CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

[DSpencer]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

People that follow me know I'm not a Ron Paul fan, never mind a cheerleader.

Why not?

[DSpencer]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

The NH liquor store example flies in the face of what a lot of fundamentalist free-marketeers will tell you.

What state has a free-market in liquor sales?

[dcarrigg]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

Why not? [be a Ron Paul fan]

That's a fair question. I think he gets some things right. Personally, I don't agree with his 'austerity into the breech' approach to the economic state we're in. So here's a short list of 10 reasons:

1. Cutting $1T all of the sudden would almost certainly throw us into an official recession.
2. Lowering corporate taxes when they already pay less than 0 is galling.
3. Abolishing the estate tax creates dynasties.
4. Ending capital gains taxes lets Wall Street win more than they already have.
5. Throwing a quarter-million federal employees into the unemployment lines right off the bat would be bad.
6. Ending all environmental regulation invites problems - as does ending the National Park Service.
7. Letting companies 'repatriate income' tax free so that they can pay out higher executive compensation packages (which is what happened last time) doesn't make any sense.
8. Repealing Sarbanes-Oxley rather than working to fix it invites future Enrons, Tycos, Worldcoms, Healthsouths, etc.
9. Ending Dodd-Frank without replacing it with anything will let the banks win - until they fall apart again (even without the Fed and even more than they are already winning).
10. I like Social Security and I believe that it is not doomed (they've been crying insolvent since 1980 because they want all of the money in the wall st. casino - stocks).

Basically, I will not fight for the "freedom" to be robbed blind by the well-connected book-cookers. Regulation can be a good thing. It makes rules. It keeps the scoundrels somewhat in line. Repealing regulation was a big part of what led to this financial mess we're in.

It reminds me of a passage in EJ's book. He talks about how it would not actually be more free to be on a highway without any rules or lines or signs or speed limits or seatbelts etc. But they sell us "freedom" like that all the time. I think that is a lot of what Ron Paul is offering.

I don't think he sees it like that. I think he truly believes that everyone will do the right thing when the government is stripped of all of its power. I take a far more suspicious view. There are always thieves. There always have been.

[aaron]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

Thanks for that reply. It is illuminating.

If Ron Paul can live long enough, he may be a good guy to help rebuild the country after it all falls apart.

[DSpencer]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

That's a fair question. I think he gets some things right. Personally, I don't agree with his 'austerity into the breech' approach to the economic state we're in. So here's a short list of 10 reasons:

1. Cutting $1T all of the sudden would almost certainly throw us into an official recession.
2. Lowering corporate taxes when they already pay less than 0 is galling.
3. Abolishing the estate tax creates dynasties.
4. Ending capital gains taxes lets Wall Street win more than they already have.
5. Throwing a quarter-million federal employees into the unemployment lines right off the bat would be bad.
6. Ending all environmental regulation invites problems - as does ending the National Park Service.
7. Letting companies 'repatriate income' tax free so that they can pay out higher executive compensation packages (which is what happened last time) doesn't make any sense.
8. Repealing Sarbanes-Oxley rather than working to fix it invites future Enrons, Tycos, Worldcoms, Healthsouths, etc.
9. Ending Dodd-Frank without replacing it with anything will let the banks win - until they fall apart again (even without the Fed and even more than they are already winning).
10. I like Social Security and I believe that it is not doomed (they've been crying insolvent since 1980 because they want all of the money in the wall st. casino - stocks).

Basically, I will not fight for the "freedom" to be robbed blind by the well-connected book-cookers. Regulation can be a good thing. It makes rules. It keeps the scoundrels somewhat in line. Repealing regulation was a big part of what led to this financial mess we're in.

It reminds me of a passage in EJ's book. He talks about how it would not actually be more free to be on a highway without any rules or lines or signs or speed limits or seatbelts etc. But they sell us "freedom" like that all the time. I think that is a lot of what Ron Paul is offering.

I don't think he sees it like that. I think he truly believes that everyone will do the right thing when the government is stripped of all of its power. I take a far more suspicious view. There are always thieves. There always have been.

Appreciate the thoughtful response.

1. Whether the recession is "official" or not is of less concern to me than how long it lasts. Also if the government spends less, other people have more left to spend (or we borrow less which helps our currency crisis). In case you haven't seen this before, the tax part is relevant here: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
2. Obviously some corporations are paying corporate taxes. If the net amount is less zero it's due to corporate welfare. Ron Paul is not in favor of corporate welfare at all to my knowledge.
3. I would rather wealth be passed down in families then obtained through lobbying the political system for favors they shouldn't even be able to grant in the first place. Other people's money doesn't harm me in and of itself.
4. Maybe so. It can be viewed as double taxing money and discouraging savings though which I don't like.
5. Someone has to pay those workers. Many of the workers provide no value to the economy and many actually hinder the economy in my opinion. Government jobs shouldn't be a life long guarantee.
6. I don't know much about Paul's stance on this. Certainly there need to be protections but some people advocate for that to happen through other means. I assume he views certain types of pollution as a possible violation of other people's property rights.
7. The tax code needs completely reformed. We shouldn't be encouraging US companies to move profits elsewhere. Bonuses are taxed too.
8. SOX seems like another example of creating new legislation to regulate things that are already illegal. We need to stop making new laws about fraud and start enforcing existing ones.
9. I don't know what Dodd-Frank does to actually protect anyone. Ron Paul has opposed the bailing out of reckless, fraudulent companies.
10. I disagree and hope that nobody my age listens to people that tell them they can rely on SS.

I don't think Ron Paul is that far towards the anarchy side of the libertarian spectrum. He is after all a long time politician. I also don't think he's trying to set people up with the "freedom" to be robbed blind by the well-connected book-cookers".

I'm not expecting to alter your beliefs but I do feel like Ron Paul often gets ignored or belittled despite offering many reasonable ideas that can appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. Do you have an alternative candidate?

I saw a poll saying that 48% OWS respondents said they will vote for Obama in 2012. I find that comical and depressing all at once.

[dcarrigg]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

Appreciate the thoughtful response.

1. Whether the recession is "official" or not is of less concern to me than how long it lasts. Also if the government spends less, other people have more left to spend (or we borrow less which helps our currency crisis). In case you haven't seen this before, the tax part is relevant here: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
2. Obviously some corporations are paying corporate taxes. If the net amount is less zero it's due to corporate welfare. Ron Paul is not in favor of corporate welfare at all to my knowledge.
3. I would rather wealth be passed down in families then obtained through lobbying the political system for favors they shouldn't even be able to grant in the first place. Other people's money doesn't harm me in and of itself.
4. Maybe so. It can be viewed as double taxing money and discouraging savings though which I don't like.
5. Someone has to pay those workers. Many of the workers provide no value to the economy and many actually hinder the economy in my opinion. Government jobs shouldn't be a life long guarantee.
6. I don't know much about Paul's stance on this. Certainly there need to be protections but some people advocate for that to happen through other means. I assume he views certain types of pollution as a possible violation of other people's property rights.
7. The tax code needs completely reformed. We shouldn't be encouraging US companies to move profits elsewhere. Bonuses are taxed too.
8. SOX seems like another example of creating new legislation to regulate things that are already illegal. We need to stop making new laws about fraud and start enforcing existing ones.
9. I don't know what Dodd-Frank does to actually protect anyone. Ron Paul has opposed the bailing out of reckless, fraudulent companies.
10. I disagree and hope that nobody my age listens to people that tell them they can rely on SS.

I don't think Ron Paul is that far towards the anarchy side of the libertarian spectrum. He is after all a long time politician. I also don't think he's trying to set people up with the "freedom" to be robbed blind by the well-connected book-cookers".

I'm not expecting to alter your beliefs but I do feel like Ron Paul often gets ignored or belittled despite offering many reasonable ideas that can appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. Do you have an alternative candidate?

I saw a poll saying that 48% OWS respondents said they will vote for Obama in 2012. I find that comical and depressing all at once.

I'd like to start out by saying that I don't have an alternative candidate. He may be the best one out there. That doesn't mean that his logic doesn't appear to me to be deeply flawed sometimes.

All of the problems in my list of 1-10 come from specific proposals found on RP's 2012 website's "plan to restore america." I made none of them up, even though I extrapolated. (For instance, ending the Dept. of Interior would end the park service and the EPA, etc.)

I do pay attention and listen to him. I don't take him as a joke or belittle it as others do.

I just find that libertarians put far too much trust into corporations. They see corporations as freedom and government as slavery. I see hierarchy and bureaucracy as inefficient and Kafkaesque regardless of which "sector" it originates in. Corruption abounds just as well in the "private" sector as it does in the "public" sector.

I watched as Richard Scrushy built the largest hospital empire in the history of the world. He then took my own family member's retirement down to zero and closed down hospitals close to me because he was greedy and had to cook the books. Then I watch as people died because of the longer ambulance ride to find a hospital that wasn't closed due to corporate malfeasance.

He was the first man prosecuted under Sarbanes-Oxley. It didn't stick to him, but his underlings did have to do time because of that law. SOX was the only thing that gave us a modicum of justice.

Then I watched as he became a televangelist and claimed that Jesus saw to it that he would be innocent.

And I'm supposed to trust men like that to the "free-market?" With no regulation?

Look how bad they cook the books now with "mark-to-model" accounting. They literally kill people with spreadsheets and lies because 3 golf courses is not enough for them. RP doesn't say he likes crony capitalism, but some of his policies would sure create an absolute Garden of Eden for it.

Sorry. It hits too close to home. These guys are bad. They need to be stopped before they hurt people. And they really do hurt people. I mean it was 10% of the Fortune 100 that cooked the books and destroyed employees and customers' lives. It was widespread.

And what about those 250,000 workers RP proposes to just throw out on the street in the time of the highest unemployment in 70 years? Do they not have families and mortgages and pay small businesses close to them? Fine, we can lay them off too.

But I don't see how that 'helps' the economy. The argument that maybe you could lower taxes by 1.8% or something by laying them off (1.8% of the Federal Budget) doesn't lead me to believe that a hiring boon will come on the back-end.

Especially when wages in the private sector are not 'trickling-down.'

Empirically, they are not. Isn't it obvious that deregulation of the financial industry has been bad for America? If deregulation was good for America, would the TBTF banks be fighting for it? Do you really trust them?

Show me one piece of evidence that says the middle class has done better since the deregulation of the '80s. Show me one good thing that came from the deregulation of the banks. Convince me that de-regulation is good. Do it with numbers and figures. Then I'll convert.

In the meantime I don't pretend to defend Obama or Reid or any of those bought-and-paid-by-Goldman crew that say one thing and do the exact opposite.

So here I am. Nobody who speaks to me. I think there's a large and growing constituency of us out there. I just don't know who will tap into it.

[Ghent12]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

Ghent, you picked the amendments, not me. So I will go off a bit now. I don't mean to make any personal attack, and I will endeavor to refrain from doing so. But you struck a deep nerve here. Coming from someone who has lived in NH, I can tell you 15 and 19 are alive and very well there.

You maybe struck on the crux of the old North/South political divide. I think we're mostly past it now. But I am sure that there are some who still want to restrict voting to only white men. You do know that a political battle was already fought over this, right?

And it was decided it by the barrel of a gun. And many people on both sides suffered. As it happened, some of the winning guns came from NH.

So as far as I'm concerned, the argument's over. To wit, here are the bookends to your unwanted amendments:



Yup, some 'volks' have been trying to get rid of that one forever. Perhaps you should go to Baltimore and start a petition?



Let your wife and daughters know your stance on that. Perhaps you could telegraph me from the doghouse with the results?



P.S. The other amendments in your list include the 18th, which prohibited alcohol and was repealed, the 17th, which calls for popular election of Senators rather than appointments by state legislatures and the 16th, which is far more controversial because it allows for income tax. If you took issue with 16, that would be one thing.

But you picked 15 through 19 for a reason. Since both 15 and 19 are about allowing someone other than white men to vote, I'm unimpressed.

Particularly since they are very simply worded amendments that cannot be taken to have a 'positive and negative' side or any grey area whatsoever.

Since 18 has been repealed, I'm even less impressed. It means you had to skip over the repealed one to get to 19 just because you don't like the idea of women voting.

Maybe you should keep your arguments to 16 and 17. At least there's a philosophical argument to defend those two that doesn't turn people into property.



P.P.S. I use the term non-white purposefully because it wasn't just about color. My ancestors didn't fit the bill for the Brits, and were nearly genocided for it. Then we had to deal with the Know-Nothing's on this side of the pond. Generations later, most of us have not forgotten.




P.P.P.S. This is like 100 years ago now. Can we just get over it already? Or must we always face the specter of some old englishman thinking he owns everything and everyone around him? I think society's too soft and politically correct now. I'm not an annoying liberal like that. But hating on the 15th and 19th amendments (funny you left out 14) is too much for me. These are not even debatable anymore. Poll test it if you don't believe me.

Thank you for your measured response, dcarrigg.

Let me just say that I do have a problem with people being barred from voting based upon arbitrary and useless classifications such as race, color, or gender. That is not why I picked that set of Amendments.

I picked the 15th through the 19th because they best exemplify a trend towards democracy and away from a republic. I said there were good aspects, and the 15th and the 19th are the best among them because they gave political liberty to those otherwise disaffected. However, even though all men are created equal (and women, to update the phrase to the current century), all people having equal political power is a democracy--meaning it is a mob. What's the difference between; (1) a majority of people exercising their political power to deprive a minority of people of their political power, and (2) a majority of people exercising their greater political power against the will of a minority of people who are also exercising their political power (to no avail)?

I'll reply more in depth later.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

However..all people having equal political power is a democracy--meaning it is a mob. What's the difference between; (1) a majority of people exercising their political power to deprive a minority of people of their political power, and (2) a majority of people exercising their greater political power against the will of a minority of people who are also exercising their political power (to no avail)?

That's an important point, Ghent12.
Isn't that the central practical reason we have a republic instead of direct democracy?
I think your point is why Madison, Adams et al set America up as a representative system, so that there can be at least some chance that cooler heads can prevail.
"A republic, if you can keep it"

[c1ue]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

What's the difference between; (1) a majority of people exercising their political power to deprive a minority of people of their political power, and (2) a majority of people exercising their greater political power against the will of a minority of people who are also exercising their political power (to no avail)?

No difference.

And so what?

There is no system by which everyone can get everything they want.

In the real world, the majority and the minority exchange positions and reach a compromise - one certainly skewed towards the majority, but not necessarily in all ways as one issue rarely dominates the entire political agenda.

The problem is that your specific issue has yet to be shown to be even implementable; that extremely few people if any are in open support of it; that there is no coherent economic purpose or benefit behind it; and there seems to be no compromise available in order to even implement some part of it.

So what exactly would you expect the result to be, if your position is "I hate this and I don't want it, and that's final"?

[Chris Coles]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

Isn't it obvious that deregulation of the financial industry has been bad for America? If deregulation was good for America, would the TBTF banks be fighting for it? Do you really trust them?

Show me one piece of evidence that says the middle class has done better since the deregulation of the '80s. Show me one good thing that came from the deregulation of the banks. Convince me that de-regulation is good. Do it with numbers and figures. Then I'll convert.

In the meantime I don't pretend to defend Obama or Reid or any of those bought-and-paid-by-Goldman crew that say one thing and do the exact opposite.

So here I am. Nobody who speaks to me. I think there's a large and growing constituency of us out there. I just don't know who will tap into it.

What we need is a standard bearer for the majority who will speak for the majority.

[mesyn191]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

What we need is a standard bearer for the majority who will speak for the majority.

If a leader steps up he'll be an easy target for discrediting character attacks and muckraking. If real info. can't be found then it'll be manufactured and spun by the media and politicians.

[Raz]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

I'd like to start out by saying that I don't have an alternative candidate. He may be the best one out there. That doesn't mean that his logic doesn't appear to me to be deeply flawed sometimes.

All of the problems in my list of 1-10 come from specific proposals found on RP's 2012 website's "plan to restore america." I made none of them up, even though I extrapolated. (For instance, ending the Dept. of Interior would end the park service and the EPA, etc.)

I do pay attention and listen to him. I don't take him as a joke or belittle it as others do.

I just find that libertarians put far too much trust into corporations. They see corporations as freedom and government as slavery. I see hierarchy and bureaucracy as inefficient and Kafkaesque regardless of which "sector" it originates in. Corruption abounds just as well in the "private" sector as it does in the "public" sector.

I watched as Richard Scrushy built the largest hospital empire in the history of the world. He then took my own family member's retirement down to zero and closed down hospitals close to me because he was greedy and had to cook the books. Then I watch as people died because of the longer ambulance ride to find a hospital that wasn't closed due to corporate malfeasance.

He was the first man prosecuted under Sarbanes-Oxley. It didn't stick to him, but his underlings did have to do time because of that law. SOX was the only thing that gave us a modicum of justice.

Then I watched as he became a televangelist and claimed that Jesus saw to it that he would be innocent.

And I'm supposed to trust men like that to the "free-market?" With no regulation?

Look how bad they cook the books now with "mark-to-model" accounting. They literally kill people with spreadsheets and lies because 3 golf courses is not enough for them. RP doesn't say he likes crony capitalism, but some of his policies would sure create an absolute Garden of Eden for it.

Sorry. It hits too close to home. These guys are bad. They need to be stopped before they hurt people. And they really do hurt people. I mean it was 10% of the Fortune 100 that cooked the books and destroyed employees and customers' lives. It was widespread.

And what about those 250,000 workers RP proposes to just throw out on the street in the time of the highest unemployment in 70 years? Do they not have families and mortgages and pay small businesses close to them? Fine, we can lay them off too.

But I don't see how that 'helps' the economy. The argument that maybe you could lower taxes by 1.8% or something by laying them off (1.8% of the Federal Budget) doesn't lead me to believe that a hiring boon will come on the back-end.

Especially when wages in the private sector are not 'trickling-down.'

Empirically, they are not. Isn't it obvious that deregulation of the financial industry has been bad for America? If deregulation was good for America, would the TBTF banks be fighting for it? Do you really trust them?

Show me one piece of evidence that says the middle class has done better since the deregulation of the '80s. Show me one good thing that came from the deregulation of the banks. Convince me that de-regulation is good. Do it with numbers and figures. Then I'll convert.

In the meantime I don't pretend to defend Obama or Reid or any of those bought-and-paid-by-Goldman crew that say one thing and do the exact opposite.

So here I am. Nobody who speaks to me. I think there's a large and growing constituency of us out there. I just don't know who will tap into it.

I find little to nothing in your post to disagree with.

I haven't been to Ron Paul's website in years but a recent trip tells me that your criticisms are mostly valid. As I've said before: I'm a Paleoconservative, NOT a Libertarian. I've been in almost complete agreement with his views on foreign policy and his general view that echoes Jefferson: "That government is best which governs least".

Carter Glass was possibly the most knowledgable man in matters pertaining to banking that ever served in the U.S. Congress.
http://www.semp.us/publications/biot...php?BiotID=606

For all his flaws (and they were mostly concerning race, but it's unreasonable to judge him soley by standards of the 1960s forward and not considering his life experiences and the age in which he lived) he fashioned what is arguably the most reasonable and successful financial regulation possible with the Banking Act of 1933. http://www.semp.us/publications/biot...php?BiotID=605

It worked very well until Billy Clinton sent Robby Ruben and Larry the Summers down to Capitol Hill to ask for its repeal, and of course finding a most willing group of bankster whores among the Republican leadership (Phil Graham, Jim Leach, Denny Hastert, Trent Lott, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.)

This was the greatest and by far the worse deregulation ever conducted by the Congress; it directly led to the collapse of 2007-08.

As for Richard Scrushy: this is the "christianity" of Televangelism. It's really just show business, being too ridiculous and contemptable to even qualify as heresy. I've never known a true convert who didn't see himself for the mass of corruption and self-centeredness that each and every one of us truly is - to varying degrees.

Here's a theological proposition: Dickey is an embezzeler who yesterday stole a million dollars from the company he works for.
He attends a "Prayer Luncheon" where a presentation of the Gospel is made and Dickey realizes his need and "converts" by saying a Sinner's Prayer. He returns to work at 1:00 PM enraptured with his love of Christ to begin a new life, but since he's completely and totally forgiven, he sees no need to make any restitution to those he has robbed, and decides that he can keep the $1,000,000.

This is what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called "Cheap Grace". It is condemned by the Apostle in his letter to the Romans.

“Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks' wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?...

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of His Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered Him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

[lektrode]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

Appreciate the thoughtful response.
...
I saw a poll saying that 48% OWS respondents said they will vote for Obama in 2012. I find that comical and depressing all at once.

+1
dc always has a thoughtful response, measured and acknowledges _both_ sides of the issues = a rarity these daze.

and that 48% _still_ hasnt learned a GD thing about what/why they're all out there protesting!

1st election (in 2008) that was decided by people who get their 'news' from MTV, twitter and the comedy channel - and this is the generation that us 50somethings will be handing the reins over to in a few more years???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

all i can say is i'm glad i'm 50something and not 20something....

[Ghent12]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

No difference.

And so what?

There is no system by which everyone can get everything they want.

In the real world, the majority and the minority exchange positions and reach a compromise - one certainly skewed towards the majority, but not necessarily in all ways as one issue rarely dominates the entire political agenda.

The problem is that your specific issue has yet to be shown to be even implementable; that extremely few people if any are in open support of it; that there is no coherent economic purpose or benefit behind it; and there seems to be no compromise available in order to even implement some part of it.

So what exactly would you expect the result to be, if your position is "I hate this and I don't want it, and that's final"?

It's all about trends, c1ue--pay attention. Now that we're agreed that democracy is a terrible form of government, why should we support trends towards democracy? Or more importantly, why should we not oppose them? You speak of exchanging positions and compromise--these are the very essences of a republican system.

You say a republic is not implementable, but I say it must be simply because I refuse to be so cynical as to believe that only mobs and criminals can possibly have their way. We at one point had a (flawed) republic, but then in the process of removing its flaws it has been all but converted into a democratic republic; what we have now is a hybrid that includes the worst of both worlds where the majority can disaffect the minority and cronyism is woven into the very fabric of the political system.


Right now the national spotlight is focused on "the 1%" which, as has been pointed out on this forum (by whom, I have forgotten--my apologies) is the wrong demographic to focus any attention on except thanks for creating basically all the jobs that exist. Focusing on "the 1%" is akin to focusing on "white people" or "men" for the problems created by so few. It is orders of magnitude incorrect, but hey, who cares about the fates of so small a minority of people? Tax them to the hilt, soak the rich, and redistribute it to the rest of us!!! Democracy now! Etc. Don't think that President Obama's "not one dime of tax increase if you make less than $250,000/$200,000/$150,000" push wasn't along the same vein. It's tapping into the ignorance and fear of an easily-manipulated majority in order to keep the votes coming; it's so easy a caveman could do it--See: the prior administration (I keed, I keed). It is simply plain to see that democracy is awful, and produces awful results. If and when it comes time to make "adult decisions" about matters, democratic trends will ensure that they can never be done.

[dcarrigg]

Re: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

Thank you for that. Carter Glass was indeed a man to look up to on banking matters. It is often worth it to put aside the racial comments from men born in another era. Throwing out all they have to say is often unwise.

For instance, Robert Byrd has written some of the smartest works on the institution of the U.S. Senate that I have ever read. He was a man, for all of his flaws, who truly believed in this country and its institutions.

He also could spit out racial a faux pas on occasion (and many more than one).

As far as the Clinton/Rubin game goes, they're as guilty as anyone else. Rubinomics failed terribly. I like to use the term in tandem with Reaganomics. As far as I am concerned, both have failed.

I took a little time (not enough - but more will come) to read up on the Paleo-Neo conservative split. I will give it more thought.

The one thing that sticks out to me is that the criticisms leveled on neoconservatives by paleoconservatives are similar to the criticisms I would lay on the new liberals from the left side of the isle (neoliberal usually means something different - call them limousine liberals or what you will).

It seems to me that there is a neoconservative/neoliberal bent for bad trade deals, deregulation, adventurism abroad, and handing the world over to FIRE etc. etc. It seems that Libertarians often fall in the same camp - with the exception of the adventurism.

Perhaps this is why Buchanan actually seems to make more sense to me in many ways as time goes on.

Actually, it seems to me that paleoconservative economics and foreign policy are not too different from my own. The social views are. But there have always been social differences between the regions of this country - the northeast/appalachia/south/west - they were never socially identical.

In the end of the day, I would be happy to put 'social change' on hold for a decade or two if we could just straighten out our economy and foreign policy. Too much ground has been lost in those two arenas.

As far as Scrushy goes - I know it's not real Christianity. It galls me what he does in the name of religion. The book "Grand Theft Jesus" touched on it too. It's a convenient excuse for criminals and conmen. And it is a shame if any of that that rubs off on those with true faith.