APP - Culture versus Reality
- Thread starter midcan5
- Start date
"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'
I have to give corporate propaganda great credit for the creation of tools like Winterborn and Damn Yankee, they succeeded and still succeed as the tea party demonstrates.
Howard Zinn taught for twenty years plus, and was there during the times he writes of. His book has twenty pages of small print bibliography and he admits candidly that massive footnotes would have made the book too big. Consider William Manchester's 'Glory and the Dream' for instance, it may be the best history out there, but it is out of print at 1300 pages.
From the stats below one can only say Zinn was honest and prescient.
As far as arguing with statistics that can be verified, you guys exemplify the mindless chatter of the internet and brain washing of corporate money perfectly. But I will add a few more links for those who can still think and reason, without getting their minds filled from corporate greed.
If you tools need more proof just ask, I know you will remain lost, but hey hope springs eternal.
"...Today, the richest 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation's income. What caused this to happen? Over the next two weeks, I'll try to answer that question by looking at all potential explanations—race, gender, the computer revolution, immigration, trade, government policies, the decline of labor, compensation policies on Wall Street and in executive suites, and education." http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266027/
"If The $5.15 Hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03. A Minimum Wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes. Such A Worker would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation. In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002. In 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000." http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/look-numbers-how-rich-get-richer
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
http://www.businessinsider.com/22-s...ally-wiped-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7
"The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.
So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough."
Here are the statistics to prove it:
• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=108
http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/want_to_be_poor_work_one_of_these_8_jobs
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html?em
"Material poverty provides the incentive to change precisely in situations where there is very little margin for experiments. Material prosperity removes the incentive just when it might be safe to take a chance. Europe lacks the means, America the will, to make a move. We need a new set of convictions which spring naturally from candid examination of our own inner feelings in relation to the outside facts." John Maynard Keynes
I have to give corporate propaganda great credit for the creation of tools like Winterborn and Damn Yankee, they succeeded and still succeed as the tea party demonstrates.
Howard Zinn taught for twenty years plus, and was there during the times he writes of. His book has twenty pages of small print bibliography and he admits candidly that massive footnotes would have made the book too big. Consider William Manchester's 'Glory and the Dream' for instance, it may be the best history out there, but it is out of print at 1300 pages.
From the stats below one can only say Zinn was honest and prescient.
As far as arguing with statistics that can be verified, you guys exemplify the mindless chatter of the internet and brain washing of corporate money perfectly. But I will add a few more links for those who can still think and reason, without getting their minds filled from corporate greed.
If you tools need more proof just ask, I know you will remain lost, but hey hope springs eternal.
"...Today, the richest 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation's income. What caused this to happen? Over the next two weeks, I'll try to answer that question by looking at all potential explanations—race, gender, the computer revolution, immigration, trade, government policies, the decline of labor, compensation policies on Wall Street and in executive suites, and education." http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266027/
"If The $5.15 Hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03. A Minimum Wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes. Such A Worker would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation. In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002. In 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000." http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/look-numbers-how-rich-get-richer
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
http://www.businessinsider.com/22-s...ally-wiped-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7
"The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.
So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough."
Here are the statistics to prove it:
• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=108
http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/want_to_be_poor_work_one_of_these_8_jobs
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html?em
"Material poverty provides the incentive to change precisely in situations where there is very little margin for experiments. Material prosperity removes the incentive just when it might be safe to take a chance. Europe lacks the means, America the will, to make a move. We need a new set of convictions which spring naturally from candid examination of our own inner feelings in relation to the outside facts." John Maynard Keynes
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Zinn and Keynes. 
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
"To indicate every source of information in the text would have meant a book impossibly cluttered with footnotes..." Howard Zinn
Such for documentation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wi...k impossibly cluttered with footnotes&f=false
Such for documentation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wi...k impossibly cluttered with footnotes&f=false
Zinn and Keynes.
I'm not sure of the depth of your density, but obviously unless you are a total rock head you must see that you never counter any debate point? Your only refugee, aside from mommy's lap, is ad hominem or shooting the messenger. You haven't countered any of the stats. In our time Zinn book is thick enough, and it is surprising it sells so well given the laziness of the modern student. You may want to go off and read and learn just a bit before coming back with more corporate slogans of meaningless content. You are well taught in slogan, now see if you can learn to think a bit on your own. Good luck.
"From the totalitarian point of view, history is something to be created rather than learned. A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened." George Orwell
"The aide [purported to be Karl Rove] said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."" Ron Suskind
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
LOLZ at Midcan recommending Engels for further reading.
Anyway, a cartel would be analogous to a trust, not to a corporation.
Anyway, a cartel would be analogous to a trust, not to a corporation.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Your post is rich with irony, since I've accused you of not being able to debate a while back and you promptly fell on your face. Posting silly quotes from liberal authors at the end of your posts is your idea of defending yourself but it simply proves your thick headedness.
Zinn is the perfect example. You used a quote from Peoples to justify your position, but as I pointed out his book is completely devoid of footnotes and references. In typical liberal fashion, he starts off with some basic, common facts, makes vague references to less common "facts" without reference, opines at great length then comes up a conclusion of no basis. Zinn even admits, as I pointed out here, that he doesn't have footnotes.
The only reason why Peoples has sold so well is that there are thousands of far-left professors who use it as a text book, intent on dumbing down millions of students.
If you were as open minded and as thorough a reader as you claim, you would have read this:
Amazon.com: A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror (9781595230010): Larry Schweikart, Michael Patrick Allen: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41H1P62SARL.@@AMEPARAM@@41H1P62SARL
I've read both.
Thanks for an attempt at an answer. You may learn yet, but I see it will take some long and arduous work.
"This book has taught me more about our history than any I’ve read in years. A Patriot's History of the United States should be required reading for all Americans." Glenn Beck [ A real historian! ]
The only argument you have ever given is on wealth, and your rather childish assumption that it grows like grass. The statistics above stand in contradiction to that silly assumption. Reality is lost on you ideologues. I really have to say nothing as the stats disprove the 'money grows on trees' theory you hide behind as a conservative apologist. Believe if you like, poverty is real and growing in this nation where it shouldn't given our resources and freedoms - oh, and laws.
Calling yourself a patriot or using patriot should signal to any thoughtful person you are in revisionist world. Why use the word, shouldn't the text demonstrate the concept. Zinn uses 'People' exactly for the reason it is the elitist who unusually write our histories from a biased and privileged position. Your reference proves that POV. There is no doubt America accomplished some great things in spite of the greed and usual self centered nature of humankind, but to gloss over reality may make you comfortable, but in the end it is a distortion, or worse, a lie. One wonders why?
I had a hard time finding reputable review sources of this book, it seems it is greatly popular among conservatives but not so popular among real historians? Some of the bits I did read demonstrate why, it is whitewash propaganda, and not intelligent history. So to be fair I started reading it. I learned one thing, now I know where Michelle Bachmann gets her crazy history. Anyone who knows anything knows the following is horsepucky.
"This honest review of American history explains, for example: That the same founders who owned slaves instituted numerous ways to ensure slavery could not survive. That while many historians have misinterpreted "separation of church and state" to mean freedom from worship, our founders clearly understood it meant freedom to worship." HUH! WHO KNEW!
Immediately any non-ideologue knows this is crap, stupid crap. When a presumed historian starts a history by telling you the 'left' - who are they anyway - is incorrect and they are correct - well do I need to say anymore? It shows the reason they titled their book. Pure Crap - try again. If you want to read real history read Manchester's 'The Glory and the Dream.'
A few pertinent comments from Amazon reviews below.
"There is nothing about this book that even attempts to be historically accurate or objective. It's not history, it's mythology based on a heavy cherry-picked selection of historical events. I'm sure it will tell it's audience exactly what they want to hear but the aggressive, defensive, vitriolic and pandering tones this book takes on nearly every page made it a very hard read for me.
The authors vilify Howard Zinn for writing history from a leftist view, which they accurately point to as slanted and biased. Their solution is to write something slanted and biased in the other direction, jingoistic, mythical, and bordering on the ridiculous. I would argue that the opposite of propaganda isn't different propaganda, but objective neutrality. Still, even as a propaganda piece, their book lacks three things Zinn's book has:
- Quality scholarship
- Interesting information
- Quality writing ....
I don't personally agree with Howard Zinn's politics, but I found his "People's History" to be an interesting read because of his regular and fascinating inclusion of extensive first-hand source material that I had never encountered in other history books that told the stories of the people thoughout history who weren't "the winners"." http://www.amazon.com/Patriots-Hist...tBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R3GWWY611TQVA9
and another review
"It's gotten to be a cliche that any time some disgruntled white guy calls himself a patriot, you know you're going to be treated to whines about how white guys don't get any respect any more----despite uni studies being little but White Guy Studies-----and why do we need to study anybody but White Guys? Also, every patriotic white guy knows that there was no such thing as racism or sexism back in the good old day.
The proverb goes, "The winners write the history books." Nobody used to question the methods by which they 'won'. I'm sure Bull Connor considers turning the hoses on civil rights protesters to have been a good idea. And I'm sure if he wrote a history of the civil rights movement, it'd be classic Angry White Guy history, too. The fact is, unless you're going to study all sides of history, it's not worth bothering. This kind of book is nothing but attempting to whitewash history yet again and place white guys in the forefront. The fact that the writers are popular with the Limbaugh set says it all. America's not just red, white, and blue but a whole melting pot full of colors. All these writers want to write about are the white parts of the country. That's not history.
Pathetic." http://www.amazon.com/Patriots-Hist...rtBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#RECTZ6SFPKMW2
"This book has taught me more about our history than any I’ve read in years. A Patriot's History of the United States should be required reading for all Americans." Glenn Beck [ A real historian! ]
The only argument you have ever given is on wealth, and your rather childish assumption that it grows like grass. The statistics above stand in contradiction to that silly assumption. Reality is lost on you ideologues. I really have to say nothing as the stats disprove the 'money grows on trees' theory you hide behind as a conservative apologist. Believe if you like, poverty is real and growing in this nation where it shouldn't given our resources and freedoms - oh, and laws.
Calling yourself a patriot or using patriot should signal to any thoughtful person you are in revisionist world. Why use the word, shouldn't the text demonstrate the concept. Zinn uses 'People' exactly for the reason it is the elitist who unusually write our histories from a biased and privileged position. Your reference proves that POV. There is no doubt America accomplished some great things in spite of the greed and usual self centered nature of humankind, but to gloss over reality may make you comfortable, but in the end it is a distortion, or worse, a lie. One wonders why?
I had a hard time finding reputable review sources of this book, it seems it is greatly popular among conservatives but not so popular among real historians? Some of the bits I did read demonstrate why, it is whitewash propaganda, and not intelligent history. So to be fair I started reading it. I learned one thing, now I know where Michelle Bachmann gets her crazy history. Anyone who knows anything knows the following is horsepucky.
"This honest review of American history explains, for example: That the same founders who owned slaves instituted numerous ways to ensure slavery could not survive. That while many historians have misinterpreted "separation of church and state" to mean freedom from worship, our founders clearly understood it meant freedom to worship." HUH! WHO KNEW!
Immediately any non-ideologue knows this is crap, stupid crap. When a presumed historian starts a history by telling you the 'left' - who are they anyway - is incorrect and they are correct - well do I need to say anymore? It shows the reason they titled their book. Pure Crap - try again. If you want to read real history read Manchester's 'The Glory and the Dream.'
A few pertinent comments from Amazon reviews below.
"There is nothing about this book that even attempts to be historically accurate or objective. It's not history, it's mythology based on a heavy cherry-picked selection of historical events. I'm sure it will tell it's audience exactly what they want to hear but the aggressive, defensive, vitriolic and pandering tones this book takes on nearly every page made it a very hard read for me.
The authors vilify Howard Zinn for writing history from a leftist view, which they accurately point to as slanted and biased. Their solution is to write something slanted and biased in the other direction, jingoistic, mythical, and bordering on the ridiculous. I would argue that the opposite of propaganda isn't different propaganda, but objective neutrality. Still, even as a propaganda piece, their book lacks three things Zinn's book has:
- Quality scholarship
- Interesting information
- Quality writing ....
I don't personally agree with Howard Zinn's politics, but I found his "People's History" to be an interesting read because of his regular and fascinating inclusion of extensive first-hand source material that I had never encountered in other history books that told the stories of the people thoughout history who weren't "the winners"." http://www.amazon.com/Patriots-Hist...tBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R3GWWY611TQVA9
and another review
"It's gotten to be a cliche that any time some disgruntled white guy calls himself a patriot, you know you're going to be treated to whines about how white guys don't get any respect any more----despite uni studies being little but White Guy Studies-----and why do we need to study anybody but White Guys? Also, every patriotic white guy knows that there was no such thing as racism or sexism back in the good old day.
The proverb goes, "The winners write the history books." Nobody used to question the methods by which they 'won'. I'm sure Bull Connor considers turning the hoses on civil rights protesters to have been a good idea. And I'm sure if he wrote a history of the civil rights movement, it'd be classic Angry White Guy history, too. The fact is, unless you're going to study all sides of history, it's not worth bothering. This kind of book is nothing but attempting to whitewash history yet again and place white guys in the forefront. The fact that the writers are popular with the Limbaugh set says it all. America's not just red, white, and blue but a whole melting pot full of colors. All these writers want to write about are the white parts of the country. That's not history.
Pathetic." http://www.amazon.com/Patriots-Hist...rtBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#RECTZ6SFPKMW2
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Hilarious Midcan, thanks for my morning laugh.
You rely on the Amazon reviews to support your conclusion, yet ignore the fact that overall the book has received 4 out of 5 stars. In your first quoted one-star review the same author wrote this:
You claim that you "had a hard time finding reputable review sources of this book", yet in Amazon's main page of the book they have summary reviews from the Wall Street Journal, National Review and the Humane Studies Review. A few clicks more and I found links to the full text to these and several others.
With regards to wealth production, it does grow like grass. Or cotton, or trees. The annual cotton crop in the State of California is worth more than all the gold ever mined there. And of course trees grow, can be processed into lumber to make homes, which in turn are the #1 way that middle class Americans amass wealth.
You rely on the Amazon reviews to support your conclusion, yet ignore the fact that overall the book has received 4 out of 5 stars. In your first quoted one-star review the same author wrote this:
You claim that you "had a hard time finding reputable review sources of this book", yet in Amazon's main page of the book they have summary reviews from the Wall Street Journal, National Review and the Humane Studies Review. A few clicks more and I found links to the full text to these and several others.
With regards to wealth production, it does grow like grass. Or cotton, or trees. The annual cotton crop in the State of California is worth more than all the gold ever mined there. And of course trees grow, can be processed into lumber to make homes, which in turn are the #1 way that middle class Americans amass wealth.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
You didn't address the statistics that disprove your money grow on trees point of view. If it were true the numbers would change under all presidents and not just under democrats in the mold of LBJ. The Bushs for instance have a negative job rating. Go figure.
Please provide a reputable review source for the book, the WSJ is awful, a corporate tool, only proving my points. Provide a few if you can?
You need to revisit Zinn as I was just looking at the latest edition, a nicely made book with his photo on the cover. His assessment of Carter and Clinton are tough but fair, you may enjoy them but for the wrong reasons. LOL
Do you really believe the statements below? I'll wait for an answer to this question and those reviews from reputable sources. Thanks
"This honest review of American history explains, for example: That the same founders who owned slaves instituted numerous ways to ensure slavery could not survive. That while many historians have misinterpreted "separation of church and state" to mean freedom from worship, our founders clearly understood it meant freedom to worship."
More reality below.
"If The $5.15 Hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
A Minimum Wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.
Such A Worker would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.
In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.
In 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000."
http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/look-numbers-how-rich-get-richer
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Thanks again Midcan for more laughs. You rail at the WSJ, ask for additional sources which have already been provided, then cite Mother Jones...
The fact is that I've read both books and you've only read one. Yet you've formed an opinion on both.
The issues of CEO salary and minimum wage have nothing to do with the overall growth of wealth. You are simply confused.
With regards to your question, "do I believe this", your quoted text is not part of the book, but an opinion of the publisher. And you only quoted half of the publisher's statement. Here is the entire paragraph, which provides the basis for his opinion:
The fact is that I've read both books and you've only read one. Yet you've formed an opinion on both.
The issues of CEO salary and minimum wage have nothing to do with the overall growth of wealth. You are simply confused.
With regards to your question, "do I believe this", your quoted text is not part of the book, but an opinion of the publisher. And you only quoted half of the publisher's statement. Here is the entire paragraph, which provides the basis for his opinion:
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
Strange question from one who lives in a country with neither!
America has one of the greatest cultures in the world. That really doesn't say much for culture.
If wealth is only in the hands of the few, it has a great deal to do with the living standards of those not so fortunate to be born into certain classes. Nothing at all confusing, third world nations have this separation, only larger. Egypt represents the consequences. I know your answer - but given a global economy where lower wages overseas contribute to the problem of jobs etc, and when the proceeds of those low wages go only to the wealthy and powerful, money growth in your money model is meaningless and irrelevant.
I read a bit of the book and the quotes were from the introduction if I recall correctly, but you are doing what you do so well, avoiding the question and its implications. You downplay the gist of the book, so once again do you agree with the statements? And I read enough to know it is BS, as an English
teacher once told us, one doesn't have to eat (read) the whole thing to know it is bad. The WSJ is pure crap in its opinion pages which makes me doubt the whole thing. And if you believe the comments, please provide any source you can find, but please answer first - do you believe those comments reflect history?
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
Since America has lots all of its manufacturing jobs we need to start focusing on one strengh that still exists. Agriculture. The government can start training americans to be farmers. We have a lot of good land for agriculture and the government could easily create more agricultural land. Its time to return back to the farm. Urbanization is finished and we need to start ruralization. This agricultural paradise could be defeated by illegal immigrants so will have to solve that problem first.
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That is true of course in third world countries under dictators but when we use the term "modern economics" we are referring to capitalism in free societies. In capitalist USA, wealthy people create corporations, and these: "can only gain revenue by selling things that people want; and only make a profit if they sell these things for more than they cost to produce. In the process they give employment to people who prefer that job to any other they can find. Therefore, profit-making firms create wealth for their customers, owners, and employees. They take wealth from no one."
James Delingpole
I can see I'm not going to get answers to the tough questions.
My father used to say it takes money to make money, he said that cynically having only a tenth grade education and growing up in the streets of NY before WWII. In a certain sense that old phrase has meaning as most people pretty much remain in the class they were birthed into. But money has other powers that many refuse to see, it can buy the best lawyers and advice, it can play the market, it can do things the week to week wage earner cannot. So anyway scanning Google's Fast Flip today, I found a few pieces OT and worth sharing. Gawd help the working folk if the dumb democrats move right and join the social Darwinian republicans.
"Mr. President, if my mother hasn’t lived a life worthy of the social security insurance, whose premiums she willing paid while teaching thousands upon thousands of students over thirty eight long years, I don’t know who the hell does."
'Rich Take From Poor as U.S. Subsidy Law Funds Luxury Hotels' http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...lion-u-s-subsidy-law-funds-luxury-hotels.html
and this on SS:
"What bothers me the most about this is the way my very own President Obama, who seems to have a pretty good grasp of the way our economy works, and some level of understanding about how all its moving parts work together, has fallen hook, line and sinker for the short-sided political view of our nation’s most efficient stimulus program.
The Social Security funding formula itself is so simple, middle school children could administer it. It is not subjective or exclusionary. And despite all the years of messaging and hundreds of millions of dollars spent by conservative interests that have been poured into permanently marrying the word “entitlement” to “social security”, it is and has always been primarily an old age insurance policy that is designed to pay off if you live long enough." http://bigthink.com/ideas/26640
"If there’s a better government program than Social Security, I’d like to know what it is." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/o...ion&adxnnlx=1295950404-KNSbza+01x/mCT2HDAn8UQ
"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise , or , at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions... is... the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith
My father used to say it takes money to make money, he said that cynically having only a tenth grade education and growing up in the streets of NY before WWII. In a certain sense that old phrase has meaning as most people pretty much remain in the class they were birthed into. But money has other powers that many refuse to see, it can buy the best lawyers and advice, it can play the market, it can do things the week to week wage earner cannot. So anyway scanning Google's Fast Flip today, I found a few pieces OT and worth sharing. Gawd help the working folk if the dumb democrats move right and join the social Darwinian republicans.
"Mr. President, if my mother hasn’t lived a life worthy of the social security insurance, whose premiums she willing paid while teaching thousands upon thousands of students over thirty eight long years, I don’t know who the hell does."
'Rich Take From Poor as U.S. Subsidy Law Funds Luxury Hotels' http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...lion-u-s-subsidy-law-funds-luxury-hotels.html
and this on SS:
"What bothers me the most about this is the way my very own President Obama, who seems to have a pretty good grasp of the way our economy works, and some level of understanding about how all its moving parts work together, has fallen hook, line and sinker for the short-sided political view of our nation’s most efficient stimulus program.
The Social Security funding formula itself is so simple, middle school children could administer it. It is not subjective or exclusionary. And despite all the years of messaging and hundreds of millions of dollars spent by conservative interests that have been poured into permanently marrying the word “entitlement” to “social security”, it is and has always been primarily an old age insurance policy that is designed to pay off if you live long enough." http://bigthink.com/ideas/26640
"If there’s a better government program than Social Security, I’d like to know what it is." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/o...ion&adxnnlx=1295950404-KNSbza+01x/mCT2HDAn8UQ
"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise , or , at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions... is... the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
What are your questions?