The Unnanounced Class War

[Guest Derek L]

Or maybe what both camps "want" has been distorted by the cartoon-job that both sides have done on each other, to the point that neither side actually understands the others' position at all.

-k

Maybe…….But if one goes back and looks at political campaigns from decades past, both camps have always been lined with bozos and did their best to demonize the other.

[BubberMiley]

Who’s to say.

Not you. And Churchill never said the quote you cited.

[Guest Derek L]

Not you. And Churchill never said the quote you cited.

Maybe you should try reading some of his books instead of interneting……….try Liberalism and the Social Problem and the People’s Rights………The quote has been jumbled over the past 100 years, but it’s the crux of his point & policy as Parliamentarian for over half a century…….Then define what Liberal and Conservative meant over 100 years ago………

Then get back to me.

[WIP]

The irony is that for the last two years, at least by income, I'm part of the "1%".

But there's a big difference between the 1% and the top earners.

As the PBS show points out, about 400 people are the ones really benefiting from the new tax laws and regulations.

The PBS may have pointed out that little factoid about the top 400 owning equal wealth to the bottom half of the entire population of the U.S.. And the richest 400 do nothing to contribute to society! They don't make anything! If there are dot.com billionaires rising to the top, the megacorps will either buy them out or create nearly identical products or services to marginalize their business. All they do is use their accumulated wealth (which most of them began through large inheritances) to leverage even larger amounts of wealth, through manipulating tax law and regulations, to increase their wealth even further.

And, this is what makes this right/left, conservative or liberal debate mostly irrelevant anyway! The modern political reality is a small wealthy power elite who have slavish devotees who tell them that their great wealth and possessions are a sign that they are simply superior to most, while the liberal alternative is the plan B they go to when their few close advisers tell them that they may have gone a little to far and need to throw a few bones to the great unwashed masses to keep them happy for awhile. The rest of the political debate is pageantry!

Edited December 30, 2012 by WIP

[Guest American Woman]

And the richest 400 do nothing to contribute to society!

Wow. Just wow.

http://navfund.com/blog/the-hidden-truth-about-the-rich

• Almost half (47%) of the rich [in the world] are entrepreneurs: they became rich by creating a business and jobs for others. 23% became rich through highly paid work. [...] Only 16% inherited their wealth.
  
• 41% of the rich live in the U.S. “A typical American millionaire is surprisingly ordinary. He has spent his life patiently saving and plowing his money into a business he founded. He does not live in the fanciest part of town – why waste money you can invest?”
  

Edited December 30, 2012 by American Woman

[Argus]

I think the mess is because of bad government, and you think it' s the result of bad businessmen.

The corporate world drives government into policies which it believes are good for them individually. These policies turn out not to be good for America, so you can blame the government for that, or you can blame their paymasters. But ultimately, the system being what it is, you're not going to get different government until you take the money out of the equation.

[Argus]

Huh? The right wing is not more extremist than it was. We are talking about people that wanted Sunday as a day of rest, thought women shouldn't be working and rock 'n roll was sin(how things have changed).

This is not a left-right thing. It's not conservatives that are more conservative, it's corporatists who are designing fiscal policy for short-term selfish profits and to hell with what that does to anyone else. The corporatists have found more of a home in the Republican party, clearly, and a number of those idiot "tea Party" types have infused the Republicans with a degree of economic and fiscal ignorance the likes of which you'll rarely find in a modern, industrialized country. But really, it's not about liberal and conservative. It's about money.

[Argus]

Wow. Just wow.

http://navfund.com/b...-about-the-rich

• Almost half (47%) of the rich [in the world] are entrepreneurs: they became rich by creating a business and jobs for others. 23% became rich through highly paid work. [...] Only 16% inherited their wealth.
  
• 41% of the rich live in the U.S. “A typical American millionaire is surprisingly ordinary. He has spent his life patiently saving and plowing his money into a business he founded. He does not live in the fanciest part of town – why waste money you can invest?”
  

To be fair, he wasn't talking about the rich. He was talking about the wealthy. And while I don't entirely agree with him there is some truth in his words.

[Argus]

As an aside, FOX news (created by billionaire Rupert Murdoch as a propaganda organ for the rich) is trying to coin a new phrase for Republicans who agree to tax hikes of any kind. Twice now I've seen the disagreement in the RP stated as being between "Conservative Republicans" and "Capitulationist Republicans".

I doubt it's going to catch on, though. Words with that many syllables are too difficult for most FOX viewers to pronounce, much less understand.

[sharkman]

Fox News is certainly no propaganda organ for the rich. It is pro-faith which in and of itself is against the accumulation of wealth. They are a counterbalance to the left wing slant in parts of the media which is why they are successful. A network that doesn't say the same thing that all of the others say. But the media in general is too strident these days. The left doesn't even try to hide it anymore.

You said in another thread that you haven't changed your views or core beliefs that much. You certainly have. It's time to be real about what you used to believe and what you believe now. Not that there's anything wrong with changing your mind, but knowing thyself is a good thing.

Edited December 30, 2012 by sharkman

[Guest American Woman]

To be fair, he wasn't talking about the rich. He was talking about the wealthy.

What I was responding to, emphasis mine: "And the richest 400..."

And while I don't entirely agree with him there is some truth in his words.

Not really.

[sharkman]

The corporate world drives government into policies which it believes are good for them individually. These policies turn out not to be good for America, so you can blame the government for that, or you can blame their paymasters. But ultimately, the system being what it is, you're not going to get different government until you take the money out of the equation.

Yes, the corporate world can influence government, but to ignore crooked politicians and those with hidden agendas has one missing part of the picture. If corporate America could drive policy, then there would have been no 4 year recession, plain and simple. How many corporations have gone bankrupt in that time? How many billions lost?

Then there are the policies that actively hurt corporate America. The red tape, the triple regulations, the environmental protection that costs corporations so much. That doesn't mesh with your theory too well. If corporations could influence policy as you say, then the keystone pipeline, a no-brainer for the oil industry, would have been built by now. Oil would have drilling in Alaska, and far more everywhere else. They've got the deepest pockets, have they not?

I realize that I won't convince you of anything, and that is fine, you will believe what PBS is saying these days, but I also will remain skeptical. But I again ask you, what is your solution? You mentioned social democratic governments as a shining example. Do you think that is the solution to the problem as you see it? How do you take money out of the equation? The only way I can think of is communism.

Edited December 30, 2012 by sharkman

[Michael Hardner]

If corporate America could drive policy, then there would have been no 4 year recession, plain and simple. How many corporations have gone bankrupt in that time? How many billions lost?

That's an incredible claim. You're saying that if corporations drove policies, recessions wouldn't exist ?

Then there are the policies that actively hurt corporate America. The red tape, the triple regulations, the environmental protection that costs corporations so much. That doesn't mesh with your theory too well.

By this logic - anything that makes demands on corporate America "hurts" them, regardless of the general state of corporate America, i.e. short- and long-term profits.

I realize that I won't convince you of anything, and that is fine, you will believe what PBS is saying these days, but I also will remain skeptical. But I again ask you, what is your solution? You mentioned social democratic governments as a shining example. Do you think that is the solution to the problem as you see it? How do you take money out of the equation? The only way I can think of is communism.

You seem to be advocating for complete corporate control of the economy, which is the type of central economic planning that the Soviets tried to achieve but failed. There are many flavours of political economy - and we're historically giving more control to the wealthy than we have over the past 70 or 80 years. Simply stopping that momentum is called 'socialism' by some.

[BubberMiley]

Maybe you should try reading some of his books instead of interneting……….try Liberalism and the Social Problem and the People’s Rights………The quote has been jumbled over the past 100 years, but it’s the crux of his point & policy as Parliamentarian for over half a century…….Then define what Liberal and Conservative meant over 100 years ago………

Then get back to me.

Maybe you should learn how quotation marks work before you use them. Perhaps if you had more respect for the internet, you wouldn't put bogus crap on it.

Again, he never said what you claim he said.

Edited December 30, 2012 by BubberMiley

[Guest Derek L]

Maybe you should learn how quotation marks work before you use them.

Again, he never said what you claim he said.

Prove it.

[Michael Hardner]

Prove it.

You are the positive claimant here. Not knowing what the issue is, it seems to me you have attributed a quote to someone so shouldn't you provide a source ?

[sharkman]

That's an incredible claim. You're saying that if corporations drove policies, recessions wouldn't exist ?

By this logic - anything that makes demands on corporate America "hurts" them, regardless of the general state of corporate America, i.e. short- and long-term profits.

You seem to be advocating for complete corporate control of the economy, which is the type of central economic planning that the Soviets tried to achieve but failed. There are many flavours of political economy - and we're historically giving more control to the wealthy than we have over the past 70 or 80 years. Simply stopping that momentum is called 'socialism' by some.

I think you must have read through my post too fast, because you misrepresented almost everything I said and then disagreed with the misrepresentation that you constructed, or are you simply bored and looking for a reaction? I'll correct the first point but not bother with the rest. No I did not say that there would be no recessions with corporate America in control. I stated that a four year recession would not have happened. That means that I feel that the recession would have been shorter than 4 years. As for the rest, you are on your own. Try to read a little more carefully though.

Edited December 30, 2012 by sharkman

[sharkman]

Prove it.

I wouldn't hold my breath, Bubber prefers to troll then move on.

[Michael Hardner]

I stated that a four year recession would not have happened. That means that I feel that the recession would have been shorter than 4 years. As for the rest, you are on your own. Try to read a little more carefully though.

Ok - I stand corrected. What do you conjecture would have happened with corporate America in control then ?

[BubberMiley]

Prove it.

I'll give you a clue. The phrase you clumsily must have wrote yourself is based on a quotation from Francois Guizot. Look it up. Read. Learn. And feel like an idiot yourself.

[BubberMiley]

I wouldn't hold my breath, Bubber prefers to troll then move on.

No. I show you up, then move on.

[Guest Derek L]

You are the positive claimant here. Not knowing what the issue is, it seems to me you have attributed a quote to someone so shouldn't you provide a source ?

No, I don’t feel I should for namely two reasons………First millions upon millions of people attribute the quote to him…….Second, the maxim of the quote was played out by his political career……….Namely his part in the initial creation of the Welfare State with his role in the “People’s Budget” of 1910, then contrasting his record in the later 40s, a stance that lost him his job in ’45, when he opposed drastic increases in said Welfare State post-war.

[Guest American Woman]

You are the positive claimant here. Not knowing what the issue is, it seems to me you have attributed a quote to someone so shouldn't you provide a source ?

He did provide a source - he referenced a book; and BubberMiley could have just as easily provided one backing up his claim:

According to this site, the quote is quite often mistakenly attributed to Churchill.

Charles Krauthammer [op-ed, May 25] quotes Winston Churchill as saying, "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head."

This quotation is frequently but mistakenly attributed to Churchill. It is anyway unlikely that Churchill would subscribe to this philosophy: He was a swashbuckling soldier at 20, and a Conservative member of Parliament at 25. A couple of years later he switched to the Liberal Party (which was not liberal in the modern sense), and later went back to the Conservatives.

The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

http://www.washingto...8&notFound=true

Edited December 30, 2012 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

No, I don’t feel I should for namely two reasons………First millions upon millions of people attribute the quote to him…….

It's a common courtesy to provide a source even when challenged on the basics, though. It should be easy if this is the case as you stated.

[Michael Hardner]

According to this site, the quote is quite often mistakenly attributed to Churchill.

I (and presumably Derek) thank you.