In early February, President Bush told a group of Wall Street executives that “income inequality is real; it’s been rising for more than 25 years. … And the question is whether we respond to the income inequality we see with policies that help lift people up, or tear others down.” It’s ironic that this president raised the issue of income… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (56)Page 1 of 1 pages“every American, regardless of income, can receive a college education.”
While one might hope that every *qualified* applicant to a college would be able to afford it, it is foolish to believe that every student leaving high school *should* go to college. The bottom half academically are mostly unsuitable for college and should pursue job training opportunities that they are better suited for. This is not a bad thing - plumbers, carpenters, etc are all good honorable professions and can pay quite well.
Other than that nitpick, i am all for raising taxes for the extremely wealthy. But i doubt that the problems of the poor can be solved by government assistance. Far too often their problems lie in bad choices they make, such as too early childbearing, too early marriage (and/or single mother households) and dropping out of school.
Posted by wolf on Mar 8, 2007 at 9:19 AM Why raise their taxes ? Bitch egalitarianism ? We need to get the government out of education en toto. Not everyone should go to high
school, much less college. 90% or more of all jobs are learned on the job. Plumbers are one of the better paid criminal groups in society. All
the left stands for is more taxes, more controls and more government.
Socialism has failed every place on the globe and yet is promoted by
mongoloids here. Unbelievable.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 8, 2007 at 11:11 AM Not more taxes, but fairer taxes. Trickle down economics didn’t work under Reagan and doesn’t work now. Removing the significant additional tax breaks the wealthy have enjoyed since 2002 and then lowering taxes for the middle class will be a good start.
Posted by tomkins on Mar 8, 2007 at 3:52 PM Removing the tax breaks for the rich would kill the boom and finish off the economy. Fair taxes are an oxymoron. Taxation is theft at the point of a gun. The economy did boom after Reagan’s cuts took effect, they were
in a three year stage. In fact in life most things trickle down, they don’t happen all at once. The progressives will NEVER lower taxes for the middle class, that is boob bait, they want an expanding lower class to
keep them in power forever.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 8, 2007 at 6:51 PM Hi blondemike,
Um, who has looked for more control, more government than the current administration?I’m confused; you’re against formal education (the U.S. school system historically, the best through government intervention) and trades for thou’s inclined otherwise ; such as plumbers, electricians, etc.
As a carpenter; I stand with them, as a student I stand with them
After 35 yrs, mostly in construction, but a few in academia, management(ugh!), retail, etc.; I appreciate the years necessary.
Posted by homohabilis on Mar 8, 2007 at 7:57 PM which is worse?
Democrat
TAX & SPEND!
Spend more to build up the country,
tax more now = pay nowor
Republican
BORROW & SPEND
to get rich and f*** the rest
Spend more, tax less now (let local taxes/children pick it up)* =pay more later + %
*Oh, now there’s a Christian Ideal; we got ours - let them get theirs.”
eye of the needle ... ...
give to the poor ...
give up all you own and follow me....
Oh poor blondemike - such an atheist
Posted by homohabilis on Mar 8, 2007 at 8:41 PM Dear Congressman Sanders:
I am addressing you through this website because I have a better chance of you actually seeing it here than by any other avenue. As your website states: “...Vermonters receive highest priority. If you are not from Vermont, the sheer volume of email we receive means you might not get a personal response, but we do review each email.”
While this is understandable and you do have a phone number listed, it is nearly impossible for any ordinary citizen to communicate with his own or any elected representative.
Your stated ideas of increased assistance to low and middle class families are, though well meaning, short term emergency measures. What the country as a whole needs is a complete reversal of economic policies. We need to abolish professional lobbyists. We need a “business plan” which works for OUR people — ALL of our people.
You are absolutely correct in your view on the tax breaks, the outrageous pay packages and other aid to the wealthiest. The 2004 American Jobs Creation Act is a prime example of “kabuki” legislation. However, this is only one aspect of the problem.
Our rush into globalization through NAFTA, WTO, etc. under the slogans of “Cheaper Consumer Goods”, “Free Trade” have diminished our manufacturing capabilities to where we cannot equip and supply a minor military force. For WW2 we built thousands of planes, tanks and supplied millions of our troops and all of our allies as well, in a two-ocean war. Now we can’t provide body armor for 130,000.
Our replacement jobs pay less, are minus benefits and have no future for advancement. At the same time health costs are soaring and millions have no ability to afford insurance. College graduates emerge to find jobs taken by foreigners on visas willing to work for less money than will allow the grad to pay off his student loans. All of which are making the few disgustingly wealthy at the expense of our nation’s future.
We don’t need charity — we need real representation!
Thank you for your efforts.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 9, 2007 at 8:19 AM HH, I agree with you about Bush & Co. You’ll never see me defending that crew. I never came out against formal education, I just wrote that it’s not for everyone. Some people are trainable (95%) and some are educable (5%). The US educational system was NEVER the best, it has long been one of the worst. The last decent President we had was Jefferson. Only morons would have elected the ones since then.
WTH, I never thought that NAFTA et al did any good till I read your letter above as to how it has weakened our military. Thank god though I’m an atheist. And there’s nothing with the tax cuts, the rich pay much more so naturally they get more back. Basic economics. I’m tired of little guys like you whining about a fair shake. What’s fair ? Certainly not life as the high brow lowlife JFK once noted. The executive pay packages are outrageous, we agree on this, but not an issue for the government but only the shareholders. Lobbying is a free speech issue and is in the Constitution. Leftists like you are always howling about lobbyists but the lobbyists don’t force anyone to do anything. They use legitimate methods like persuasion, withholding or granting cash and blackmail,which should be legal, it is the threat to reveal information unless you come across. That is a private matter between adults, none of the state’s business. Old libs like you yearn for the WW2 glory days, well they ain’t coming back. Read Chalmers Johnson “Nemesis” about the last days of the US Empire. We will survive as a country but with total military collapse and belt tightening for most. The chickens have come home to roost and American exceptionalism is at an end. The life of the masses has been difficult in most times and places, the New Deal tried to hold off the laws of objective reality but as Bill BJ Clinton reminded us, the era of big government has come to an end. Terms like public welfare, national security, national defense, public good, collective security are to be verboten in the new global order and for good reason. Bush is right in one respect, Al Queda will be following him and Cheney but I personally am staying the hell of their way. Suggest the rest of you do the same.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 9, 2007 at 11:24 AM BM,
“...there’s nothing with the tax cuts, the rich pay much more so naturally they get more back. Basic economics. I’m tired of little guys like you whining about a fair shake.”
By God, Mike, (though I’m agnostic) are you naive on the big boys and taxes. When the Kennedys sold the Merchandise Mart in Chicago back somewhere in the 1970s(?) — I learned I (“a little guy”) was paying more income tax than Teddy was.
CEO pay already IS an issue with government, whether you think it should be or not. Who do you think sets the big boys up with the tax dodges? Corporations have gotten away for years without expensing stock options for execs (which are actually stockholder dollars).
“Leftists like you are always howling about lobbyists but the lobbyists don’t force anyone to do anything. They use legitimate methods like persuasion, withholding or granting cash and blackmail,which should be legal, it is the threat to reveal information unless you come across. That is a private matter between adults, none of the state’s business.”
Lobbying is legalized bribery (so you can be happy about that, I guess) and we pay for it. First of all many of the lobbyists got their “D.C. education” as elected officials — who to see,what committees, what chairmen, etc. All of it on our money, which makes it our business.
Hey, what’s with the “lib” and “leftist” labels — not long ago you had me down as a Nazi. You are one very confused little boy, Mikey.
--------------------------------------
Unfortunately, you are wrong here again… big time!“...as Bill BJ Clinton reminded us, the era of big government has come to an end. Terms like public welfare, national security, national defense, public good, collective security are to be verboten in the new global order and for good reason.”
We are about to see a resurgence of welfare and increasingly bigger government—and you’ll have to deal with it longer than I. Just wait and see :-)
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 9, 2007 at 1:19 PM WTH, actually national socialism ("nazism") is as much a left as a right doctrine. The Israeli scholar Zeev Sternhell wrote a book on this subject titled Neither Left Nor Right:Fascism in France but this analysis held good for Germany, Spain, Italy, Peron’s Argentina and FDR’s New Deal.
When I was making six figures I was paying more taxes, it’s not as insanely progressive as it used to be but it’s still a steep take. Do you really think you pay more than most milliionaires ?
Ok, lots of things are issues with the government that I think shouldn’t be, concede that, and so what ? How would that change my view on these issues ? Now as far as “tax dodges” go, are you one of the multitude who think that if the govt lets you keep more of your money than Ted Kennedy approves of, that that is a subsidy ????????? Talk about confusion ! Your last sentence may be true. I hope not.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 9, 2007 at 4:15 PM A bolshevik once said: The trickle down system is like feeding the sparrows through the horse.
Hint; we are not the horse.
Posted by Tigertiger on Mar 9, 2007 at 6:25 PM BM,
I know we’re closer on economic issues than on most others. It looks like the left/ right, conservative/liberal tags may be another.
IMO, the extremes of neither group are very liberating — the “left” wants our guns, the “right” wants our souls as trophies. (or stars in their crown)
Neither is truly conserving anything. The “liberals” want to protect snail darters, spotted owls and whales — causing a rush into corn-fed fuel and the inflating of beef, chicken, and everything else corn related. The “conservatives” (who have already spent way beyond our means) will pay subsidies for a less efficient source of energy.
Except for a very limited few like Bernie Sanders, congress dodges the tough problems by investigating any convenient side issue.
If you saw 60 minutes last week you heard from the US Comptroller General, David Walker, just how bad our overall financial picture is. I watched him on C-SPAN at an accountants convention. When question time came there was not one person who disagreed with any of his assertions.
see: http://usmarket.seekingalpha.com/article/28568My business dropped to one third in less than 10 years as companies left for Mexico and Asia. All the while my accountant was telling me that nearly all of his small business clients were experiencing the same thing. It is only now that anyone at a national level is beginning to show any concern.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 10, 2007 at 8:24 AM WTH, thanks, you make some valid points, I think we are closer on economics than the ideologues of either extreme.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 11, 2007 at 6:33 PM Higher taxes for universal health care = good
Higher taxes to give more money to companies that make weapons and insight wars so they can use them = bad
Raising minimum wage to at least catch up with the inflation since the last time it was raised = good
Cutting taxes for the already rich and raising expenses for the poor = badThat’s simple enough right? Arguments from the right about how Socialism is doomed to failure are so pathetically weak I can’t believe how many liberals just concede that its true just because it didn’t work in the already horribly unstable governments where it was supposedly tried. And I say supposedly because it has never been given a fair chance and anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see that. Just because the name Socialism was incorrectly applied to totalitarian governments in the past does not mean Socialist Democracy is impossible. In fact its inevitable. The only thing that can stop it is if capitalism makes Earth inhospitable to human life before its slow implementation is complete.
Posted by BROOKLYN on Mar 12, 2007 at 12:20 PM Government Spending--BAD
Socialized Medicine---BAD
Minimum Wage----BAD
Military Spending----BAD
Pentagon-Industrial-Academic Comlex---BAD
Cutting Taxes For the Rich----GOOD
Cutting Taxes For Everyone----GOOD
Abolishing Taxes-------GREAT
Socialism-------BAD
Laissez-Faire Capitalism------GREAT
Ayn Rand----GREAT
Murray Rothbard-----GREAT
George Reisman----GREAT
Ludwig Von Mises----GREAT
Brooklyn----STUPID.BTW, Noam Chomsky has endorsed these comments.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 12, 2007 at 3:07 PM What a stupid and ignorant response. Before government started regulating industry people used radium to make glow in the dark surfaces and sausage had saw dust and rat droppings thrown in. Abolishing taxes is a lazier and even less plausible act than 100% equal income communism. What delusional world are you living in? Ayn Rand can eat deez nuts.
Posted by BROOKLYN on Mar 12, 2007 at 5:11 PM Maybe dumblondemike thinks no one out here reads Chomski.
The only way Chomski could have endorsed those comments is at gunpoint.Before the government regulated industries the US army lost more soldiers to tainted meat than all the dead they lost in the Spanish American War in Cuba.
But that’s what happens when meat is shipped by boat to England, rejected as spoiled by that country, and then is returned to the US and sold to, you guessed it, the US army.
Just how old is the Halliburton Corp.?Tigertiger
Posted by Tigertiger on Mar 12, 2007 at 6:24 PM Tigertiger,
“Maybe dumblondemike thinks no one out here reads Chomsky.
The only way Chomsky could have endorsed those comments is at gunpoint.”I think it safe to assume many people at this site have read Chomsky. (Also, Mike has a .357 — soooo? :-)
It is only common sense to know some government regulation is necessary to establish and maintain any society. The key is: who decides, how much is regulated, for what reason, and whose benefit.
Our resent spinach problem revealed we only “think” we have an FDA protecting us. Security and a sense of security are not the same. Flyers have neither.
----------
Haliburton:It was announced yesterday they are moving their headquarters to Dubai.
Now the cynics among us will say this is to dodge U.S. taxes. This would be a violation of the public trust and totally unfair to all of us little taxpayers. NOT an acceptable act!
The truth is, no doubt, they are merely seeking their fair share of foreign aid and will be attached as an amendment to some unrelated bill now before congress. (somewhere about page 3,102, Subsection 97b, paragraph 23-1.)
Watch for them to take charge of all U.S. ports in the near future. Why settle for “Free Trade” when you can get paid big bucks for it?
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 13, 2007 at 8:07 AM Mike,
As an author, surely you must favor copyright protection.
As a gun owner — The Bill of Rights.
As someone who one way or another moves from place to place — streets and highways.
All require government spending to some degree. No taxes no more of many things.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 13, 2007 at 8:14 AM WTH, the Bill of Rights does not require government or government spending, in fact it is our protection from the government and the government have been lousy in upholding its protections.
Streets, roads and highways can be privately owned and operated, for details see For A New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard. The justice system could also be private, again just for simplicity’s sake I refer you to the above book. I am for copyright protection but I don’t think again that it requires a monopoly state to enforce. I need to clarify one earlier thing with you, I’m not a pacifist and regard that as an immoral position. But the military-police analogy breaks down precisely because of the unlimited destructiveness of modern warfare. Despite the liberal hysteria over guns, we can use guns to pinpoint a specific target without collateral damage but warfare is indiscriminate mass murder per se. I know your a vet and don’t like to hear this but my animus here is not to vets per se but to the whole mass murder system that they are the integral part of. At least you are a highly intelligent fellow and it’s a pleasure to debate you. I do disagree with your premise that some govt regs are necessary but see the above book for all the answers.
Brooklyn, your history is all askew. See Capitalism by George Reisman, a very large atlas sized 1,000 page plus book but no pitchers, dude.
Tiger, that tainted meat fairy tale is a crock of shit. again, see the above and also How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo. I can get you a whole reading list.
I don’t have a problem with the Dubai move. Houston had its day but nothing is permanent. As Rand wrote, big business is indeed America’s Persecuted Minority. Again, Noam has consented to endorse these comments, uh, with a little persuasion, the old collectivist-statist fart has
begun to see the light and to recant his evil anti-Americanism.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 13, 2007 at 9:34 AM some of you “contributors” sound like Libertarians.
A Libertarian is just a Republican who wants to smoke dope and get layed.
You are correct Blondemike. That tainted meat which killed so many soldiers, at the Southern debarkation point for Cuba, was a crock of shit.
A crock of poison shit.
But it could have been worse. You could have been aboard the Maine
when they decided to blow it to hell in Havana harbor.
That of course gave them excuse enough to war with Spain and
get a spanking new Navy to boot. I guess the poor swabs aboard were just suppose to take one for the team and capitalism.Capitalism Saved America and if you don’t believe me I’ll kill you.
Tigertiger
Posted by Tigertiger on Mar 13, 2007 at 7:02 PM Capitalism Saved America and if you don’t believe me I’ll kill you.
No ... God Bless America ! And if you don’t believe me I will kill you!
And excommunicate you too!(just kidding!)
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 13, 2007 at 11:40 PM “… I’m not a pacifist and regard that as an immoral position.”
(Posted by blondemike on Mar 13, 2007 at 9:34 AM )Mike, I am a pacifist ... mostly.
Please tell me more about your supposition on that position.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 13, 2007 at 11:58 PM Mike,
The Bill of Rights came to us from what was a recently established government.
It has been defended by government established courts and taught by various levels of government supported education.
It will continue to be a meaningful guide to the rights of people as long as we, the people, maintain a watchful eye on those we allow to govern.
When Government (capital G) fails — it is OUR failure.
Like government, capitalism is neither inherently good nor evil. Problems come from the monolithic power acquired when the two are united rather than maintaining vigilance over each other.
The bribery called lobbying is a large part of our current malaise.
-----------------------------Private ownership without government protections requires individual enforcement. When my ownership rights were being violated five years ago, I was able to demand payment only because of my threat to go to court. If the offending agents had been in China instead of Minnesota, Illinois and New Jersey — I would have had no chance of winning.
International law is theoretical and worthless — U.S. law is practical and effective. The difference is a government which has been given teeth by the consent of the governed.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 14, 2007 at 8:05 AM WTH, I disagree with your assertions here and I’m going to refer you to sources rather than get in a You Sez, I Sez pissing match. Murray Rothbard’s four volume history of the American Revolution titled Conceived in Liberty and available from either Amazon or the Ludwig von Mises Institute debunks the idea that the Bill of Rights was of government origin, the truth is that many of the Founders were very skeptical of the proposed US Constitution which they saw as a Hamiltonian power grab, and insisted on the Bill of Rights as a protection against the new governmental powers which replaced the much more libertarian Articles of Confederation.
Also if you read For A New Liberty the alternative to the state is not ad hoc individual enforcement but private organizations, the idea that only the state can perform certain functions is what Rothbard specifically debunks.
As far as US law being practical and effective, I don’t know whether to laugh or vomit when I read an assertion like that. In Oakland there is the law of the jungle, the failed US drug war of almost a century comes to mind not to mention a thousand other governmental failures and if you want to detail them I’ll do so. International law is the law of the land as noted international attorney John Foster Dulles stated in a speech to the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky in 1952, a year before he became Secretary of State. Under our Constitution international law actually supercedes domestic law as Dulles explained, for a source here see The Actor by Alan Stang, Western Islands, 1968. Which is one reason to be very careful about treaties because they become the supreme law of the land. International law operates in the airwaves, the shipping lanes, the oil industry and across the board including the regulation of warfare. The US is a signatory party to all these treaties and you will notice that no world government exists OR is necessary to enforce the treaties. You can get and collect judgments across international boundaries. Limbaugh and all these neoconmen spread this horsepuckey about there being no international law after 9-11 as some blank check for Cheney Administration’s unilateralism though when they want to accuse Saddam Hussein of violating international law, ALL OF A SUDDEN IT EXISTS. Ignore the crackpot AM talk radio Right, they are as goofy as the left libs.
Finally we are NOT the government, I never volunteered myself to be drafted or pay taxes, the Jews in Germany never volunteered to be persecuted by a democratically elected government with vast popular support, which was true of the Nazis. See Rothbard’s Anatomy Of The State. It IS true that every state can only get away with its violations because of public support or indifference. But we are NOT the government and never have been. The Founders like Washington, Jefferson, Paine, Henry, et al, saw the government as the enemy, only the statists like Hamilton loved the state and let’s hear it for Aaron Burr ! Capitalism is inherently good, the government is inherently bad. Capitalism is the voluntary satisfaction of production and consumption. Government PER SE is force. They can’t be analogized. When they combine or collaborate the result is fascism, not capitalism. BTW, you can get a judgment against a debtor in China now that China is in the WTO.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 9:45 AM Tiger, can’t you come up with anything better than that old saw ? I’ve never smoked dope nor cheated on my wife. Those tainted meat stories were vastly blown out of proportion and even with the FDA they can still happen but it’s rare now and was rare then too. The libertarians of 1898
OPPOSED the war with Spain, see William Graham Sumner’s essay on How Spain Conquered America.
David, there is no “god” to bless anything. America is great to the extent that we have or had capitalism, otherwise forget it. Capitalism is just living in conformity to the laws of nature, of objective reality which is why the left hates it, they think Noam’s whim should be the standard.
Pacifism is immoral because you are sacrificing yourself to brute force by failure to defend yourself when attacked. But my previous caveat applies, you have to target the attackers, not blanket murder everyone around like the US, Israel and States in general do.
David, see George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God. After you read it, you too will thank god you’ve become an atheist. Pete Stark of neighboring Hayward is now our first declared atheist in Congress. A real statist-collectivist but at least he’s right on god.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 9:57 AM Blonde Mike,
We agree on one thing and that is Rep. Pete Stark. Let him be the first of many.There was a time when I had contempt for the laughable bible thumpers. No more!!
They are dangerous and expect only submission from everyone.In “The end of Faith” the author states that there are approximately
27 million Americans who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.Which means there are 27 million Americans who believe that the Big Bang or the beginning of time began 12 hundred years after the Babylonians learned how to make beer.
Tigertiger
Posted by Tigertiger on Mar 14, 2007 at 11:27 AM It’s an important thing to agree on, Tiger. Always liked Pete’s bluntness though we differ philosophically. Too bad about the ChristCult nuts.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 12:36 PM Mike,
If you think you can get anything from China through the WTO you are sorely mistaken. Ask New Balance Shoe.
Dulles may have made such an assertion re int’l law - it does not make it so. and certainly not after after half a century. Think about it. Who will enforce the law? The UN had 12 years to straighten out Saddam and did nothing. They’ve been “monitoring” the Middle East while death and destruction go on all around them. Talk about Keystone Cops!
As for Nazi Germany’s gov. I was only speaking of the US.
Whoever or whatever brought about the addition of the Bill of Rights the point is thhat it was done by gov. method not private means.
The Libertarians have some darned good ideas — but not ALL are good or practical.
Tiger,
The Bible thumpers are, like most generalizations, over rated as a force. Been there, done that. The extremists of any stripe cannot accept compromise to the degree necessary to maintain a unified front long enough to be of concern.
You agree with Mike on something. I agree with Mike on something. Mike agrees with so few on more than one thing he will never be a threat to anyone. An Army of One — hey, good slogan :-)
Extremism is self-defeating.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 14, 2007 at 1:35 PM Mike, we will have to agree to disagree about God.
Maybe we could agree that God (if he existed for you) would certainly not bless America.
Thanks for the pacifism question response. Obviously we disagree.
ChristCult nuts , is that really necessary, Mike.?
Can’t you at leastqualify it with a word like “most” or “some”?Tiger, not all people who believe in God are bible thumpers, whatever that means, or expect submission from everyone. God doesn’t expect anyone’s unwilling submission and neither do I.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 14, 2007 at 1:47 PM WTH, the Bill of Rights was NOT brought about by government, it was brought about by private individuals at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 to try to limit government. Since it is meant solely as a restraint on the governement, not the private sector, it would not exist and not be needed in a nonnstate society. It’s true that govt courts and the Congress were supposed to honor it and enforce it, enforcement here actually means not violating it by legislation and everyone can see that
that has not worked out. The drug war alone has eviscerated the 4th Amendment.
Dulles’ assertion about the Treaty clause in the US Constitution is not a mere matter of opinion, you won’t find any judges or lawyers who disagree. In fact much of Admiralty Law, Merchant Law and Common Law was privately developed, see William Woolridge’s 1972 book Uncle Sam, The Monopoly Man. But look up Dulles direct quote on the treaty clause and see if any constitutional scholar disagrees.
I wasn’t comparing the Nazi and US Govts. Just making the same philosophical point about democracy and the people being the government nonsense.
The UN successfully disarmed Iraq, see the Hans Blitz report (I’m misspelling his last name but you can look it up). Iraq was no threat to anyone except its own citizens as is true of every government in the world very much including ours. There was nothing for the UN to straighten out in Iraq, all the US-UK claims were bogus and the sole result of the UN sanctions was to murder two million Iraqis. Both Bushes and Clinton should be hung for that, hopefully very slowly. Annan’s own crooked deals were small potatoes compared to this fact of US sponsored mass murder in Iraq.
I’m no fan of the UN and obviously oppose world government but the US is much more the culprit here than the UN. Kofi has seemed like DC’s errand boy (I realize this is not the PC phraseology.)
You are spouting that totally discredited Bush-Cheney neocon line, the US support of Israel and stationing troops in Saudi Arabia was the sole cause of 9-11 and Israel has never had any intention of letting a Palestinian State of any sort arise, which is cause numero uno of the Middle East problems. You can’t stick a Jewish state by force in the middle of the Arab world without permanent animosity. International law is enforced by treaties every day of the week. And the US as well as other states determine which ones they will disobey like the World Court ruling on the war against Nicaragua but how self-righteous the US gets when, say, Iran or Iraq, doesn’t obey such rulings !
Of course, Israel is above all law so they don’t have to obey a damn thing. And yet, WTH, you think
the main problem with US foreign policy is that we haven’t killed enough people !!!!! Troops or bases in 107 countries is not enough, I guess. WTH, read Chalmers Johnson’s “Nemesis:The Last Days of the American Empire.” He’s no libertarian. As far as your partial endorsement of libertarianism, it is like being a little bit pregnant, doesn’t work. All or nothing. Not everything can be reduced to a shitty pragmatic compromise. You either believe in the principle of the non-initiation of force and the use of force only in self-defnse or you do not.
I haven’t researched all the China case law but I would be very surprised if no US companies have won judgments there. I will tell you flatly that will change with China’s membership in WTO or she will be booted out.
Finally, I never worry about being an intellectual minority. Majority rule determines election results and that’s ok but not truth.
David, don’t be disingenuous, you know damn well what bible thumpers are, you live next to US and they may have a few in Canada. I totally respect your right to disagree, what I don’t respect is the absurd arguments I’ve heard for “god.” There are some religious people who are reasonable, I get along with an Aunt who’s a Nun. We can even debate abortion which I couldn’t do with her sister, my mother. But with all the talk of cults I don’t see how the Christians can deny they are one.
On pacifism, how can you defend it ? You wouldn’t use force in self-defense ? Why do you own a gun then ?
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 2:22 PM WTH
If Bush keeps doing what he’s doing the new slogan will be “You and what army.”I disagree re. the religious right. They’ve fused with corporate money and a corporate agenda too many times.
I’ve ordered Jeremy Scahill’s book: BLACKWATER; the rise of the world’s largest mercenary army.
It’s release date to Borders Books keeps getting delayed. In an interview Jeremy Scahill says as many as 30 thousand troops comprise Blackwater.
He also documents connections(read money) given to Jim Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course there are even tighter connections between Blackwater and Halliburton/Carlisle GrpThe first and most effective check against Christianity came from the Royal Society. They were a group of self centered, jealous upper class Englishmen but their motto was “Nullius Verba.” By the word of no man. I think it is the start of the scientific method.
Distinguished members include Darwin and Isaac Newton.
Posted by Tigertiger on Mar 14, 2007 at 3:44 PM Mike, don’t be disingenuous, damnit ;-)
Yes, I suppose I know what bible thumpers are and I am sure there are more than a few in Canada. I was making the point that not everyone who has read the bible, and found it profitable , is a bible thumper and again I ask; whatever that is (seriously- are there buddha thumpers? or others thumpers?).? And thanks for your admission that there are religious people who are reasonable. Please continue to prove that there are some atheist people who are reasonable as well ... or not.
I defend pacifism as I see it as hand in hand with altruism. The rejection of, or reluctance to use, violence as a means of problem solving and the selfless concern for others to the point of sacrifice of one’s self for the proverbial greater good. This doesn’t necessarily preclude self-defence when practical in extreme circumstances ... as per my caveat, “mostly”, when defining my pacifism.
“He who fights and runs away will live to fight another day.”
... and best to avoid the fight in the first place.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 14, 2007 at 4:12 PM David, atheism is a reasonable position, believe in a supernatural entity is not. There is no probverbial greater good separate from the good of each individual. Altruism is garbage, has nothing to do with benevloence. Self-sacrifice is evil, which is why pacifism is evil.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 5:28 PM What a tard. Trying to break it down into little logical steps but ending up equating Pacifism with self-sacrifice and religion. Don’t they tell the poor ignorant people who sign up for the army to defend God and country and all that bull? Pacifism is a reasonable position because its generally based on the idea that war isn’t about one country against the next, its poor people dying so the rich cash checks. And good job blaming the government for a war bought and paid for by billionaires in an under-regulated private war industry. Capitalism is inherently good only if you favor scorching the Earth of human life.
Posted by BROOKLYN on Mar 15, 2007 at 6:23 AM Mike,
If you consider the Bill of Rights as brought about by private individuals at the Constitutional Convention “trying to limit government”, are you claiming these individuals were NOT voting delegates?
If they were in fact voting delegates, then they were a part of a governing body.
There is nothing which prevents government from trying to limit government — that is what the balance of powers is all about.
If you are going to “prove” goverment is unnecessary and can be replaced by “private” means — you can hardly refer to a governmental action in your evidence.
All or nothing is a poor approach to problem solving.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 15, 2007 at 9:58 AM WTH, rather than have me repeat myself here, why not check out the Rothbard four volume history of the American Revolution ? The history of the failure of the Constititution proves that we cannot count on government to limit government. You also confuse any group with the government, the group that met was not a part of the state any more the GOP Convention but like a convention they can still draft policy proposals for the state. The upshot is that the Bill of Rights was solely designed to limit government, not private concerns, and has utterly failed in that respect. Rothbard’s For A New Liberty details how a nonstate society would work. Again, why not consult it rather than rehash the same point ? On your last sentence it is a pain to deal with people who do not think in terms of principles. Why should I work on some self-defeating ad hoc program rather than what I believe in ?
Posted by blondemike on Mar 15, 2007 at 10:13 AM Brooklyn, pacifism has nothing to do with opposing war per se, I oppose war as indiscriminate mass murder. But it is possible on a police level to strike back at people who initiate force. You can pinpoint the specific target there. Furthermore only states create war and the socialist states like National Socialist Germany, the USSR, Red China, Vietnam, Cambodia are just as bad at creating wars as the so-called mixed economy semi-capitalist states in the west. See the George Reisman book Capitalism for a full refutation of your stupid views on ecology and capitalism causing wars. Chimsky lied to you again.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 15, 2007 at 10:19 AM Blondemike
Your name says it all..you might benefit from any kind of education. The first thing might be learn to read and study American History!.
Posted by ekay1946 on Mar 16, 2007 at 9:19 PM I have forgotten more about US history than you ever knew, ofay. Read Rothbard’s four volumed Conceived In Liberty about the American Revolution for starters, if you require a full reading list I can post one here.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 18, 2007 at 12:08 PM Which side are we on?
To paraphrase William Jefferson Clinton, “I guess it depends on which ‘we’ WE is.”
Is it still, “We the people of these United States of America...”?
I’m posting this same commentary on a couple of threads here because they are in a very real way each part of the same national problem — that of deciding just who is the “WE” today.
The issues of productivity, medical care, income inequality are all interrelated. These issues, which greatly matter to millions of us, go unaddressed while congress diddles with high visibility investigations of great interest to the media.
Today I received an email response to a lunch invitation I sent yesterday. My friend will be unable to attend the semi annual gathering of graphics people (mostly retirees) because he will be working.
He’s not quite old enough to collect Social Security and has seven more years before he and his wife are eligible for Medicare. His wife’s brain surgery for a tumor last year boosted his insurance to obscenely high premiums, he lost his last client (a travel agency) in the fall, and has been laying floor tile, painting houses and doing house cleaning to supplement his evaporating business income.
He’s an excellent designer with 30 or 40 years of experience and is a perfect example of trickle down economics. (It is not just the cream that trickles.) Because he was self employed, he is not a part of the employment data, had no unemployment benefits or group insurance.
He’s spent his savings buying computers and software upgrades and learned the new requisite digital techniques. He kept lowering his prices to remain competitive, yet the effects of CEOs offshoring our manufacturing jobs have trickled through to even his non-manufacturing customers.
Now (at age 60 and about 160 lbs) he is a new employee of the federal government and has a walking mail route. But at least he has insurance.
----------
Just a few moments ago on CNBC I heard the CEO of Blockbuster is NOT going to receive his full $64 million golden parachute. (The company’s stock has been falling since 2000.) He will, however, have 30 months in which to exercise his stock options, so I think he’ll be OK.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 20, 2007 at 11:25 AM Shareholders could put an end to these parachute ripoffs today if they got off their lazy butts. Similar thing happened at Home Depot, another failed CEO stealing the store blind.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 20, 2007 at 1:56 PM Mike,
Shareholders have about as much chance of influencing management of a company as you or I have of getting an audience with W in the oval office.
Most companies of any size are dominated by institutional sales. Even the relativelly small companies for whom I designed annual reports went from largely local ownership they had in 1980 to 60% fund ownership by 2000.
These fund managers don’t give a damn about anything but looking good on their next wage/salary review. They don’t really even care what a company does as long as the numbers are good. At first sign of trouble they’re out of there.
My last long time client used to have 400 to 500 shareholders at the annual meeting. In the early 1980s I sat next to a broker who had come to check them out and he was amazed at the attendance.
By 2004, the meeting was nothing more than a board meeting and 80% of the votes were by proxie from the fund owners. The CEO (different guy than 1981) was making over 6 times as much in salary and had a nice 6 figure bonus, deferred benefits plan and over a million bucks in stock options each year. This is not a Fortune 500 company. They moved the HQ out of state to avoid facing the old time shareholders who had started getting vocal and critical of pay packages.
You and I can discuss these issues with each other, but NEVER will we be able to change anything by legal means. The only way to get a message to a congressman or a CEO is a lucky throw of a message tied to a rock.
Probably not a great idea. But it does cross my mind now and then :-)
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 20, 2007 at 5:56 PM WTH, thanks for the info. My wife is in the market big time but I never have been. That is a deplorable situation as you describe it. I know people have fought battles to influence, say, the University of California, on certain issues because of the large number of institutional shares they own in certain businesses. But that is a very abstract process, I agree. Perhaps the current concept of the corporation needs to be reexamined. As a libertarian I have always been opposed to their exemption via bankruptcy to paying their debts, this is an incredible economic intervention in their favor. Consumers also have it under Ch13, business under 7 and 11, I oppose all of it. Have seen massive abuse across the board but also oppose it in principle where a third party, the state, gets to relieve someone in the second party who owes the first party. Even if these conversations are abstract it doesn’t hurt to exchange ideas on how the system should be changed. Nothing happens quickly anyway. I sympathize with your feelings above.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 21, 2007 at 10:44 AM Mike,
Bankruptcy, if it ever had a legitimate reason for being, has long since become a tool of convenience.
If a person or company does not honor voluntary agreements it should be made known to everyone.
Eddie Richenbacher paid off every cent he owed when his automobile company folded. He then went on to found Eastern Airlines. In his mind he owed people, so he paid them. It was as simple as that.
I soon learned not everyone in business was that honest and was cautious before doing business with new clients. In forty years I had only a little over $600 in uncollected debt (all in my first few years) — two were bankruptcies and one skipped the country.
I turned down a project from a businessman who I discovered had declared bankruptcy. He explained that he was now a good risk since he could not do it again for seven years. I told him he owed one of my long time suppliers and bankrupt or not, I would not consider doing any business with him until he had first paid them their $10,000. Even then it would be 50% up front the balance C.O.D. (I quickly warned all others in town.)
What really frosts me is when WE as taxpayers pay back bankers who bet on shaky foreign countries. I believe it was Citibank our gov. bailed out on S. American deals several years ago.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 21, 2007 at 12:22 PM I loved Eddie, he was an old Rightist politically, supported limited govt and good people like Taft, MacArthur, McCarthy and Goldwater. The so-called “isolationist” Right maybe excepting Barry a bit. I bank at Citibank, they took over our local banks years ago. It’s the EX-Im Bank in DC that does those bailouts, Nelson Rockefeller set up the legislation years ago. Congragulations on your deeply moral and totally commendable view on bankruptcy. Really appreciate and I only wish there were many more like in the business world. Also it sounds you were a very good businessman, another rare trait ! Now I gotta retract all those bad things I said about you !
The only slight caveat I might have is that notwithstanding their unjustified bailouts by FedGov,
Citibank has given very good service. I had my ATM card stolen last Friday, they were on to the bastards within an hour of them running a hundred bucks in charges and they will credit me.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 21, 2007 at 1:07 PM I really don’t know what boom BM is talking about. The economy is slow. Competent economists have discerned a correlation between a high degree of wealth and income concentration (concentrated income gets rolled quickly into concentrated wealth) and slow GDP growth. This is indisputable. The more paying jobs we lose the worse things get. Many new union contracts are settling for pay rates that put a family of four just above the poverty line. And the far right still blames unions for the economic problems!! The right should be fought politically. To bad the Dems have no cajones.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 21, 2007 at 4:06 PM Communist “economists,” that sounds like an oxymoron, Chi. The LIBERTARIAN Right like Ron Paul should be supported politically. The neocon Tel Aviv Mossad Right should be opposed. The more concentrated the wealth, the better for everyone since that means some people can create jobs. Dems like the Reps are living on borrowed time, when the Revolution comes we are privatizing your sidewalk, Chi, and you ‘ll have to pay a toll to leave your driveway.
No ticket, no laundee.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 21, 2007 at 5:33 PM This is not a left or right managed economy it has been a joint venture for years. Unfortunately, the concentration of wealth is allowing the creation of jobs where the greatest benefit to the employers happens to be — everywhere but the U.S.
The falling dollar (never mind the strong dollar BS) is going to make the current price of gasoline look like a bargain. Anything denominated in dolars _ oil, gold, corn, iis going to go sky high in short order.
The fed talks about inflation as it continues to crank the dollar presses. The should tighten, but know that would push us into recession almost immediiately. (Anyone notice they no longer publish the M3 monetary figures anymore.)
Greenspan is as much to blame as any individual for the mess we have, but can’t keep his mouth shut even though it’s someone else’s hot potato now.
We went from the tech bubble to the housing bubble and it looks like commodities will be the next one.We may even get a bit of “deflation talk” before the stagflation sets in.
When they turn off the bubble machine — sell bonds, buy gold and keep some cash to buy the really cheap stuff — houses, cars, stocks or whatever.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 21, 2007 at 5:50 PM The concentration of wealth is necessary to some reasonable degree in all societies in order to generate savings and investment. But every economic study shows a backward bending curve for the correlation between wealth concentration and rates of GDP growth at certain very high levels of income and wealth concentration. At a certain point high concentrations of wealth and income in any society becomes self defeating. Low overall effect demand becomes a constraint on GDP expansion as there is less and less spending on consumer durables and the economy gets hung up and slows down. Narrowly based niche markets take over that call for very little new job creation as wealth increasingly concentrates. The contemporary US is an excellent example.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM You need to read another view, Chi and stop repeating the same Marxian bullshit. Start with Reisman’s Capitalism.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 21, 2007 at 6:29 PM Pretty clear whose side in this case.
This morning I saw an article on recent changes of disclosure in executive pay and benefits. Anything more than $10,000 must be reported.
John Brock, of Coca-Cola Enterprises was reimbursed $50,000 in attorneys’ fees — paid to them for negotiating Mr. Brock’s pay package with the company. The guardians of the owners’ interests paid the opposition for working a deal favorable to the employee they were hiring. (Read “Perfectly Legal” by Peterson.)
In other words the board (the Foxes in charge of watching out for the chickens) paid the “thieves” for stealing from them.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 22, 2007 at 7:38 AM Mike,
(For some reaon I cannot get back into the discussion on Counterinsugency 101, so I’m posting this here.)Step back and take a look at what you are claiming here:
• That moving them to Syria bullshit never had any basis in reality and is only the pathetic fallback line of the last ditch Bush apologists.
• The ONLY suicide bombers Hussein gave money to were Palestinians fighting against the brutal Israeli Occupation.
• Robert Fisk has had a much better track record than the discredited neocon sources that you cite and to whom for some inexplicable reason you give the benefit of the doubt.
• Saddam NEVER subsidized Al Queda
• This General has no credibility at all if he believes what you have recited above…
Have you ever considered how difficult it is to prove a negative? For example there is no way you would be able to prove Saddam NEVER gave money to anyone he chose, nor that he NEVER shipped WMD out of the country, or that he NEVER subsidised al Queda.
Your agruements would be more acceptable if not for the dogmatic presentation and out of hand dismissal of info you cannot possibly know is or is not true. You may chose not believe, but that is all.
As for Robert Fisk having “a much better track record than the discredited neocon sources that you cite and to whom for some inexplicable reason you give the benefit of the doubt.”
• Better by what standard? Yours?
• ...what “neocon sources” did I cite?
• and the “inexplicable reason” for my giving “the benefit of the doubt” was explained — you don’y have to agree with it, but I did explain my reasons.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 24, 2007 at 7:32 AM Cabby, Mike,
This AM Citigroup announced plans “...to shed thousands of jobs and sharpen its focus on its operations outside North America.” The 10,000 initial jobs are what you can bet is only the beginning. They employ 325,000 globally and claim the move will net them $1 billion in “savings.”
(I wonder who’ll get the savings.)-----------------
(Again posting here by default.) I couldn’t receive the whole message and not sure who from, but…re: China — Yes, they spend far less as a percentage of their GDP on military, but then they don’t need to waste time and money on R&D;. Ever since the US decided they were a billion person market rather than a communist menace and the sponsors of the shoot-out at Tienimen Square (sp?), we have freely sold/given them anything they want including missile technology.
What we know about China is what China wants us to “know” — Yahoo, MicroSoft and others have agreed to cooperate in their government censorship of the internet. The US has never pressed patent rights or other illegalities through the WTO or any other means — all we do is bow and kiss ass.
They recently upped their military spending, have been expanding their naval capabilities (subs mostly) and have demonstrated their ability to shoot down satellites. (Remember our communication problems a few years ago when one was temporarily lost? Remember our plane they held?)
The western mind never seems to grasp the eastern thought pattern — we think instant everything — they have glacial patience.
The guys who faced human waves of Chinese in Korea have a slightly different view of these people.Our national greed will be our downfall.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 26, 2007 at 7:42 AM WTH, your sources have all followed the standard neocon line so it’s reasonable to think they are neocons. It probably doesn’t make any difference since the policy is disastrous. Fisk has a better track by the standard of objective reality----i.e., his reporting has much more closely been consonant with the truth, the facts on the ground if you please, than Kelly’s (a definite neocon) or Bush (a stooge of neocons Cheney, Abrams, Wolfowitz, etc.) Of course, you can’t prove a negative and of course by that logic we could never disprove the assertions about Syria, which is why reasonable people insist on the burden of proof by he who makes the positive assertion. So where’s the beef here ? It’s like if you claim God exists, YOU have the burden of proof and I am fully entitled to be an atheist until you do. I do not have to disprove anything. I’ll deal with your China observations later, this epistemological issue is more important here. Not that China isn’t.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 27, 2007 at 12:31 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Sen. Bernie Sanders
- Earth to Bush
While the prez pats himself on the back, 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty, hunger and homelessness - Which Side Are We On?
- No Small Achievement
- Remote Control
- An Indecent Act
- Ground Control to Mr. Bush
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
