south.

Nobody here wants to emulate the USSR. That's an ignoramus' excuse and a strawman.

[Jamastiene]

88. Huh? Your description sounds just like the textbook definition of capitalism.

Try again.

[demwing]

85. "Uh"??? Why the tone? You HAD to add that little remark?

What was the purpose?

[Frank Cannon]

125. We already live in a socialist system

It's just that the costs and risks associated with megacorporate greed are socialized and the profits are privatized.

[Tesha]

28. Democratic Socialism, of course. It works for much of the civilized world. (NT)

[safeinOhio]

66. Democracy is the cure for

both socialism and capitalism. Neither can survive Democracy. It is the regulator for the pendulum that swings back and forth. All that is needed is support for unfettered democratic laws that give the majority the biggest say in economics. In this country it starts with campaign reform and ends with campaign reform. Take money influence away from big money and give everyone the right and opportunity to vote for their own self interest. Very simple, yet near impossible to do.

[Enthusiast]

70. Yup.

Do you remember the uproar over the meager limits of McCain-Feingold? I remember Limbaugh ranting on about how it limited free speech. How absurd, as if money equals free speech. Now we have the Citizens United decision.

Obviously removing corporate influence over the election process is the big answer, but, like you say, nearly impossible to achieve. If we didn't have so many traitorous Democrat legislators it would sure help.

[femrap]

152. Regarding free speech.....

off topic, however, Free Speech was used by the ACLU so strip joints could exist. I remember thinking...women don't talk with their vaginae. Alas. A great industry of pron has developed which keeps the dudes preoccupied and satisfied....and of course willfully ignorant regarding their political situation.

You can now resume normal programming. :)

[Usrename]

87. Yep, there you have it.

Anything that impairs the voice of the people from being heard is wrong.

This is the problem right now in America. The Supreme Court has decided that bribery is legal for a certain class of individuals, and the same court has also decided that fraud is legal for certain propagandists that operate as news organizations.

These rulings, among many others, represent truly un-American ideals. They do nothing but facilitate tyranny of the few over the many and they are the antithesis of the ideal that this country was founded on.

[Enthusiast]

198. Yes, the rulings are un-American!

Fuck the RW court!

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbolink]

155. .

:applause:

[historian]

124. the alternative is

better education and not merely the repetition of tired cliches, An introduction to the arts, good music - Mozart etc...) allowing parents to have decent wages so they can be home in time to raise their children, Remove the military as an object of pride and glory and spend far less than we do now on it. The average American must be made to understand that getting off his high horse and realizing there is a world out there who, in the general scheme of things are the same as us). Racism and public declarations of hatred against certain groups (some even advocating death as in homosexuals).
Oscar Wilde once said, after a visit to the USA that "America is the only country in history which has gone from a pioneering spirit and desire for a better world before slipping directly into decadence without once having tasted civilization.
It is sad indeed.

[William Z. Foster]

136. no Capitalism

What is the "alternative" to murder or rape?

[Xicano]

36. I agree.

Check out this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUUwmLWN-Ag

[jotsy]

4. I say without a deeper sense of daring, we're done for.

[glitch]

12. Agreed. nt

[William Z. Foster]

137. yes

Our opponents here have nothing but fear mongering to offer.

[bobbolink]

181. Oh, I dunno.... seems like they are offering quite a few personal attacks.

That has always worked so well in the past.

It's that "peace" thing, yanno?

[DJ13]

6. I bet we are

People have to see that the upper class isnt willing to sacrifice anything even though all the deficits are from them refusing to pay their share of taxes, and the economic crisis that has thrown millions out of work and homes are all their fault.

[annm4peace]

49. I hope they have realized they have to be active

They can't sit on the sidelines and think the problem will solve itself.

There have been many marches, rallies, and some strikes here and there. BUT it takes more people to participate.. they have the power.

There is so much corporate profit in CA to pay for all health care, education including college for all CA.

Look at all the Oil Companies, Banks, War Contractors, etc.


The people just need to shut down the streets and commerce for a couple weeks and maybe their needs will be met.

[Taverner]

5. Because our priorities are not in order

We need to fix this...without the morality and religion

We need to fix this for our own interests

[Odin2005]

7. because our politicians are owned by the Rich.

[William Z. Foster]

8. the evidence must be hidden, the witnesses must be destroyed

By their very existence, those who have been harmed represent a rebuke to the predators, invalidate the system, and must be removed from view.

By their very existence, those who are caring for others and trying to improve conditions represent a rebuke to the predators, invalidate the system, and must be destroyed - weakened, crippled, silenced.

We make a mistake when we say that the rulers are "not doing enough" to help the suffering and to support the care-givers and those with a social conscience.

To the contrary, the rulers are doing everything they can to hide the evidence - those suffering the most - and to destroy the witnesses - the care-givers and those with a social conscience.

[Ardent15]

13. Excellent point.

They are not our friends, the rulers.

[William Z. Foster]

16. I saw this in Chicago in 1968

The cops were going after journalists and paramedics ferociously, savagely beating them. I couldn't figure out why that would be. That night it dawned on me - they were attacking the evidence of and the witnesses to their own brutality. They were doing it without even thinking about it or planning it. It was if when they saw a journalist or photographer they thought "how dare you try to imply I have done something wrong?" (by documenting what I am actually doing.) But even more chilling is that when they saw wounded people on the streets and paramedics helping them they must have thought "how dare you suggest that I have hurt anyone?" (by helping those I have hurt.) The also were singling out people who were already bleeding or staggering or down for further savage beatings. as if to say "how dare you suggest I have done anything wrong?" (by being there, injured and bleeding.) They were trying to destroy the evidence of their own wrong doing - not that they were thinking that through, it was an instantaneous emotional response, and an extremely powerful response.

The thing that was most angering the cops and eliciting the most ferocious responses was the witnesses, helpers, and victims. Their very presence - caused by the brutality of the cops in the first place - was a rebuke and a reminder to the cops of their own guilt.

This is the Achilles heel of the rulers, and of their defenders here. They know on some level that they are wrong. They betray that with their responses to any and all critics, and to any and all evidence of wrong doing by the ruling class. It angers them. They strike back viciously without thinking. Not because they "disagree" with us, but because we are reminding them of things about themselves they don't want to face. They actually agree with us, but they don't like and cannot accept what that says about them.

[Kievan Rus]

23. I heard about it from people I knew in Pittsburgh last September

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I heard many reports that the riot police went after journalists in Oakland. I wasn't there so I don't know, but I heard about it a lot in the local media.

Meanwhile, pro-rich shills are free to shout threats, racial and gender slurs at members of Congress; are free to beat up other demonstrators whose worst crime is having a different opinion from them; and to willfully disrupt a democratic town hall. Meanwhile, those that demonstrate against the plutocrats peacefully, or just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, get the book thrown at them.

[Enthusiast]

71. Nice post. nt

[bvar22]

102. citizen journalists, phone cams, and YouTube.

That is why the Party Leadership is now going after "Net Neutrality".

[Usrename]

175. Can you give me an example of one of their defenders here?

I don't see anyone defending them.

[movonne]

9. and why can someone like meg whitman spend 80 million dollars

on a campaign..we are a very sick country...and I blame repugs and the media for many of our troubles...the likes of rush, beck and faux news..

[jdlh8894]

11. Did you ever wonder -

why(and/or how) politicians spend MILLIONS of dollars for a campaign to get a job that only pays a small % of what has been spent? Inquiring minds want to know!

[William Z. Foster]

17. that is what we are supposed to believe, yes

It is "rush, beck and faux news" and "the repugs and the media" and "Palin" and "tea baggers."

Sure it is.

[Birthmark]

10. You are correct of course.

But it's inherently an unstable system, a temporary condition.

If nothing else, global warming will put an end to it.

[barbtries]

105. temporary is relative

whole lifetimes will come and go within it. it's been over 200 years already.

[Birthmark]

182. That, too, is correct.

On the plus side, over a sufficient time span liberals *always* win and conservatives *always* lose. Their victories tend to be very short-lived, whereas, ours resonate through the ages and are built upon by subsequent generations.

[KT2000]

14. Something about those on welfare

that most people do not appreciate is that they are sometimes the result of cost shifting by businesses and corporations.
When a worker is permanently injured and has their workers comp claim denied by cut-throat attorneys and judges - especially for the self-insured companies, the worker is left with welfare as their only option.

When corporations contaminate communities through air and water pollution, those affected the worst may end up on welfare. Those born with birth defects as a result of toxic pollution will have to make heavy use of social programs throughout their lives.

Corporations do not accept liability and depend upon tax supported social programs to pay for their casualties - with the help of their friendly politicians.

[Initech]

15. Electing Reagan was the worst thing that ever happened in this country.

He systematically was responsible for the decline of education by cutting the budget, killed manufacturing in this country and sent it overseas, made health care so unaffordable that people cant get the proper care they need, all so his criminal scumfuck friends could make insane amounts of profit. People like Glenn Beck like to compare everything to the Nazis, I say we reverse that and start tying everything to Reagan.

[Kievan Rus]

25. I agree 110% on that

Reagan did more damage to America than King George III, Jefferson Davis, Hideki Tojo, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Osama bin Laden combined.

[laughingliberal]

46. +1000 nt

[Enthusiast]

72. I watched it happen.

I was laid off from my long term employment. Unions were under attack. There was a huge wave of mergers and acquisitions. Manufacturing was being systematically dismantled. Environmental law was weakened. The wealthy and connected made obscene amounts of money. Reagan was the start of it. It continues to this day.

[Lorien]

166. +1. nt

[Lorien]

165. Indeed. The Reaganites are responsible for the "me first, profit is our only God,

corporations can rule better than a Democratically elected government can." philosophy seen everywhere these days-including here on DU. We were on a far, far better path before his reign-even WITH the inflation!

[vi5]

19. Because we have a democartic party...

that demands compromise and sacrifice from those groups you listed, but not for it's corporate donors. The amount of elected politicians about whom this doesn't apply are so small as to be meaningless.

[WCGreen]

59. At least they ask us to sacrifice while the republicans expect it...

[Cleita]

21. Because we still run things like they did in the Middle Ages.

Our local and state governments are run like fiefdoms with the kings and nobles keeping everything and the serfs thrown to the wolves when there is famine coming.

[bobbolink]

24. Why? Because, at least in the case of poor folk, Because Others Don't Speak Out For Us.

How many "priority lists" here on DU do you see that name poor folk as important?

Can't name very many, if any, can you?

That answers your question, right there.

The next time you are thinking about what is important, take note of where poor folk are on YOUR list.

Then, help me to jog others to make us a priority, please.

[vi5]

29. I think there are plenty on DU...

..for whom the poor are a priority. In fact I would say it's a majority.

The problem is that most of those people if they are honest and true to their beliefs, speak out against or complain about the "split the difference" policies and approaches of the current White House and the democratic party leadership. Then they are shouted down by cheerleaders who tell us we should just clap louder and that we should praise the heavens for the few scraps that were given, and be thankful because the Republicans would give less.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil theory of politics doesn't just exist amongst republicans and/or tea baggers. It's alive and well here on DU and it gives a mistaken impression I think.

[bobbolink]

30. That's not reality.

Just look at the lists of "priorities" that are posted with regularity here.

Very SELDOM is poverty even listed, let alone anywhere close to the top of anybody's list.

Given that, it is no wonder that when action is called for, there is very little response.

I know "progressives" want to see themselves as caring about poverty, but when push comes to shove, it just ain't there.

[Gaedel]

62. Because......

In a socialist utopia where "the people" own and control the means of production, poverty automatically disappears. The cure for poverty is a corollary of the cures for all else that ails us.

[bobbolink]

146. While true, we can't sit and wait for Utopia... too many people are suffering and dying.

Just like the Civil Rights Movement, we must work to convert hearts.

[Usrename]

176. Sure.

The socialists care to much about the workers to be concerned with the poor. I've heard that one many times.

[demwing]

84. Care to provide any evidence? /nt

[patrice]

120. Curious here: "it just ain't there", so where is it? or where might it be?

This is not an attack.

I just want to know what you think, because your response suggests that "it" could be with the opposite of the progressives, perhaps something more conservative/exclusive in its assumptions about "us (the poor in this instance) against them (everyone else)."

I see the need for economic justice in the elderly poor every day, so I'm curious about how you think we are supposed to get there.

[bobbolink]

143. I hear you saying "this is not an attack", but I need to say that your wording is quite

confrontational.


"because your response suggests that "it" could be with the opposite of the progressives, perhaps something more conservative/exclusive in its assumptions about "us (the poor in this instance) against them (everyone else"

I suggested NOTHING of the kind... that is in YOUR mind, and I, along with all the rest of the "progressives" here, are so damned tired of that ugly and very tired meme that "so you think Palin would be so much better?"

In a nutshell, and I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, as it is obvious, "Progressives" Don't Take Poverty Seriously.

Do you want to do something about that, or don't you?

[William Z. Foster]

145. haves versus the have nots

The battle is between the haves and the have nots, and not between the tea baggers and the progressives nor the Democrats and Republicans.

DUers argue in defense of the haves much more often and much more stridently than they ever speak for the have nots. That is because DU, and the party, and all of the liberal organizations are dominated by haves. That bias permeates everything.

[bobbolink]

154. That is exactly right, and what I keep saying.

Yet, most of the "progressives" here are soooo convinced that they are on the "right side", that they refuse to listen to anything to the contrary.

Back in my dirtyhippiecommiepinkobum days, we talked a lot about being "part of the problem", and kept looking at our own assumptions and our own actions to do as much as we could to mitigate being part of the problem, and become part of the solution.

Yet, most of DU is still in the mentality that poor folk have noone to blame but themselves, and they are hell-bent on straightening us out, rather than seeing the suffering, letting their hearts be softened, and determine to find ways to change the status quo. (And by that, I don't mean using *us* as nothing more than a reason for lowering the defense budget!)

Today I received one more PM saying that the poster couldn't be bothered with poverty now, because the Gulf demanded all their attention. We will ALWAYS be in last place, and therefore nothing will change for us, unless and until we become as important as animals, and all the other issues.

It HURTS to know that we just don't rate.

[patrice]

158. Your perception of my words is also in your head. What I suggest is a very real possibility on the

internet. Our words are nothing but digits. I don't know you, nor what you do.

I risk being honest about how you could be perceived not only by me, but also by others. I really do regret that you **apparently** can't handle that.

Absolutist, and hence Exclusive, proclamations are about Power, the power to assert one's self over ALL others. Unless and until everyone becomes exactly like you/yours in every way, Others are NOT going to go away. They are not going to stop being who/what they are on your say so, no matter how right you are. What do you suggest we do with them? Shall we force them somehow? How far shall we go with that?

I asked you how we are to deal with this fact, that people aren't going to just disappear because you are "right" and they aren't, and you turned that into an attack on me because I do not conform to your idea of your own righteousness. I broke your taboo about your own rectitude. How DARE I ask!!

And you didn't answer, so it is possible that "How?" is of less importance than your status as the resident saint or whatever.

I am left to guess what the answer might be and the most likely possibility is Force. We are to FORCE them to do what some people think is "right" and I say that might work for a short while, but inevitably, the truth will assert itself and since the whole "solution" is based upon the power to force others to live by the tenets of Economic Justice, rather than upon their free choice to do so, we will find that once again we have "the 'new' boss, same as the old boss", different acoutrements and wardrobe, but the same lack of respect for humanity will result in the same losses to humanity, just for different reasons this time around.

Now go ahead and turn this reply into another attack on me and, thus, prove that I am right in what I say in this post.

Or, you could answer my question about how we are going to do this thing that NEEDS to be done and demonstrate how wrong I am: that you do not assume that the solution lies in the coercion and oppression of those with whom you disagree. Show me how I am wrong about you; I am willing to read it.

btw: I am currently earning about half of what I am told I am worth, fighting, **every** **second** of my life between the hours of 9-5, M-F (and quite a bit on a de facto basis outside of those hours), for the standards of care for the elderly and disabled poor.

P.S. Real Revolution begins with Real self criticism.

[Hydra]

48. You'd be surprised

I've taken a lot of flak here for advocating for the bottom ranks, even before this peculiar species you call the "cheerleader" appeared after Bush left.

A lot of people here just don't understand how bad it is, because it's not bad for THEM. I've noticed that when it becomes so, the blinders come off. Lots of people here who are doing well don't know just how unstable the foundation they are standing on is. It's really frightening how fast it can happen, in fact.

When people fall to where I am, I give a jaunty wave(because my anger is burned out). Usually their first comment is "I didn't know..."

I try not to be an ass about it. I used to believe the myth of America too...after all, I got spoonfed it for more than 12 years.

[unapatriciated]

80. When their shoes become tight they will speak out.

sadly it might be too late.

We are all a paycheck away from poverty. It only takes loss of a job or catastrophic illness (I experienced both in the early 90's) for poverty to become a reality to them.

Many of us have already experienced this and understand how bad it is. We need to repair our infrastructure (dismantled by the reagan years) and that includes our social programs and safety nets.

Yet they continue to fight against social programs that are needed to re-build our nation. Programs that will protect them as well.

[Scruffy1]

54. Yes, this should be the top priority

The elimination of poverty has to be job one if we want a more democratic society. Without economic freedom all the rest of the patriotic clap-trap is meaningless. The end product of our corporate fascist state has been to develop a permanent underclass which serves the needs of the ruling class by providing cheap, readily available and disposable labor. It also holds down the wages of those just above them in the social economic strata. Or to put it crudely"someone to mow the lawns and clean the bathrooms for the rich". We will always be pushing a rock uphill as long as we have a permanent underclass with virtually no safety net. Bill Heywood of the IWW found that in labor negotiations that all he had to do was get a raise for the lowest paid workers and those that made more would always get more.

[Scruffy1]

55. Yes, this should be the top priority

The elimination of poverty has to be job one if we want a more democratic society. Without economic freedom all the rest of the patriotic clap-trap is meaningless. The end product of our corporate fascist state has been to develop a permanent underclass which serves the needs of the ruling class by providing cheap, readily available and disposable labor. It also holds down the wages of those just above them in the social economic strata. Or to put it crudely"someone to mow the lawns and clean the bathrooms for the rich". We will always be pushing a rock uphill as long as we have a permanent underclass with virtually no safety net. Bill Heywood of the IWW found that in labor negotiations that all he had to do was get a raise for the lowest paid workers and those that made more would always get more.

[bvar22]

26. It is WORSE than you stated in the OP.

You said,"the corporate predators being free to exploit and destroy".

The Corporate Predators are not just "free to exploit and destroy", the apparatus in Washington, including the Democratic Party Leadership, WILL step in with taxpayer money to ensure they don't experience a day of discomfort when they lose money through wild excesses on Wall Street or elsewhere.

[Enthusiast]

73. Yes! Corporate predators

are being subsidized.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[county worker]

33. Here is a little incite.

I work for a county government in the alcohol, drug and mental health services. As you know state and local governments must have a balanced budget. Before we can spend a dollar we have to have a dollar in revenue.

Our revenue comes from Medicare, Medi-Cal (which is Medicaid past through the state government) which are federal sources. We get some Federal government grants for drug programs and homeless programs. Then we get money from sales tax and vehicle license fees. Also we get state grants which are federal block grants. To raise our revenue you would have to give us a bigger share of the federal taxes passed through the state and direct payments. Also you would need to increase spending to raise sales tax or increase the sales tax rate.

It would not be hard on mostly everyone if we took the money spent on our two wars and turned over to the states for social programs. If we raised the sales tax a percent or two we could use that.

So in my opinion the problem comes from poor priority choices.

Why aren't there thousands of people marching in the streets demanding a change in priorities? It isn't the wealthy it's us sitting here typing our complaints on a board. Who will hear us?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gblady]

90. agree......

"It would not be hard on mostly everyone if we took the money spent on our two wars and turned over to the states for social programs."

This, I believe, is the crux of the matter....
oh, how I wish we had listened to Ike when he said "beware of the MIC".

If we spent those billions upon billions of dollars wasted on war to take care of our own, we would save thousands of more lives
than could possibly be threatened by those who wish us harm. And, perhaps, if we got our noses, and weapons, out of other people's countries, their desire to harm us would be diminished.

[bobbolink]

157. "It isn't the wealthy it's us sitting here typing our complaints on a board. Who will hear us?"

Thank you, THANK YOU,

THANK YOU!

If you could just stir up DUers to get "riled up" on this, it would make a huge difference!

I have one nit....."If we raised the sales tax a percent or two we could use that."

Progressives MUST change this mindset of regressive taxes! It hurts the very ones that you are seeking to help. We MUST start demanding PROGRESSIVE TAXATION.

Again, THANK. YOU. :applause:

[MrMickeysMom]

35. That is either a rhetorical question, or it's time to view the first 20 minutes of this-

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Of course, you could read all of "People's History of the United States, 1492 to present".

All told.... no, it most certainly is not fair and just, nor right. You'd have to be entirely off the grid to escape it, it would seem.

[Shadow Creature]

39. true but

What % would you say is their "fair share"? 40%? 50%?

Anyway, there are far too few "rich" people to prop up California, you can tax them at 100% and you'd have enough for a few weeks.

How low should the top tax rates go? $52,000 a yr? The top tax rates kick in pretty low in Europe, which spreads out the burden and makes the welfare state more manageable. It is not possible to support the safety net that we want if only 50% of the population is paying income taxes.

The taxes in the state of California are high enough to force tens of thousands of employers to stop employing in the past decade.

It is because taxation is far too narrow a beam, we need more people pulling the wagon.

[Rex]

43. Something has been wrong since Repukes ripped up the US Constitution

but no one wants to believe me.

[Starry Messenger]

44. The wealthy have recruited shock troops to confuse and muddy the waters.

They always have their loyal defenders and middlemen who think that their services will be rewarded with a piece of the action. They know that they have the resources to out-wait us. They can just strong-arm us until we are too weak to fight back. We need to band together and fight back.

[maryf]

99. hear, hear...

"We need to band together and fight back."

[certainot]

45. left gives free speech free ride to corporate america on 1000 radio stations

they have the biggest soapbox in the country to launder their talking points and the left collectively ignores this problem, reacting after the coordinated uncontested repetition the right wing blowhards read every day has been effectively absorbed by the rest of the the media and politics as the new reality- once again, only because it is UNCONTESTED.

maybe it's time the left took their protests to the real power center the last 20 years (since reagan killed the fairness doctrine), to their local right wing radio stations and their local sponsors.

[Enthusiast]

74. Right on! nt

[maryf]

100. Sit ins at all the media...

Right wing, supposed "left wing" might get us all heard...???

[certainot]

187. just

the radio - where it starts

[OneBlueSky]

50. you can tell a lot about a society by looking at what it values . . .

in the good ole US of A in the year 2010, what we value is sports and entertainment -- and not much else . . . athletes and performers are the ones we compensate with millions of dollars -- teachers and social workers, not so much . . .

and, for the most part, what we value is programmed into us by the ruling corporations and their immense media machines . . . why is that? . . . could it be that they can make huge amounts of money from sports and entertainment, but not much from schools and soup kitchens? . . . could it be that by keeping us "entertained," they can continue to rob us blind while we're distracted by the latest spectacle? . . .

things that make you go "hmmmm" . . .

[Bluebear]

53. Here's an idea: time to elect classic Democrats again, instead of corporatist DLCers

Twas a time when our party actually fought for the teachers, nurses, the poor, the elderly, the young, the injured.

[patrice]

126. Oh NO!! They. Could. NOT. Possibly. Do. Anything. Right. Or. Useful!!!

:sarcasm:

[Hannah Bell]

56. +100

[WCGreen]

58. It's fairly easy...

Political people need money to run for office so they can't afford to alienate the wealthy...

The media depends on money from advertisers to pay their bills so they too cannot afford to alienate the wealthy...

As less jobs are created mainly because of the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, the middle class cannot afford to alienate the wealthy...

Since public institutions that spread information around through the arts and higher education depend on donations and financial largess from rich patrons they cannot afford to alienate the wealthy...

Because of lower taxes on the wealthy, less money is being donated to philanthropic causes. Why would anyone donate any money to charitable or civic causes if there is no financial benefit to be gleemed...

By giving the wealthy the run of the place, we face a Roman Empiresque decline. Most of the ruling elite are in it for the money or the glory that depends almost exclusively on money. And since they make their decisions based on that fact, what chance to we have to turn the ship of state around before it runs aground...

[Gaedel]

63. No financial benefit

"Because of lower taxes on the wealthy, less money is being donated to philanthropic causes. Why would anyone donate any money to charitable or civic causes if there is no financial benefit to be gleemed..."


A wealthy person who donates to an educational institution or a charity dos not receive a financial benefit. He is still giving some of his money. The tax rate determines how much the government subsidizes his gift.

If Paul Plutocrat gives ten million dollars to a university......

At a 91% tax rate, Paul gives $900,000 (from his "keeping money")and the rest of the money is given by the government.

At a 50% tax rate, Paul is giving five mill and the rest of the money is given by the government.

At a 28% tax rate, Paul is giving 7.2 mill and the rest is given by the government.

The higher the tax rate, the more the government suv=bsidizes paul's choice of charity.

At a 91% tax rate, if Paul wanted to give the ten mill to a consrevative charter school, the rest of us (collectively) would be ponying up 9.1 mill of the amount.

Law of Unintended Consequences

[Enthusiast]

64. Priorities are askew.

Someone said "Kleptocracy". I can think of no better term.

[Enthusiast]

67. You are right, but we have come to terms

with the predominant explanation for what is wrong. According to the 'other side' the side that controls the M$M, they say it is entitlements, the baby boomers that expect too much, excess regulation, big government, unions, liberals and atheists. Their explanation doesn't hold up, but our explanation is never heard.

[southernyankeebelle]

75. Because they can get away with it. The poor can't fight back.

[n2doc]

78. Because the Wealthy must be kept happy at all costs

..or they'll MOVE! Like to Texas! or Florida! Or maybe Away from the USA! :sarcasm:

At least, this is posted anytime it is suggested that California raise taxes on the rich.

Of course, no one cares if the middle class leave. Or for that matter that the rich could move and lower their taxes right now, and aren't doing so because they like living in California. Maybe, just maybe, they would like it if the situation were to improve after having their taxes raised. Not that they will admit it.

[starzdust]

79. How about democratic socialism?

I think that, with the right set of controls, a new model, which I call democratic socialism could work. In my model of democratic socialism, there is a role for a market economy and social safety nets for those who need it. Neither naked capitalism nor any of the current socialistic models work in isolation. Collectively, we all should have the opportunity to make money, but with a social consciousness. Use the federal tax code to insure that wealthy persons and corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

Here's what I find unconscionable; any pro-sports player making 40-100 million dollars a year all the while a teacher (me) has difficulty with acquiring the basics of life. Why do people place athletes on pedestal and blame teachers for all the social ills in our current society?

Just a few thoughts on the issue.

Regards,
JP

[glinda]

82. America's long time image is looking more and more like an illusion. We are a sad joke.

[SoxFan]

89. Comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted

Our city cut funding to the two local homelss shelters during the middle of the worst economic crisis in decades.

There's still plenty of money for the Welfare Commissioner-the WELFARE COMMISSIONER!-to hire retired cronies to work as security guards in his office.

[indepat]

92. It might not be fair, but it is right, a far-right ideology that is devouring our society, our

Republic, aided and abetted by all too many with a (D) by their name. :P

[caseymoz]

94. You forgot . . . their paying the cost of our military, too.

The reasons for these huge deficits we purportedly now "must" cut is the damn military budget far out of proportion to any military need, including two, useless, murderous, destructive and unwinnable wars.

[SoCalDem]

95. Why? Because

people who are not personally in charge of what they make, are ALWAYS the ones who get the axe and have to swallow the pay cuts & loss of benefits.
If you do not control your life, it means that others DO, and when THEY need to make more money or hols onto the money they have , they will always look DOWN to find a way to save a buck.

[karmkay]

97. rich sould pay their fare share

Watch it Ardent, you're beginning to sound like a commie. :-)

[barbtries]

98. unfortunately, neither is this new

i'm reading howard zinn's http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275231574&sr=8-1 a people's history of the united states. i can't count how many times i have wanted to lift quotes from those pages and share them here on DU.

the more things change the more they stay the same.

the only way i see for maintaining even a glimmer of hope is to stay engaged, involved, and active. united we stand, divided, you know.

[patrice]

101. Why? Because we have a major social system devoted to slavery: Religion.

And Religion is protected against the cost of doing their business (mutual psychological masturbation) by tax exemption. They perpetuate "I have mine, because I DESERVE mine and you do not deserve what is mine." This is a system that thinks it is a Good thing for Sean Hannity to fly around in a private Lear jet making 3 to 1 for every penny he raised for Veterans. The disadvantaged are supposed to accept their lot in life, never ask questions about Economic Justice, and actually thank god for the likes of Hannity and other professional "saints".

What we have is something that is de$$$$$$igned to make you feel okay, even ecstatic, no matter who you are or what you do you have NO responsibility to change because you're already forgiven. The suffering of others and the destruction of Earth do not matter, because "Jesus loves you" and we're all headed "to a better place" anyway.

It's pure poison.

[truedelphi]

150. Yep, I always think of religion as one of themain causes of

our economic slavery.

[patrice]

159. I constantly test that perception and continue to find it valid. It's the perfect justification for

ANYTHING.

[truedelphi]

160. It must be really nice for the "religous" among us to see everything

As one of Old Bluebeard in the Sky's tests for humanity - and to know that they will be "raptured" away once it is too bad to be still be on this planet.

And then there is the whole sanctity of life thing - a sixteen year old who has an abortion so she can go on to lead a normal, productive life is a huge Mortal Sinner, but many of the Religious Right and the Upscale Catholic crowd, they own factories where so much toxicity is in the air that women who become pregnant often lose that pregnancy before they even know they are pregnant!

But that is okay - as those "spontaneous abortions" are for the sake of mammon going into the coffers of the industrialists, and not the result of the industrialists themselves having SEX!

[The Wizard]

108. Predatory Capitalism

enabled by the best Congress money can buy and slavery is ready for a comeback.
The teabaggers want to take the country back to 1859, but have no idea that the corporate gangsters they support will put them in chains first.

[Ho Tai]

109. If they can get away with

...vilifying words like "socialism" and "empathy" (how long before "love" makes their list, too?), then I'm not sure how much hope there really is for us.

It seems that the bulk of the population is boundlessly stupid. Or boundlessly bilkable.

Or that's what they want us to think. Abandon all hope, so we can ass-rape you easier, ya peons.

[Ardent15]

127. Exactly! A phrase like "social justice" or "empathy"....

...is scoffed at and vilified by the far right. And they control the dialogue in this nation, because we allow them to.


So, eventually, on DU we'll get people saying "social justice and empathy are foolish things." Insanity.

[Corrupted Edge]

112. I know that regulation is nessasary,

But I think that the morality (religion, while it might help those already good in their heart, is not what I'm talking about) of our culture will play a bigger role in fixing a lot if not all of the corruption that corporate greed creates. We've been brought up to worship material ownership (It's a product of our culture, not our individual upbringing). A morality based in empathy would not allow the almost incomprehensible injustice done on those you've listed to continue for long... Sadly, that is a dream a long way off... Without ending pessimistically, it's worth noting it is not impossible, and not out of our grasp. :patriot:

[patrice]

113. Why? #2 It is possible that because an issue, poverty in this case, is not addressed in the specific

manner that a person(s) has(have) defined as "what needs to be done", we turn on "the doers" and destroy them BEFORE a potentially valid solution develops. Rinse and repeat results in such chaos that the probability of actually being able to approach a real solution (one that may or may not be what you think it should be, but which SOLVES anyway), that probability is reduced and reduced.

This "Why" has to do with the arrogance of zero sum thinking and false dichotomies "If it isn't this _______________, then it isn't anything!", when, in fact, depending upon what it is, it might or could be something useful, but too many of us (I think in the name of the buzz that one gets from such power) are willing to "throw the baby out with the bath water" before we even know that we are "pregnant" with something that COULD be useful, all in the name of hubris and power that we call "what is right."

An example of this would be Privatization of Social Security. It is heresy to even think it and yet everyone assumes that there is one and only one definition of Privatization and that definition is absolutely un-acceptable, when we haven't even talked about what that might be. Creative thinking on this issue is NOT allowed.

Yes, we do need to draw some lines when it comes to creative thinking. We need to establish what the essential characteristics of an outcome would be and I think most of us here at DU, including me, agree that, for example, Social Security should be an absolutely universal safety net; it, therefore, cannot be at risk amongst the private investors and crooks in our banks and on Wall Street.

I am wondering, though, if, similar to our axiom that private health insurance NEEDS a public option, isn't it possible that public pensions/Soc Sec NEEDS some kind of private option in order for Social Security itself to be more successful? Am I allowed to think this thought? Is this not even remotely possible? $1500. @ month isn't going to buy you Shit when you are at your most vulnerable.

Given the appropriate kinds of reform in Health Care and Medicare, I am particularly interested in the chance that I could take all or some part of my Social Security (at a certain point in the lifespan of those Social Security dollars) and invest it privately in various kinds of cooperative partnerships between public and private money that maximize the effect of my dollars AND maximizes the effect of public dollars, within the constraints of certain kinds of stakeholder agreements, while protecting **MY** private equity and delivering the kinds of goods and services (a WIDE variety of them) that our public dollars (taxes) are SUPPOSED to deliver.

I know the criticisms of such thoughts: a private option will kill Social Security, because everyone will move in that direction and there will be no more money put into Social Security. But, I believe there are things that COULD be done about that problem.

I fear that we will NEVER ever get to consider such possibilities, because everyone assumes that they know precisely and exactly and in all dettail what "Privatization" is and that ***THEIR*** understanding of that justifys any and all destruction of anything that does not "fit" what they think should happen. The problem with this is that Reality rolls on anyway and NEED will drive change and, because of arrogance and zero sum thinking many of us will never EVER be a part of that process, so stuff will continue to go down in private, in back rooms behind back rooms, while the REAL stakeholders beat their heads bloody against outside walls and get such a real good buzz on for being "right".

Yeah, I don't like the Obama fluffers around here either, but I also have very REAL problems with people who "cut their own noses off to spite your face".

:rant:

[SILVER__FOX52]

119. We poor are in a class warfare.....

not of our making. Can anyone really argue that our democracy is not, dysfunctional. That it is ridden with Corporate corruption. Until this issue is addressed nothing will really change. What is our options: cynical, neo-fascist Republican corporate shills or Democratic cowards and pretend Democrats. Obama has no intent to lead a populist revolt or reformation or we would already feel that. We are in deep shit my friends and nobody addresses it in this manor.

[bobbolink]

183. Welcome to DU, SILVER__FOX52!

:toast: :bounce: :toast:

Welcome to DU's version of the class war... it is here in full force, and I welcome you to speak up for those of us who are on the losing side.

:hi: :yourock: :hi:

[SILVER__FOX52]

208. Back at ya.

At least we are on the right side. ( or should I say left )?

[patrice]

202. Yes. And there are warriors and then there are warriors and I think it is possible to be an

effective warrior while being in the system but not of it (kind of like a virus) - with or without Obama.

I have empirical reasons for believing this is possible, but I don't kid myself about things like how quickly I could lose my job for purely political reasons.

[Laelth]

122. Unjust. Agreed.

As Warren Buffet said, (paraphrasing) "Yes, there's a class war, and my class is winning."

It seems their victory is nearly complete.

:dem:

-Laelth

[jmondine]

129. Because taking care of the poor and needy is considered "feminine"

Our society suffers from rampant femiphobia, which manifests itself in obnoxious machismo.
We need to embrace true masculinity at a core level: Integrity, bravery, discipline, sacrifice, and most importantly, providing for and protecting "our own".
The larger a group of "our own" we're willing to embrace, the more masculine we are.

[Ardent15]

131. Yep. Masculinity does NOT equal selfishness, ruthlessness, and greediness

Excellent post.

[patrice]

133. Excellent! Excellent! point. and perhaps one of the reasons men need "enhancement" so badly

in our dog-eat-dog culture, their masculinity impulses are being frustrated by kill-or-be-killed Capitalism.

[Lorien]

172. Unfortunately the part of that that most latch on to is "protecting our own"

which means to them bombing the crap out of everyone else, stealing from the working classes and plundering the environment to "provide and protect our own." We need to see ourselves as humans, not as "Americans first", and as humans who are dependent upon and interconnected with the natural world. We can no longer plunder and destroy to "provide for."Being "more masculine" shouldn't be our ideal, being more human-and humane- should.

[jmondine]

204. I believe that to the macho mindset, "protecting our own" is just an excuse.

Bombing other nations, picking on working class Americans and destroying natural resources are ways to prove to others and themselves how "tough" they are. It has nothing to do with actually protecting their communities, families, or even themselves. When I say that masculinity is about "protecting our own", I'm talking about keeping the other members of our tribe truly safe... or safer, at least. After all, life is messy and risky. It's also why I mentioned that the larger our "tribe" is, the more masculine we are. The ultimate expression of true masculinity would be to embrace the entire human race as our tribe, and commit ourselves to protecting it for generations to come.

[historian]

211. dont forget viagra!!

For a supposedly macho and virile male population we certainly consume our fair share of the stuff. Hmmmmm am i missing something here?

[Vinca]

132. The fact is, many of the wealthy - not all, of course - only got that way

by exploiting average people. I don't begrudge anyone their fortune, but if they acquired it because of exploitation they need to pay and if they came upon it in a more morally honest way they ought to pay for the good of the country. Money and what people do with it drives me nuts. While in line at the grocery store I read a headline on the National Enquirer about Price William and his fiancee spending $40 million on their wedding. I'm sorry, but $40,000,000 would feed a whole lot of hungry people. Guess if I suddenly came into money I wouldn't be rich for long because I'd be giving it all away.

[William Z. Foster]

151. the system demands it

The economy is not based on fair exchange. There is no way to get rich without exploiting others. It is the way the game is played. We all "know" this - we operate our lives as though this were true, it permeates all of our social relationships and arrangements. But when we are talking politics, we are trained to pretend we do not know this, and to deny it.

[Fire1]

161. I'm sure there are no statistics on this but I'd be willing to

wager that MOST of them did in one form or another. Capitalism (in the U.S.) is a well planned RACKET!!

[Imajika]

135. The people you listed are being paid by the public...

...so when the public has less money, they get less money. When times are tight people often cut back on charitable giving too. If you lose your job, do you keep right on giving in the same amounts to the causes you care about? I doubt it. Even if you tithe, if you suddenly have no income you will not be giving anything.

We as a society agree to pool a certain amount of our resources and effectively trade them to some for services, and others as a safety net.

The answer to your question is kind of obvious, and it is disturbing how many people think the government possesses a magic pot of money that can just keep distributing salary, benefits, etc at the same rate no matter what happens to those that contribute to it.

Example. The economy tanks, private sector workers (the vast majority) are losing their jobs, taking pay and benefit cuts, etc. The private sector no longer has a much to give. This means the budget allowed for services goes down, therefore people like teachers and nurses get pay cuts or laid off (just like the private sector), and people getting resources from safety net services have their allowances reduced.

So to sum it up, the level of benefits that public sector workers and safety net recipients receive is directly tied to how the private sector (the vast majority of the economy) is doing.

Your option here is to collectively ask that those that still have jobs pay more. If the people approve of this, then you can cut less or maintain current benefit levels. The question is, have Americans decided that there is no reason why public sector workers (and safety net recipients) shouldn't suffer with the same cuts that the private sector is dealing with.

BTW, every country deals with the same thing - go ask the Europeans who are seeing massive cuts in the form of "austerity". The protests have not done a thing to stop European nations from starting the process of getting their budget deficits down to a reasonable level.

[William Z. Foster]

144. this I cannot understand

Why are you promoting the agenda of the wealthy few?

The public is as productive as ever - more so, in the case of the Greek workers. All but the extreme right wing ideologues know that it is labor that is the source of wealth. So where is that wealth disappearing to that we need "austerity measures?"

The government does in effect "possess a magic pot of money that can just keep distributing salary, benefits, etc at the same rate." The question is are they handing it out to the wealthy few, or to the people who produced that wealth - the other 90%?

I offer these ideas in opposition to yours:

A Rendevous with Destiny
excerpt

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention
President Roosevelt
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
June 27, 1936
http://www.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his2341/fdr36acceptancespeech.htm

"But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them."

[Usrename]

177. There is a huge problem with your analysis. An error.

The economy is growing, not shrinking.

This is a fact.

"Example. The economy tanks, private sector workers (the vast majority) are losing their jobs, taking pay and benefit cuts, etc. The private sector no longer has a much to give. This means the budget allowed for services goes down, therefore people like teachers and nurses get pay cuts or laid off (just like the private sector), and people getting resources from safety net services have their allowances reduced."

You might want to try and rethink how this happens in an expanding economy.





(clue: The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.)

[Imajika]

189. That growth has not reached the majority of Americans yet..

After a severe retraction, the average person will not feel the "growth" for quite some time. We still have a 10% unemployment rate and that will take quite a long time to subside - which means government at all levels will collect less revenue and those tax payers that can afford to be will be reluctant to cough up more.

We will need a sustained recovery to get back to the point where Americans are willing to pay for services at even the same level as a couple years ago.

[William Z. Foster]

193. who is "we?"

You are speaking from the perspective of the wealthy few. That isn't "we."

Did you read what FDR has to say about this? He was diametrically opposed to what you are promoting here.

You say that government must cut back relief to those suffering at the hands of Wall Street's wrecking of the economy, and we must wait until corporations get their act back together and then they will throw us a few crumbs.

You are describing trickle-down Reaganomics. That is what caused the problem. Trying to use more Reaganomics - and austerity programs are Reaganomics with a vengeance - as a solution to the problem is like throwing gasoline on a raging fire hoping to put it out.

[Usrename]

194. Wrong, Completely wrong.

At the current rate of economic expansion the average American will never see any of the "trickle down" because "trickle down" is myth like unicorns and stuff.

If we continue on the path we are on the average person's income will remain flat while inflation gobbles up more and more of their earnings while the upper incomes will continue to rise at an exponential rate.

I don't think you see the real picture.

[Bryn]

138. Toon here as an example of what's wrong with USA

[Rosa Luxemburg]

153. good one!

[kestrel91316]

142. Because our elected representatives, for the most part, have decided to

represent corporate "persons" instead of human persons.

It's really that simple.

[femrap]

148. I so agree with you...

Here's a bumper sticker for you: End the deficits. Tax the Elite.

Hey rich folks...pay now with $ or later with blood. Many of the wealthy know they are making a killing by not having to pay their fair share of taxes and they know this can turn very ugly.

People who are making say over $60,000/year think they're rich and don't want their taxes to increase. Plus the Repugnant Party for so many years...hell, decades have said over and over 'No more taxes' that people believe it.

If people aren't greedy, they're f*cking selfish.

I got into an argument with a man at a state park. He said he was simply going to take care of his family and that he was sick of having to help others. I lit into him and his Christian hypocrisy. In fact I made a scene in the parking lot.

I told him that someday he might need some help...and if he were on fire, don't count on me to spit on him. His wife was scared of me and kept pulling him away and I kept after him. Something in me just snapped.

If he had any brains, he would realize that Corporate Welfare is costing us billions. :mad: :nuke: :grr:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

156. the revolutions of previous centuries have mostly led to more capitalism?

the world is run by corporations. A little revolution here and there is just a hiccup for them.

They they can't have it they steal it.

[DesertFlower]

163. if you want to see how much disparity there is

between the rich and poor, turn on HGTV on thursday nights. they have a show called "selling new york". people are buying apartments as high as 25 million. some are renting for $25,000 a month.

[Lorien]

167. Here, have a million dollar ice cream cone:

[patrice]

203. Hell, just turn on QVC and watch the $500. bracelets fly day after day after day . . .

[colsohlibgal]

164. Agreed

The corporately controlled media shares a lot of the blame but too many citizens being disengaged and/or brain dead are about equally responsible.

Yep, if there's a budget shortfall look out if you're blind or in a wheelchair, breathe easier if you're a fat cat or a member of the defense establishment. It's sick and twisted and it's the USA in the 21st century.

[defendandprotect]

168. How often do Dems even mention the homeless and unemployed any more -- ????

[Lorien]

169. Never. To them they don't exist. The "Middle class" is the new "poor"

on Capital Hill...and even they don't get as much lip service as the "small business owner" (anyone with fewer than 500 employees).

[Duchess]

170. Corporate Predators are POS

but I can see why teachers/education see a lot of cuts. Usually, education is the single largest expenditure in the state budget. Even if the state make proportional cuts across the board it is going to look bad for education because they will see the largest portion of the cut. You can't cut a state budget and not hit education. It's 35% of the budget in my state. The next largest item is health care. Do you want the money to come from that part of the budget? The next largest is Fire/Police, then Highways, then a bunch of programs that cost less than 1% of the budget.

A Fair Tax System would help fix this and generate more revenue from the wealthy.

[Ardent15]

171. The deficit shouldn't exist in the first place

Why does this deficit exist, which inevitably leads to cutting of social services, every time?

Why do we reward the wealthy and corporate as "creating jobs" but punish the poor and middle class?

[Duchess]

173. Because

Corporations and the wealthy (AKA - Elected Representatives) have engineered the system to minimize their own risk. They consolidate the power then run the system. It will be like this until or representative aren't privileged class lawyers that set up the system for their buddies.

So, I agree with you that the deficit should never be there to begin with. The really rich don't pay near their fair share of taxes because they worked out deals and loop holes so that they don't have to. It will be that way until we go to a tax based on consumption like the Fair Tax system.

Since the deficit is there the largest portion of the pie (education) is going to get the biggest cut. The poor and middle class will also get the shaft because they don't have the power.

[Usrename]

178. What if we were to tax wealth instead of income?

You mentioned a fair tax. I wonder what you think is fair. I think workers shouldn't be the ones to bear the cost of government, the wealthy should, since their wealth is ensured by the full faith and credit of governments.

What's wrong with that concept?

[Duchess]

205. What I mean by Fair Tax

Is a tax on consumption. The current income tax allows the wealthy to hide wealth without paying their fair share. It doesn't matter if you tax the top 1% at 90% they will find/build loopholes into the law in order to get around it. That is what is wrong with your concept...they will find a way around paying the taxes.

There are all sorts of wealthy people out there that hide a large portion of their income...but they still buy shit. So, tax them when they spend. This would be a progressive tax system since the wealthy typically spend a hell of a lot more than a poor person does.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

[William Z. Foster]

207. not true

Your "fair tax" is actually a flat tax. It is regressive and will disproportionately impact all of us. The wealthy buy far, far less stuff as a percentage of their wealth and income than the rest of us do.

[Usrename]

212. Mathematically that is a regressive system.

Someone making millions spends a whole lot less, a much much smaller percentage of their income, than the average person who is living hand to mouth. I would guess that most people spend every penny of their income.

What you are calling a fair tax is one of the most regressive proposals out there.

Why not just tax everyone one percent of their wealth. That would certainly raise a lot more revenue than what you are proposing. And if folks want to hide their wealth from the tax collector, fine, I don't have any problem with that at all. Only they would face a huge fine if they ever try to sell any of it.

[mynameiswhat]

188. because the gov officials and employees don't want to take a pay cut.

its easier to cut someone else's pay.

[TheKentuckian]

190. I think much of it is because the US citizens are self absorbed, disinterested, hateful, stupid,and

a bunch of chumps taken as a whole. It makes it too easy for predators to run amok with no one caring or paying attention and everyone distracted with each other rather than on the wolves among us.

[opihimoimoi]

195. IMHO The Root Cause is the GOP ....Their GREED and GUTTONY

Traits ...among others,....reveal selfishness and a lack of empathy...

The GOP masters are exploitive and unfair....their list of heros indicate ignorance on how to pickum...mostly inadequate due to low LORs

[raccoon]

199. Great post--I wish I could rec this. nt