This Politico story on Occupy Wall Street’s influence on the Democrats’ campaign donors is awfully interesting:
After the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a recent email urging supporters to sign a petition backing the wave of Occupy Wall Street protests, phones at the party committee started ringing.
Banking executives personally called the offices of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and DCCC Finance Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) last week demanding answers, three financial services lobbyists told POLITICO…
The execs asked the lawmakers: “What are you doing? Do you even understand some of the things that they’ve called for?” said another lobbyist with financial services clients who is a former Democratic Senate aide.
Democrats’ friends on Wall Street have a message for them: you can’t have it both ways.
Here Politico’s insider-oriented approach, for once, helps shine a light on a broader truth: The Democratic Party has had it both ways for nearly two decades since the ascendance of Rubinomics turned Wall Street into a powerful constituency for both political parties. Not coincidentally, Bill Clinton’s installation of a Wall Street-friendly economic team also resulted in weakened Wall Street oversight, the actual prevention of oversight, and even an abandonment of it altogether in the case of Traveler’s merger with Citigroup (which would go on to pay Robert Rubin $115 million for doing… well, not much).
Of course, Occupy Wall Street didn’t introduce tension between Democrats and their financier patrons. The mild regulations introduced in the last year or two, along with Obama calling bankers “fat cats” that one time, did that. But if protests (and more critically, the popular opinion they’ve put words to) push Democrats left on financial issues, their tether to Wall Street donors will be stretched, perhaps to the breaking point. If Wall Street turns Big Oil—reliably, dominantly for one party—that would have big implications for regulation, future reforms, and for elections themselves, both in the actual positions of candidates and in their ability to advertise those positions.
Which makes a point about the soft corruption of our campaign-finance system, which allocates influence according to affluence. You see that here. Democrats are already seeing the consequences of angering Wall Street bankers, who comprise a teeny-tiny sliver of the electorate. That’s ultimately what the anti-banks protests are about, both directly and indirectly: The outsized power that a small group of moneymen have on the affairs of the country.
“You can’t have it both ways,” said one in-house financial services lobbyist. “It just makes it harder for people who are Democrats in New York, Boston, Chicago to on the one hand be demogagued and then be asked ‘Hey, you can get your picture with the president for $30,000.’ It doesn’t square.”
Indeed. And the folks down in Zuccotti Park don’t mind one little bit.
Is the Occupy Wall Street thing still going on, or is it waning? Haven't seen much in the press about it over the last few days.
There was an "Occupy Roanoke" event for a couple of days here in Virginia that has mostly fizzled out after attracting a few dozen commies and weirdos. In fact, a conservative group in Roanoke is launching a counter-protest in a few days.
Are similar things happening elsewhere?
I see on the CNN site that Alec "Capital One" Baldwin was in town to run his mouth in support of the OWS crowd. Who's the next millionaire to lend his support? George "Richest Man in Manhattan" Soros? Paul "Enron Advisor" Krugman?
I still can't figure out what these guys want (besides other people's stuff) and I have yet hear any of these commies say exactly what percentage of the income tax the top 1% of income earners should pay (they currently pay 38% of the federal income taxes, yet earn only 18% of the income in this country).
How about it guys?
What percentage (exactly) of the federal income tax should the top 1% pay?
And exactly why do you think it's a good thing to have half the country paying no federal income tax at all? How does such a system foster democracy or prosperity in your estimation?
HUH?
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 20 Oct 2011 at 04:38 PM
What Occupiers Want
Occupiers ask the question: Whose country is this?
They believe the answer should be We, the People, not special interests or financial oligarchies.
We, the People, make the USA work. We supply workers, create businesses, and maintain families, neighborhood, and communities.
We want to enjoy the benefits and opportunities of the USA.
We want elected officers to put the People’s interest first.
We want action on the promises, found in our Constitution:
1. A more perfect Union: Not perfect, but more perfect. At least, not dysfunctional.
2. Justice: Protection against unfairness of laws and for a level playing field in work and trade.
3. Domestic Tranquility: The keeping of domestic peace, among the people and states.
4. The common defense: Protection from enemies of our country.
5. The general Welfare: Allowing every citizen the benefits of government and opportunity for property, industry, and investment.
6. The Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity: Freedom, not control of royalty, aristocracy, oligarchy, or moneyed interests.
#2 Posted by Douglas Johnston, CJR on Thu 20 Oct 2011 at 07:06 PM
Yeah...
But what percentage of the federal income tax do you guys think the top 1% of income earners should pay?
It's a simple question. Why can't (or won't) any of you 99'ers answer it?
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 20 Oct 2011 at 07:49 PM
I don't suppose any of you "watchdogs" have a problem with Matt Taibibi and Dylan Ratigan actively participating in the OWS PR effort while also reporting on the event, right?
That doesn't cross any lines, does it?
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 20 Oct 2011 at 10:34 PM
Sorry, but Ratigan and Taibbi are opinion journalists and they aren't billed to be anything less. Their work has long been focused on the circumstances that ows is a reaction to and so they aren't just reporting on the protests, they're reporting on the system they have been trying to change since at least 2008.
Again, once upon a time a whole cable network(FOX) and a half(CNBC) advocated for the tea party and Hannity conducted entire shows within the protests. Glen Beck hosted a giant partypalooza for the Washington Monument. Billionaires blew millions of dollars funding events and buses to ship geriatrics around the country demanding Obama to keep the government out of their Medicare.
You can't have been accepting of all that and then turn around and demand that ows answers for Soros money it never got and the advice a couple of activist journalists gave the movement. Sorry, that's not even close to consistent.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 20 Oct 2011 at 11:54 PM
Taibbi's take:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-occupy-wall-street-is-bigger-than-left-vs-right-20111017
"Aside from the appalling fact of these assholes stealing private emails and bragging about it in public, the whole story is completely absurd. None of the people on the list, as far as I know, are actually organizers of OWS -- I know I'm not one, anyway.
In fact, I was surprised by the entire characterization of this list as being some kind of official wing of OWS. I thought it was just a bunch of emails from friends of mine, talking about what advice we would give protesters, if any of them asked, which in my case anyway they definitely did not...
This whole episode to me underscores an unpleasant development for OWS. There is going to be a fusillade of attempts from many different corners to force these demonstrations into the liberal-conservative blue-red narrative.
This will be an effort to transform OWS from a populist and wholly non-partisan protest against bailouts, theft, insider trading, self-dealing, regulatory capture and the market-perverting effect of the Too-Big-To-Fail banks into something a little more familiar and less threatening, i.e. a captive "liberal" uprising that the right will use to whip up support and the Democrats will try to turn into electoral energy for 2012...
The Rush Limbaughs of the world are very comfortable with a narrative that has Noam Chomsky, MoveOn and Barack Obama on one side, and the Tea Party and Republican leaders on the other. The rest of the traditional media won't mind that narrative either, if it can get enough "facts" to back it up. They know how to do that story and most of our political media is based upon that Crossfire paradigm of left-vs-right commentary shows and NFL Today-style team-vs-team campaign reporting.
What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle."
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 21 Oct 2011 at 12:07 AM
Speaking of "fake leaders", Obama has been intoning that he's somehow on OWS's side by claiming he wants a jobs bill after near four years of giving the left the finger on domestic and economic issues.
Don't believe the hype. He's owned by wall street. Obama is an obstacle to work around, not with.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 21 Oct 2011 at 12:15 AM
Thimbles...
First of all... When the election comes... You're going to be voting for Obama, barring his impeachment, death or disability during the next year. You might as well acknowledge that Reality now and stop your public griping about the man... It's a plain hypocrisy.
Secondly, maybe you can summon the intellectual integrity to answer a couple of straightforward questions about the OWS demands:
What percentage (exactly) of the federal income tax should the top 1% pay?
And exactly why do you think it's a good thing to have half the country paying no federal income tax at all? How does such a system foster democracy or prosperity in your estimation?
HUH?
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 21 Oct 2011 at 07:19 AM
Thimbles wrote: The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle."
padikiller replies: No, the reality is that the people who flock to the "Occupy Whatever" events aren't on the same page with each other, much less with the Tea Partiers.
Having observed two Tea Party events, a couple of things are certain. There was a message, and there were demands. Stop spending. Stop borrowing. Repeal Obamacare. Shrink government.
Such a coherent message simply doesn't exist among the OWS crowd. Much of the crowd espouses anarchy, much of it advocates totalinarianism, with a sprinkling of Maoists and Marxists peppering the unsavory blend of these polar opposite (and mutually exclusive) positions.
While it is true that some of the messages seen on OWS placards jibe with the Tea Party platform (e.g. griping about TARP), the same cannot be said about the anti-semitic OWS sentiment or the calls for increased taxes and increased spending.
Another important difference lies in the motivation. The OWS crowd are, if not professional astroturfers, then certainly more experienced protesters than the Tea Partiers. I read a poll a few days ago in which more than 50% of the OWS respondents reported having attended political protests prior to tho OWS event in which they were currently participating. This experience is reflected in the governing authority and in the spin machines they created at in inception of these events - organization that was absent at Tea Party events.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 21 Oct 2011 at 07:38 AM
"First of all... When the election comes... You're going to be voting for Obama, barring his impeachment, death or disability during the next year. You might as well acknowledge that Reality now and stop your public griping about the man... It's a plain hypocrisy."
That's not how I work. Yes, if the choice was between another totalitarian, religious pandering, crony capitalist who would get glowing coverage from fox news and uncritical coverage from the rest for all but the worst abuses, then I'd go with Obama.
But don't make a lack of choice an excuse to ignore reality, be disciplined, and be silent. That's the authoritarian conservative way, not mine.
"What percentage (exactly) of the federal income tax should the top 1% pay?"
We've been through this.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_budget_narrative.php#comments
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 21 Oct 2011 at 01:26 PM
In the thread you cited, Thimbles, you argued your opinion that the top 10% of wage earners should pay 90% of the taxes, but you did not specify why you believe this arrangement benefits society.
How exactly does this arrangement foster democracy, productivity, unity or prosperity? Why is it good for the country to have half of Americans mooching off the other half?
HUH?
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 21 Oct 2011 at 03:14 PM
This is just too, too funny:
http://www.occupyr.com/General/thread.php?id=268
Looks like this OWS thing is hitting the wall hard.
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 22 Oct 2011 at 11:14 AM
"How exactly does this arrangement foster democracy, productivity, unity or prosperity? Why is it good for the country to have half of Americans mooching off the other half?"
Good question. How do you support a capital gains tax of 15% which allows the rich to hide their wealth in investments that require the rest of us to back in order for success, and how do you justify american corporations and people hiding incomes derived from America in tax havens abroad to avoid taxes?
How is it justified that "we the people" provide them an environment and society in which they can profit and yet they expect to escape paying for its maintenance? And should we turn to the barely getting by poor who will have to turn increasingly to social programs, as their disposable cash is siphoned off by the new taxes you guys plan, and will suffer decreased social mobility as a result.
I argue that the "you argued your opinion that the top 10% of wage earners should pay 90% of the taxes" because those tax revenues would go towards improving infrastructure, education, lives, and opportunities which will foster " democracy, productivity, unity and prosperity" as social mobility increases, government revenues cease to be less than expenses, and ordinary people have access to the same basic necessities of life as the rich.
You believe in the concentration of wealth that has existed in Indonesia, the Phillipines, Latin America and other places where people pick garbage from the city dumps in order to stay alive. I believe in social democracies such as the ones seen in Western Europe where education is free, health care is universal and accessible, and the people use their government to invest on societal needs on their behalf (such as clean energy). There is no perfect system, but there sure the hell are better ones than what you advocate.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 23 Oct 2011 at 12:33 AM
Thimbles wrote: "I believe in social democracies such as the ones seen in Western Europe where education is free, health care is universal and accessible, and the people use their government to invest on societal needs on their behalf (such as clean energy)"
padikiller responds: You mean the social democracies that are presently on the verge of financial collapse? The ones that get defense for free (from us)? The ones that have crappy health care?
And education is free in these mythological realms? The Socialist Education Fairy sprinkles Education Dust and POOF!? All educated for free? Teachers don't get paid? Principals don't get paid? Booksellers don't get paid? This response distills the commie silliness into one sentence - commies really do believe in "free" stuff and "free" services.
The problem with socialism is, as Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, that eventually you run out of other people's money. And that's just about where Europe is now.
Gravy Train's derailed. Time for most European countries to either revert to a free economy, or go full Commie. Some have longer than others, but the socialist thing is falling apart.
Thimbles wrote: "How do you support a capital gains tax of 15% which allows the rich to hide their wealth in investments that require the rest of us to back in order for success, and how do you justify american corporations and people hiding incomes derived from America in tax havens abroad to avoid taxes?"
padikiller responds: I don't. If we must have an income tax, I support a flat tax on income derived from any source.
And the reason that American corporations flock overseas is that the American corporate tax rate (35%) IS THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD.
We should eliminate the corporate income tax entirely and shift the burden of paying taxes to living, breathing taxpayers.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 23 Oct 2011 at 08:14 AM
" responds: You mean the social democracies that are presently on the verge of financial collapse? The ones that get defense for free (from us)? The ones that have crappy health care?"
Yes, the ones that are facing a monetary triggered collapse due to greedy speculators who overinvested in American subprime, Spanish real estate, and post-Olympic Greece (a situation made worse by the Goldman Sachs vampire squid) yes, those ones. Their financial services sector was as bad as America's in some respects. And their switch from sovereign currencies to a single currency controled by a single ideology driven central bank has been disastrous compared to a country that has its own krona.
The euro is being done in by an inflexible currency during a very flexible economic period which was a result of financial deregulation. The euro was ill prepared for the boom and now its banks are reeling in the bust. The ECB is a pale imitation of the fed and there isn't an FDIC equivalent that covers Europe.
Don't blame the welfare state for problems arising out of finance and monetary policy alone.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 23 Oct 2011 at 03:31 PM
The problem with the socialist European countries is that they have run out of other people's money to spend...
It isn't complicated.
When you owe 140% of your GDP like Greece does... You're screwed. Like Italy is. Like Iceland is. Like Ireland is. Like Portugal is. Etc.
The Welfare State Fairy doesn't sprinkle "free" health care dust on the masses... Or "free" education dust.. Or "free" anything dust... Like you guys think she does...
All this boondoggle crap costs money and either somebody has to work to earn it, or somebody has to borrow it.
The riots in Greece are a natural consequence of borrowing money to pay people not to work... When the money runs out, and you toll the Reality Bell by telling the dependent minions that they will have to work for their money, the commies start killing people.
They would rather riot, loot, and even kill than work for a living.
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 23 Oct 2011 at 06:13 PM
A) Iceland ain't screwed. Read the links.
B) Nobody meant free as in no cost, the euro system means free as in accessible to all. Success in university is dependent on merit, not class and capital as it increasingly is in the US. And the funny thing about the "crappy free health care" is that you use it as an example of where communists choose to go when they have the means (Switzerland) and the systems costs half what the screwy US system does.
C) Ireland was a Celtic tiger. Iceland was the Arctic tiger. All these "tigers get mauled by speculative sharks who flush the economies with foreign capital and then cut them off once addiction has set in. The majority of euro governments collected tax revenues sufficient to pay expenses. It was their banks that got these countries in trouble not their governments. It wasn't the "free stuff" constituency that was to blame, it was the free market one that went on a credit bender.
I guess you forgot in all of the confusion who's been demanding and recieving all the bailouts until the money runs out. It sure ain't the commies.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 02:29 AM
Yeah, Thimbles
Iceland's in great shape - especially now that it's in the EU...
It's like being picked up from a life raft by the Titanic.
It's debt was 28% of GDP in 2007 and is 90% of GDP now. Surplus in 2007, deficit now. Bring out the champagne!
But it is true that Iceland did the right thing in the face of its economic crisis by tossing its government and by refusing to entirely bail out the banks - a decision Icelandic voters made directly that spared its taxpayers the full wrath of the government's stupidity - this is one area in which we agree.
And the euro governments have been models of fiscal responsibility. Innocent victims of predatory bankers.
Sounds familiar:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/speeches/1922-09-18.html
#18 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 05:39 AM
"I guess you forgot in all of the confusion who's been demanding and recieving all the bailouts until the money runs out. It sure ain't the commies."
Bingo.
Free marketeers demand that government get out of their way. Then they screw up the economy so bad the economy tanks. Then they stick their hand out and demand the government save - not the economy - but the same malcontents who burned everything down.
Then they demand deregulation to "get the economy going again."
Then their apologists like paddikiller go around bellyaching about how regulation costs money.
Got news for you pads, the absence of regulation (and the funding to enforce it) has cost this nation inhabitants a pretty penny.
#19 Posted by Katelin, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 07:25 AM
Thimbles wrote: I believe in social democracies such as the ones seen in Western Europe where education is free, health care is universal and accessible, and the people use their government to invest on societal needs on their behalf (such as clean energy). There is no perfect system, but there sure the hell are better ones than what you advocate.
Me: Sir, the problem is you can tax the top 10% at 90% and our elected officials will still use the money for everything BUT what you say. Until we have legislators who actually CARE about the people, this downward spiral will continue. The only thing they care about is the next election. Our elected officials are now so far from what the Founding Fathers envisioned – people who take 2 to 6 years (yes I am using the minimum) to serve their community and help their neighbors, and they are now full-time fund raisers and part time community servants. So they can take all of the money from all of us and continue to create new project and entitlement after new project and entitlement, and then want even more from us.
One other quick note – I read the comments here and see people screaming about oil companies and financial institutions (and also laugh at those who are so nasty to one another and also claim they just don’t get why we can’t be more civil), but you mention education. When will the media shine a bright light on the cost and where the money REALLY goes in our colleges? What are students really getting for $30,000 a year – aside from a kick-ass football or basketball team? Why is the cost so high for this education when the major universities are raking in money from those huge sports programs? How much do the Deans and Presidents of say, Ohio State, USC and Duke make?
Not asking to be confrontational, just curious.
A great day to all.
#20 Posted by Serving Soldier, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 10:49 AM
Katelin wrote: Got news for you pads, the absence of regulation (and the funding to enforce it) has cost this nation inhabitants a pretty penny
padikiller responds: How so?
Regulations were in place to stop Bernie Madoff... And Enron... And MCI/Worldcom, etc.
In Madoff's case, the SEC was given proof positive of his Ponzi scheme during the Clinton administration, yet did nothing for nearly ten years.
In each and every major financial scandal in recent history, regulators either knew about the malfeasance and failed to act, or should have known about it, but were asleep at the switch.
Nonetheless, the commie solution is always more government. More of what failed. That'll fix it.
NOT.
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 12:29 PM
You guys are preaching to the choir about bailouts.
Let banks fail. Let auto manufacturers fail. Let solar companies fail.
Get the government out of all of it and impeach Obama.
I'm on your side of this one.
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 01:20 PM
When a person asks to have their company bailed out, they are no longer acting as a freemarketeer. When they claim to be too big to fail they are acting as an extortionist.
#23 Posted by gogold, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 02:26 PM
"And the euro governments have been models of fiscal responsibility. Innocent victims of predatory bankers.
Sounds familiar:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/speeches/1922-09-18.html"
As a lawyer, I'm suspect you're familiar with the ramifications of Godwin.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 02:46 PM
"Me: Sir, the problem is you can tax the top 10% at 90% and our elected officials will still use the money for everything BUT what you say. Until we have legislators who actually CARE about the people, this downward spiral will continue"
Just so we're clear, what I was talking about with padi was not a 90% tax rate. In previous thread, paid likes to throw around statements like:
"70% of income taxes are paid by the top, how much more should it be? HUH?"
"should the top marginal tax rate be 90%? HUH?"
"You want to tax the rich at 90%. Is that fair? HUH?"
These statements all mean different things and paidi knows this, he also knows he's talking about federal taxes and not state taxes which come more from the middle class, but he loves confusing the reader.
As I said in the past thread:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_budget_narrative.php#comments
"You say "70% of income tax" I say a 35% top income tax rate. The top quintile earned half the income in America. They can afford it."
"I think they should pay 90% of the income tax, which would be achieved with a 40 to 50 percent income tax rate.
And if there really is an entitlement crisis, then the FICA cap should be temporarily adjusted up to $600,000.
And then, maybe next time, idiots will be incentivized to pass tax cuts when they are paid for instead of passing them willy nilly and busting open a deficit trillions of dollars wide."
Just so we're clear that I'm not asking for the Koch brothers to make do on ten percent of their wealth.
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 03:14 PM
The top 10% foot 90% of the budget, while the bottom 50% pay nothing or actually suck money out of the treasury.
Great plan you have there, Thimbles.
That's a recipe for productive representative democracy, alright. Half the nation as a dependent underclass. What could keep such a utopian society from advancement?
This is nothing but a commie crack dream.
#26 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 03:39 PM
If you don't like the bottom 50% to not contribute to federal income tax, then maybe your economic system shouldn't be diverting diverting 65.8% of America's adjusted gross income to the top 25% who pay 87.3% percent of income taxes at a average income tax rate of 14.68% in 2009.
Maybe there should be some policies to smooth that imbalance out. Crazy, I know.
#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 04:03 PM
What are you saying?
That the wealthiest Americans have more money than the "poor" Americans?
Now there's a scoop for you - rich people have more money than poor people.
Well, the REALITY is that the top 1% of income earners in this country pay 38% of the federal income tax, but hold only 18% of the wealth.
Where's the justice?!
But seriously.... WHY is it a good thing for any society to have an underclass that is dependent on the treasury? HUH?
#28 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 04:22 PM
"But seriously.... WHY is it a good thing for any society to have an underclass that is dependent on the treasury? HUH?"
Are you retarded? How does having a segment of the population making too little above minimum wage or too few hours to pay income tax make that person "dependant on the treasury"?
You see serving soldier? These are the kinds of rhetorical shell games paidi likes to play. "Commie! Commie! Commie!" Is all that he's got.
#29 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 05:02 PM
When half the country pays no taxes, you have a plutocracy.
#30 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 08:28 PM
When someone uses terms like plutocracy without looking them up, you have derpity derp derp.
#31 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 25 Oct 2011 at 04:37 PM
Those who foot the bills call the shots.
Always have, always will.
That's just how life works, Thimbles.
When half the country pays no taxes, you have a plutocracy.
By design.
#32 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 25 Oct 2011 at 07:20 PM
Oh, I get it. So the reality in medieval times was the serfs ruled the monarchs. Is that your opinion?
Or, more likely, tax rates have nothing to do with who rules, campaign finance does. And those who finance campaigns want to raise taxes on the poor (like you) and lower them for the rich (like you).
But, luckily, people can use democracy while there's still some left to stop you plutocrats.
PS. You've turned this conversation stupid.
#33 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 25 Oct 2011 at 11:54 PM
You're moving the goalposts, Thimbles, as usual.
We were talking about a modern democratic society, and you've switched us to an ancient non-democratic government.
Non-democratic rule (upon pain of death) unquestionably works. It isn't efficient. Or fair. But it works.
Rome worked great as long as the Centurions were around. Fascism worked great from a financial point of view - Hitler turned the German economy around. The Soviet Union went from serfdom to Space Age in a few years under gunpoint and only failed in the face of democratic pressure. Slavery in America worked fine, from the point of view of the plantation owners. China works great now, economically speaking (but try lodging a public protest against the Chinese government in Tiananmen Square and see how that works out for you).
Coercion is a very effective way of maintaining control and increasing production.
However, in a free, non-violent, democratic society, money talks. Representatives will pander to those who pay the bills. PERIOD.
That's just the way it is.
#34 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 26 Oct 2011 at 07:51 AM
Acorn Astroturfing at OWS
What's new is what's old.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/exclusive-acorn-playing-behind-scenes-role-in-occupy-movement/
#35 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 26 Oct 2011 at 12:40 PM