APP - Economics Plutocracy

M

midcan5

Member
"Free markets do not create the conditions for free markets." Brandon Emrys

It took a short time for the Trump real estate presidency to shift from obvious attempts to explain the unexplainable to the shortened version of explaining the inexplainable. One has to remember this presidency is about two things only, keeping the base and its media happy with tweet length intelligence and establishing friendly relations with dictatorial nations where oligarchs etc rule and real estate will make Trump INC rich. People have to wake up and stop taking this farce serious, when Trump road the gold escalator to landlord power unknown in modern times, the money gods smiled and all was well in the plutocracy.

See this video on topic: 'Chrystia Freeland https://www.ted.com/talks/chrystia_freeland_the_rise_of_the_new_global_super _rich

-



What to read on Topic:

Highly Recommended: 'Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right' Jane Mayer
'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal' Kim Phillips-Fein
'Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else' by Chrystia Freeland
'One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America' by Kevin M. Kruse

Trump today:

http://bostonreview.net/class-inequ...sleight-hand-will-bring-ruin-american-workers

More links:

https://bostonreview.net/forum/brishen-rogers-basic-income-just-society
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/the-conservative-nanny-state-strikes-again


"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
 
The trump base consists of two disparate factions. Republicans who didn't learn the lessons from selling their souls to the devil with the Teabaggers, along with the solid segment of the base which consists of the basket of idiots that Clinton referenced. They don't know, nor do they care about anything having to do with the economy, jobs, or legislative agendas. They just know he's pasty white, and he says cool shit.
 
Althea said:
The trump base consists of two disparate factions. Republicans who didn't learn the lessons from selling their souls to the devil with the Teabaggers, along with the solid segment of the base which consists of the basket of idiots that Clinton referenced. They don't know, nor do they care about anything having to do with the economy, jobs, or legislative agendas. They just know he's pasty white, and he says cool shit.
Click to expand...

No prejudice in that post is there?
 
It is very difficult to understand the tea party followers as much of its growth and support was created by wealthy conservative media and their so called think tanks. Americans for Prosperity is an example, it is a creation of the Koch brothers and talks about freedom like they mean freedom. What they are about is destroying government and its regulatory structures. They were the money behind the tea party. Hillary was right, there are lots of hateful people in America, Obama's presidency clearly demonstrated that fact, I'm not sure you can change most of them with information or historical knowledge but the majority are not in this basket. The majority follow and believe the propaganda and so long as citizen's united allows money to hide but influence, it will be hard to get a balanced message out. I'll try later to quote from Jane Mayer's excellent book Dark Money. And the Kochs went after her after she wrote the article below.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations


"A new, data-filled study by the Harvard scholars Theda Skocpol and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez reports that the Kochs have established centralized command of a “nationally-federated, full-service, ideologically focused” machine that “operates on the scale of a national U.S. political party.” The Koch network, they conclude, acts like a “force field,” pulling Republican candidates and office-holders further to the right. Last week, the Times reported that funds from the Koch network are fuelling both ongoing rebellions against government control of Western land and the legal challenge to labor unions that is before the Supreme Court."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/new-koch
 
midcan5 said:
It is very difficult to understand the tea party followers as much of its growth and support was created by wealthy conservative media and their so called think tanks. Americans for Prosperity is an example, it is a creation of the Koch brothers and talks about freedom like they mean freedom. What they are about is destroying government and its regulatory structures. They were the money behind the tea party. Hillary was right, there are lots of hateful people in America, Obama's presidency clearly demonstrated that fact, I'm not sure you can change most of them with information or historical knowledge but the majority are not in this basket. The majority follow and believe the propaganda and so long as citizen's united allows money to hide but influence, it will be hard to get a balanced message out. I'll try later to quote from Jane Mayer's excellent book Dark Money. And the Kochs went after her after she wrote the article below.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations


"A new, data-filled study by the Harvard scholars Theda Skocpol and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez reports that the Kochs have established centralized command of a “nationally-federated, full-service, ideologically focused” machine that “operates on the scale of a national U.S. political party.” The Koch network, they conclude, acts like a “force field,” pulling Republican candidates and office-holders further to the right. Last week, the Times reported that funds from the Koch network are fuelling both ongoing rebellions against government control of Western land and the legal challenge to labor unions that is before the Supreme Court."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/new-koch
Click to expand...
No. You won't change any of them. The challenge is that you have the idiots, and the anti govt. ultra wealthy in the same basket. The latter is willing to put up with the former, as long as it delivers the control of the country to 'their' side.


They want to take health insurance away from millions, solely to save a 3.8% tax on their cap. gains that's been irking them since ACA was passed.
 
Politics today is controlled by money, if you read any book this summer, read "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" by Jane Mayer.

Excerpt below to give you a sense of their control. Scott Walker as well as many in Congress are there because of Koch money. That voters can be so easily swayed is scary in a democracy. Citizens United has been a catastrophe for democracy and the American way. Trump wants some of that money thus his decision on leaving the Paris accords.

"Buoyed by their success in Wisconsin, the Kochs began to focus in earnest on the presidential race. It had taken years, but by 2012 they were becoming a rival center of power to the Republican establishment. Political insiders who had once scoffed at them now marveled at the breadth of their political operation.

While amassing one of the most lucrative fortunes in the world, the Kochs had also created an ideological assembly line justifying it. Now they had added a powerful political machine to protect it. They had hired top-level operatives, financed their own voter data bank, commissioned state-of-the-art polling, and created a fund-raising operation that enlisted hundreds of other wealthy Americans to help pay for it. They had also forged a coalition of some seventeen allied conservative groups with niche constituencies who would mask their centralized source of funding and carry their message. To mobilize Latino voters, they formed a group called the Libre Initiative. To reach conservative women, they funded Concerned Women for America. For millennials, they formed Generation Opportunity. To cover up fingerprints on television attack ads, they hid behind the American Future Fund and other front groups. Their network's money also flowed to gun groups, retirees, veterans, antilabor groups, anti tax groups, evangelical Christian groups, and even $4.5 million for something called the Center for Shared Services, which coordinated administrative tasks such as office space rentals and paperwork for the others. Americans for Prosperity, meanwhile, organized chapters all across the country. The Kochs had established what was in effect their own private political party.

Secrecy permeated every level of the operation. One former Koch executive, Ben Pratt, who became the chief operating officer of the voter data bank, Themis, used a quotation from Salvador Dali on his personal blog that could have served as the enterprise's motto: "The secret of my influence is that it has always remained secret."

Robert Tappan, a spokesman for Koch Industries, defended the secrecy as a matter of security, because "Koch has been targeted repeatedly in the past by the Administration and its allies because of our real (or, in some cases, perceived) beliefs and activities concerning public policy and political issues," overlooking decades of secrecy from the John Birch Society onward.

This consolidation of power reflected the overall national trend of increasingly large and concentrated campaign spending by the ultra-wealthy in the post-Citizens United era. The spending, in turn, was a reflection of the growing concentration of wealth more generally in America. As a result, the 2012 election was a tipping point of sorts. Not only was it by far the most expensive election in the country's history; it was also the first time since the advent of modern campaign-finance laws when outside spending groups, including super PACs and tax exempt nonprofit groups, flush with unlimited contributions from the country's richest donors, spent more than $1 billion to influence federal elections. And when the spending on attack ads run by nonprofits was factored in, outside spending groups might well have outspent the campaigns and the political parties for the first time.

The Koch network loomed as a colossus over this new political landscape. On the right, there were other formidable donor networks, including the one assembled by Karl Rove, but no single outside group spent as much...."

pps 384/385
 
midcan5 said:
Politics today is controlled by money, if you read any book this summer, read "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" by Jane Mayer.

Excerpt below to give you a sense of their control. Scott Walker as well as many in Congress are there because of Koch money. That voters can be so easily swayed is scary in a democracy. Citizens United has been a catastrophe for democracy and the American way. Trump wants some of that money thus his decision on leaving the Paris accords.

"Buoyed by their success in Wisconsin, the Kochs began to focus in earnest on the presidential race. It had taken years, but by 2012 they were becoming a rival center of power to the Republican establishment. Political insiders who had once scoffed at them now marveled at the breadth of their political operation.

While amassing one of the most lucrative fortunes in the world, the Kochs had also created an ideological assembly line justifying it. Now they had added a powerful political machine to protect it. They had hired top-level operatives, financed their own voter data bank, commissioned state-of-the-art polling, and created a fund-raising operation that enlisted hundreds of other wealthy Americans to help pay for it. They had also forged a coalition of some seventeen allied conservative groups with niche constituencies who would mask their centralized source of funding and carry their message. To mobilize Latino voters, they formed a group called the Libre Initiative. To reach conservative women, they funded Concerned Women for America. For millennials, they formed Generation Opportunity. To cover up fingerprints on television attack ads, they hid behind the American Future Fund and other front groups. Their network's money also flowed to gun groups, retirees, veterans, antilabor groups, anti tax groups, evangelical Christian groups, and even $4.5 million for something called the Center for Shared Services, which coordinated administrative tasks such as office space rentals and paperwork for the others. Americans for Prosperity, meanwhile, organized chapters all across the country. The Kochs had established what was in effect their own private political party.

Secrecy permeated every level of the operation. One former Koch executive, Ben Pratt, who became the chief operating officer of the voter data bank, Themis, used a quotation from Salvador Dali on his personal blog that could have served as the enterprise's motto: "The secret of my influence is that it has always remained secret."

Robert Tappan, a spokesman for Koch Industries, defended the secrecy as a matter of security, because "Koch has been targeted repeatedly in the past by the Administration and its allies because of our real (or, in some cases, perceived) beliefs and activities concerning public policy and political issues," overlooking decades of secrecy from the John Birch Society onward.

This consolidation of power reflected the overall national trend of increasingly large and concentrated campaign spending by the ultra-wealthy in the post-Citizens United era. The spending, in turn, was a reflection of the growing concentration of wealth more generally in America. As a result, the 2012 election was a tipping point of sorts. Not only was it by far the most expensive election in the country's history; it was also the first time since the advent of modern campaign-finance laws when outside spending groups, including super PACs and tax exempt nonprofit groups, flush with unlimited contributions from the country's richest donors, spent more than $1 billion to influence federal elections. And when the spending on attack ads run by nonprofits was factored in, outside spending groups might well have outspent the campaigns and the political parties for the first time.

The Koch network loomed as a colossus over this new political landscape. On the right, there were other formidable donor networks, including the one assembled by Karl Rove, but no single outside group spent as much...."

pps 384/385
Click to expand...


I didn't read the book and probably won't, but just curious. What does this author say about big money from left wing donors?

While I can see your angst over the evil Koch brothers, I wonder what you would say about this

In 2010 the Koch brothers gave $18 million in political donations, but they only ranked 59th in donations. But the following unions gave a combined 15 times more in donations (mostly to democrats) than the Koch's

AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).

So again, while I can feel your angst over "big money" in politics, you will forgive me if I question your motives as your entire argument seems very one sided. This is where you throw out the obligatory "I hate big money on both sides" to try to cover yourself.

Warm regards,
 
I Love America said:
I didn't read the book and probably won't, but just curious. What does this author say about big money from left wing donors?

While I can see your angst over the evil Koch brothers, I wonder what you would say about this

In 2010 the Koch brothers gave $18 million in political donations, but they only ranked 59th in donations. But the following unions gave a combined 15 times more in donations (mostly to democrats) than the Koch's

AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).

So again, while I can feel your angst over "big money" in politics, you will forgive me if I question your motives as your entire argument seems very one sided. This is where you throw out the obligatory "I hate big money on both sides" to try to cover yourself.

Warm regards,
Click to expand...

There is a fundamental difference between Unions who support working people and billionaires whose goal is to primarily support themselves. Many people contribute to unions, the Kochs are few people and their goal is control of government or destruction of government and its regulations. That is why Trump bowed out of the Paris Accord. Wake up and smell the reality.

And the Kochs are way ahead of all of those figures. 59th is a fiction based on selective BS. Did you not see the B in billion quote above? They and their fellow billionaires are well above a billion and much of it oddly is called 'social welfare'. There are a few rich liberal contributors but they are nothing compared to these people and they are mentioned in book. Today the wealthy right are in control of the republican party and any congress person who disagreed will face their wrath and mostly likely lose to a more rigid ideologue. So far that is their record as the Senate demonstrated in 2014. The Kochs are the controllers (lots of so called think tanks and PACs hiding the money} and their friends contributers, the money they make makes your figures look paltry. If you aren't going to challenge your assumptions so be it, but others who read the book will learn some truths.

Another excerpt to give an idea of how money controls politics today.

"Charles then ticked off the names of the thirty-two donors who had contributed a million dollars or more during the previous twelve months. Nine were billionaires whose fortunes had landed them on Forbes's list of the four hundred wealthiest Americans. Some, like the finance stars Charles Schwab, Ken Griffin, and Paul Singer, as well as Amway's Richard DeVos and the natural gas entrepreneur Harold Hamm, were fairly well-known. Many others, though, were members of the invisible rich-owners of enormously profitable private enterprises that rarely drew public attention. Two among the nine billionaires, for instance, John Menard Jr., whose fortune Forbes estimated at $6 billion, and Diane Hendricks, whose fortune the magazine valued at $2.9 billion, owned private building and home supply companies in Wisconsin and were not well-known outside the state, let alone in it. Many of the nonbillionaires whom Charles recognized were familiar faces in the Kochs' circle. There were the Popes from North Carolina, the Friess family from Wyoming, and the Robertsons of the Texas oil clan, as well as coal barons like Joe Craft and the Gilliams and members of the Marshall family, the only significant outside owners of Koch Industries' stock.

Charles then added, "Ten more will remain anonymous, including David and me. So we're very humble in that," he joked. More seriously, though, he declared that "the plan is, the next seminar, I'm going to read the names of the ten million"not mere one million-dollar donors. " p 374 Dark Money
 
midcan5 said:
There is a fundamental difference between Unions who support working people and billionaires whose goal is to primarily support themselves. Many people contribute to unions, the Kochs are few people and their goal is control of government or destruction of government and its regulations. That is why Trump bowed out of the Paris Accord. Wake up and smell the reality.

And the Kochs are way ahead of all of those figures. 59th is a fiction based on selective BS. Did you not see the B in billion quote above? They and their fellow billionaires are well above a billion and much of it oddly is called 'social welfare'. There are a few rich liberal contributors but they are nothing compared to these people and they are mentioned in book. Today the wealthy right are in control of the republican party and any congress person who disagreed will face their wrath and mostly likely lose to a more rigid ideologue. So far that is their record as the Senate demonstrated in 2014. The Kochs are the controllers (lots of so called think tanks and PACs hiding the money} and their friends contributers, the money they make makes your figures look paltry. If you aren't going to challenge your assumptions so be it, but others who read the book will learn some truths.

Another excerpt to give an idea of how money controls politics today.

"Charles then ticked off the names of the thirty-two donors who had contributed a million dollars or more during the previous twelve months. Nine were billionaires whose fortunes had landed them on Forbes's list of the four hundred wealthiest Americans. Some, like the finance stars Charles Schwab, Ken Griffin, and Paul Singer, as well as Amway's Richard DeVos and the natural gas entrepreneur Harold Hamm, were fairly well-known. Many others, though, were members of the invisible rich-owners of enormously profitable private enterprises that rarely drew public attention. Two among the nine billionaires, for instance, John Menard Jr., whose fortune Forbes estimated at $6 billion, and Diane Hendricks, whose fortune the magazine valued at $2.9 billion, owned private building and home supply companies in Wisconsin and were not well-known outside the state, let alone in it. Many of the nonbillionaires whom Charles recognized were familiar faces in the Kochs' circle. There were the Popes from North Carolina, the Friess family from Wyoming, and the Robertsons of the Texas oil clan, as well as coal barons like Joe Craft and the Gilliams and members of the Marshall family, the only significant outside owners of Koch Industries' stock.

Charles then added, "Ten more will remain anonymous, including David and me. So we're very humble in that," he joked. More seriously, though, he declared that "the plan is, the next seminar, I'm going to read the names of the ten million"not mere one million-dollar donors. " p 374 Dark Money
Click to expand...

As I suspected, you are fine with money in politics as long as you agree with the cause.

I also notice that you have left out a significant name. I believe it is George Soros, but I guess he is a small time player to you.

I get it. You hate the Koch Brothers.

What is ironic is you wail about freedom of speech yet you don't really like it when it comes down to it. What you really mean is that you want to be free to spout off whatever you want to say but are more than willing to restrict what others can say.

Have you ever thought that if the government remained small and limited in scope and never signaled to businesses that they would impact their bottom line that businesses wouldn't donate to them? I know that may be a bit too deep for you to comprehend
 
I Love America said:
As I suspected, you are fine with money in politics as long as you agree with the cause.

I also notice that you have left out a significant name. I believe it is George Soros, but I guess he is a small time player to you.

I get it. You hate the Koch Brothers.

What is ironic is you wail about freedom of speech yet you don't really like it when it comes down to it. What you really mean is that you want to be free to spout off whatever you want to say but are more than willing to restrict what others can say.

Have you ever thought that if the government remained small and limited in scope and never signaled to businesses that they would impact their bottom line that businesses wouldn't donate to them? I know that may be a bit too deep for you to comprehend
Click to expand...

I hate no one not even you? LOL Show me how Soros uses his money to make more money while getting out of paying taxes and polluting the earth - No restrictions, show me, I've shown you. Kochs have been caught and fined many times etc etc etc. Read about them sometime. https://thinkprogress.org/rand-paul...-koch-brothers-should-go-to-jail-d257f1a555b4

If speech is controlled it is hardly free speech, republicans must kowtow to the Kochs and their octopus of organizations. The idiocy of North Carolina and the republicans in congress are all beholden to them. That ain't freedom folks. Sorry guys unless you are Koch paid there is no justification for their control in a democracy. St. Peter is the only hope. ;)

"The group of high-powered donors plans to spend between $300 million and $400 million on political projects over the 2018 cycle."
http://ktla.com/2017/03/23/koch-bro...licans-who-vote-against-gop-health-care-bill/


"The Koch brothers contribute a large amount of money to conservative, libertarian, and free-market individuals and organizations.[1] They have given more than $196 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations.[1] Tax records indicate that, in 2008, the three main Koch family foundations contributed to 34 political and policy organizations, three of which they founded, and several of which they direct.[1][2]”

https://obamacarefacts.com/koch-brothers-facts-obamacare/


"The advocacy groups helmed by Charles and David Koch have unveiled a new pool of money for advertisements, field programs and mailings that would exclude those who vote for the health care bill they oppose on Thursday. The effort, which they described as worth millions of dollars, is an explicit warning to on-the-fence Republicans from one of the most influential players in electoral politics not to cross them." http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...o-decide-the-fate-of-the-gop-healthcare-bill/


"Their political network helped finance the Tea Party and powers today's GOP. Koch-affiliated organizations raised some $400 million during the 2012 election, and aim to spend another $290 million to elect Republicans in this year's midterms. So far in this cycle, Koch-backed entities have bought 44,000 political ads to boost Republican efforts to take back the Senate."

Guess what - they did.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924
 
midcan5 said:
I hate no one not even you? LOL Show me how Soros uses his money to make more money while getting out of paying taxes and polluting the earth - No restrictions, show me, I've shown you. Kochs have been caught and fined many times etc etc etc. Read about them sometime. https://thinkprogress.org/rand-paul...-koch-brothers-should-go-to-jail-d257f1a555b4

If speech is controlled it is hardly free speech, republicans must kowtow to the Kochs and their octopus of organizations. The idiocy of North Carolina and the republicans in congress are all beholden to them. That ain't freedom folks. Sorry guys unless you are Koch paid there is no justification for their control in a democracy. St. Peter is the only hope. ;)

"The group of high-powered donors plans to spend between $300 million and $400 million on political projects over the 2018 cycle."
http://ktla.com/2017/03/23/koch-bro...licans-who-vote-against-gop-health-care-bill/


"The Koch brothers contribute a large amount of money to conservative, libertarian, and free-market individuals and organizations.[1] They have given more than $196 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations.[1] Tax records indicate that, in 2008, the three main Koch family foundations contributed to 34 political and policy organizations, three of which they founded, and several of which they direct.[1][2]”

https://obamacarefacts.com/koch-brothers-facts-obamacare/


"The advocacy groups helmed by Charles and David Koch have unveiled a new pool of money for advertisements, field programs and mailings that would exclude those who vote for the health care bill they oppose on Thursday. The effort, which they described as worth millions of dollars, is an explicit warning to on-the-fence Republicans from one of the most influential players in electoral politics not to cross them." http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...o-decide-the-fate-of-the-gop-healthcare-bill/


"Their political network helped finance the Tea Party and powers today's GOP. Koch-affiliated organizations raised some $400 million during the 2012 election, and aim to spend another $290 million to elect Republicans in this year's midterms. So far in this cycle, Koch-backed entities have bought 44,000 political ads to boost Republican efforts to take back the Senate."

Guess what - they did.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924
Click to expand...

That is an interesting premise you start you post off with.

So as long as Soros doesn't pollute the erf and pays his taxes, you are OK with his money influencing politics?

I think you are unwittingly corroborating what I accused you of. I just know how to get my point across in fewer words
 
midcan5 said:
Example from Georgia. Citizens United may be the most detrimental for democracy piece of law even passed by our SCOTUS.

'Dark money is fueling Karen Handel’s campaign for Congress'

'The Georgia Republican opposed anonymous campaign mailers — until they benefited her.'

https://thinkprogress.org/karen-handel-dark-money-d0a0dadd2d04
Click to expand...

SCOTUS doesn't PASS laws. You would think with all the reading you claim to do, you would have learned that nugget by now. As I have said before being well read doesn't necessarily equate to being smart.
 
I Love America said:
SCOTUS doesn't PASS laws. You would think with all the reading you claim to do, you would have learned that nugget by now. As I have said before being well read doesn't necessarily equate to being smart.
Click to expand...

I would disagree, law is written by legislatures and Oked by law. The court is the law, and as the law they determine what is law. Even if you mean by 'pass' write the law, you must by now realize they give in their rulings the reasons the law is modified, left as is, or overruled. Our history is full of bad laws and good laws.
 
midcan5 said:
I would disagree, law is written by legislatures and Oked by law. The court is the law, and as the law they determine what is law. Even if you mean by 'pass' write the law, you must by now realize they give in their rulings the reasons the law is modified, left as is, or overruled. Our history is full of bad laws and good laws.
Click to expand...

Your premise as always is flawed. Not all written laws go to the Supreme Court for review. In fact that was never the intent of the Supreme Court. They were never intended to rule on the Constitutionality of laws. It was assume that the Congress would abide by the Constitution.
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
Your premise as always is flawed. Not all written laws go to the Supreme Court for review. In fact that was never the intent of the Supreme Court. They were never intended to rule on the Constitutionality of laws. It was assume that the Congress would abide by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Of course they don't, but your counter point is irrelevant.
 
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." Dwight D. Eisenhower

"How Citizens United changed politics, in 7 charts"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/

"Free markets do not create the conditions for free markets." Brandon Emrys

A bit off topic but interesting.

"In the Golden Age between the end of the Second World War and 1973, people in what was then known as the ‘industrialised world’ – Western Europe, North America, and Japan – saw their living standards improve year after year. They looked forward to even greater prosperity for their children. Culturally, the first half of the Golden Age was a time of conformity, dominated by hard work to recover from the disaster of the war. The second half of the age was culturally very different, marked by protest and artistic and political experimentation. Behind that fermentation lay the confidence of people raised in a white-hot economy: if their adventures turned out badly, they knew, they could still find a job." https://aeon.co/essays/how-economic-boom-times-in-the-west-came-to-an-end

"A final word on politics. As in economics nothing is certain save the certainty that there will be firm prediction by those who do not know. It is possible that in some election, near or far, a presidential candidate will emerge in the United States determined to draw into the campaign those not now impelled to vote. Conceivably those so attracted - those who are not threatened by higher taxes and who are encouraged by the vision of a new governing community committed to the rescue of the cities and the impacted underclass - could outnumber those lost because of the resulting invasion of contentment. If this happens the effort would succeed." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Culture of Contentment'
 
midcan5 said:
Of course they don't, but your counter point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


If the Founders had intended for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter on the US Constitution, they would have written it into the document. That the Supreme Court had to interpret that little bit of a power grab through Marbury v Madison is hardly irrelevant.

It is unmistakable that the US Constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government not expand it
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
If the Founders had intended for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter on the US Constitution, they would have written it into the document. That the Supreme Court had to interpret that little bit of a power grab through Marbury v Madison is hardly irrelevant.

It is unmistakable that the US Constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government not expand it
Click to expand...

Then why is the SCOTUS the final arbiter of law? And most historians think the separation of powers was the limiter. It is the structure and not a paper that makes it work.

Saw there was a book on a quote I use often.

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/washington-farewell-address


https://www.amazon.com/Washingtons-...ions/dp/147674646X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8
 
midcan5 said:
Then why is the SCOTUS the final arbiter of law? And most historians think the separation of powers was the limiter. It is the structure and not a paper that makes it work.

Saw there was a book on a quote I use often.

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/washington-farewell-address


https://www.amazon.com/Washingtons-...ions/dp/147674646X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8
Click to expand...

I think I just explained it to you. The Supreme Court gave itself that power through Marbury v Madison. It wasn't written in the text of the Constitution. If it was, then Marbury would not have been necessary. The other two branches didn't keep the Court in check

You fancy yourself as this intellectual but you really aren't smart. Copying and pasting quotes from obscure books may sell at your Resistance meetings but I see right through it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top