How can we take it back? | Page 24 | INFJ Forum

How can we take it back?

Ayn Rand Worshippers Must Face Facts:
Blue States Are Providers, Red States Are Parasites

The time has come for blue America to go Galt.

The New York Times published a widely discussed article updating an argument that progressive bloggers noticed a very long time ago.
It's now well-understood that blue states generally export money to the federal government; and red states generally import it.

Talking Points Memo published a great map showing exactly how this redistribution works:

storyimages_1330391586_givetakesmallfinal.png


Progressives believe in the redistribution of wealth, so we're not usually too upset by this state of affairs.
That’s what it means to be one country. E pluribus unum, and all that.

We’re happy to help, because we think we’ve got a stake in making sure kids in rural Alabama get educations and seniors in Arizona get healthcare.
What’s good for them is good for all of us.

We also like to think they’d help us out if our positions were reversed.
It’s an investment in making America stronger, and we feel fine about that.

But maybe it's time to admit that we're being played for chumps, and that there are people in the rest of the country who are taking way too much advantage of our good nature. After all: it's now a stone fact that the blue states and cities are the country's real wealth creators.

That's why we pay more taxes, and are able to send that money to the red states in the first place.
We're working our butts off, being economically productive, going to college, raising good kids, supporting reality-based schools, keeping our marriages together, tending to our busy and diverse cities, and generally Playing By The Rules.

And the fates have smiled on us in rough proportion to the degree that we’ve invested in our own common good.
So we've got every right to get good and angry about the fact that, by and large, the people who are getting our money are so damned ungrateful -- not to mention so ridiculously eager to spend it on stuff we don't approve of.

We didn't ship them our hard-earned tax dollars to see them squandered on worse-than-useless abstinence-only education, textbooks that teach creationism, crisis-pregnancy misinformation centers, subsidies for GMO crops and oil companies, and so on.

And we sure as hell didn't expect to be rewarded for our productivity and generosity with a rising tide of spittle-flecked insanity about how we’re just a bunch of immoral, godless, drug-soaked, sex-crazed, evil America-hating traitors who can’t wait to hand the country over to the Islamists and the Communists.

Ironically, the conservative movement's favorite philosopher had some very insightful things to say about this exact situation.
Ayn Rand's novels divided the world into two groups.

On one hand, she lionized "producers" -- noble, intelligent Ãœbermenschen whose faith in their own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams drives everything else in society.

And she called out the evil of "parasites," the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.
Conservatives love this story.

They're eager to claim the gleaming mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it's darkly implied) who won't or can't work as hard as they do.

If you want to arouse their class and race resentments, there are few narratives that can get them rolling like this producers-versus-parasites tale.
But the NYT story and that map up there prove beyond arguing that the conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees, flat-out wrong.

America's real producer class is overwhelmingly concentrated in the blue cities and states -- the regions full of smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places in the country to live.

And the real parasites are centered in red states (the only exceptions being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and Texas) -- the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a fading past, rejected science, substituted superstition for sense, and refused to invest in their own futures.

It's not unfair to say that those regions are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling labor, and expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about their wealth-destroying ways.

And we producers have had enough.
Progressives Go Galt!

If you're a conservative who thinks Ayn Rand called it true with this producers/parasites thing, then by all means: let's go there. All the way there – and then some.
But fair warning is in order: you may not like where we end up.

By way of a modest proposal, I hereby declare the birth of a new Progressive Objectivism – a frankly producerist personal-responsibility crusade aimed at getting these whiny red leeches off our collective blue hide.

If they think they can get by without us, let’s not stand in their way.
What these people need from us, at minimum, is some tough talk – the kind of stern, grown-up verbal whoop-ass the conservatives wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to unload on us if the roles were reversed.

The time has come for blue America to go Galt.
Our farewell rant – long and epic, as Rand's turgid writing style would have required – might sound a bit like this:

First off, dear Red Staters: If your town’s economy depends on a nearby dam, canal, harbor, airport, military base, interstate highway, national park or monument, or prison, just STFU. Because you are, in every way possible, a parasite, living off something the rest of us paid to build.

Second: If you are a homeowner who takes a mortgage interest deduction – which is how the rest of us subsidize your house, and with it your status in the middle-class – we don’t want to hear another word from you about how you made it all on your own.

And that goes for those of you who got your education via the GI Bill, or took out an SBA loan, or went to well-funded public schools back when such things existed.
You are what you are because we believed in you, and invested in you.

And we’re deeply insulted that you refuse to even acknowledge that fact.

Third: Don't come crawling to us to support those kids you couldn't afford to have, but refused to allow contraception or abortions or actual fact-based sex education to prevent.
It's just that simple.

Our blue-state babies are better off in every way that matters because we plan our families.
A failure to plan on your part does not create an obligation on ours.

Your policies force women to have kids, even when they're patently not ready to have them.
Now (as you’re so fond of telling women who find themselves unhappily pregnant), you get to live with the consequences of those choices.

Fourth: Don't ask us to pay to educate your kids if you're not willing to have us teach them what we know about the world.
We believe in free, comprehensive, rigorous and reality-based public education because it’s done more than any other government service to make us rich, powerful and successful; and we want the same for you.

We realize some of you aren't too keen on public schools.
It's great that you want to take on more personal responsibility for educating your own kids.

Just be warned: if you don't teach them real science and real history – including evolution, climate change and the actual contents of the US Constitution – we're probably not going to hire them.

So we hope you're also ready to take responsibility for that, too, which will probably mean supporting your grown kids in your basement until you die.

Fifth: Between federal water reclamation projects and farm subsidies, we are paying you zillions of dollars to grow stuff we'd actually rather not eat.
Don’t look now, but those of us in blue cities and states are moving away from your petrochemical-saturated GMO-bred CAFO-grown industrial “food” products as fast as we possibly can.

There aren’t enough organic and community-supported farms to feed all of us yet – but we have taken responsibility for this, and are working hard on the problem.
You can either get on this train, or holler at it while it flattens you.

What you cannot do is yell at us because we don’t want to eat what you choose to grow.

Notice, too, that the only reason we’re having to subsidize you in the first place is that the all-holy free market does not bless you with profits on this crap.
In your own book, that makes you a capital-L Loser.

In ours, we’ll settle for “parasite.”

Sixth: We are so over your bigotry.
Again: we know from our own long experience that including women, gays and minorities makes us not only culturally richer; it also makes us more economically productive as well.

And the recent economic meltdown has shown us that monocultures run exclusively by rich white men tend to stagnate into breeding pools for all kinds of social and financial parasites, who then come forward to prey on those least able to resist -- like you.

Diversity isn’t just an idealistic fetish for us: we do it because we think it makes us richer on every front that matters.
If “parasite” is just another word for “people who willfully make bad choices that keep them poor and ignorant,” then your prejudices by definition make you parasites.

And we are not, therefore, obliged to deal with you.

And finally: If you want to pretend global warming isn't happening, you do not get to come whining to us when you get hit with droughts or floods.
We're not going to send FEMA to bail you out.

We're not going to build canals to give you our water.
We're not going to fund your levees.

If you're so sure God will provide, go ask him to keep your reservoirs full and your cities dry.
Because we resign.

But will we come back?
Yep.

It all sounds really ugly.
But that’s the point of going Galt: it’s a big fat tantrum designed to prove just how important you are in the grand scheme of things. (The tactic is also not unfamiliar to any mother who’s gone on a protracted housekeeping strike to gain appreciation from an uncooperative family.)

If others have to suffer hardship to learn the lesson – well, that’ll teach 'em.
The emotionally satisfying goal is to get the parasites to come back, begging on their knees for your vital help and resources.

They know now, in a way they didn't before, that they cannot survive without you.

So: if that fantasy moment were to come, what would it take to convince us Progressive Objectivists to emerge once again from our cool blue producerist enclave, and take responsibility for the chastened masses once again?

We have just five simple demands:

1. Stop taking more money from the federal government pot than you put into it.
If you believe in paying your own freight, then do it.
If you can’t, that’s fine -- we'll go back to helping you out -- but you have to let go of that producerist superiority crap, because you’re simply not entitled to it.

2. Admit that we were right.
Admit that nobody in America ever makes it on their own, and that we are all in this together, and that there’s such a thing as the common wealth and the common good.
Admit that regulation is necessary to keep the unprincipled strong from preying on the weak.
Admit that there has never in history ever been any such thing as a free market: markets are created by governments, and need to be overseen by them.
And finally: admit that your conservative leaders got us into this economic mess, and don’t know squat about how to get us out of it.

3. Join the reality-based world.
Accept that America’s prosperity utterly depends on how well-educated its kids are, especially on topics like science and history.
Accept that evolution happened, and that climate change is happening now.
Embrace nuance.
Learn something about how to assess evidence and think rationally, without a pre-determined conclusion.
Remember that God only helps those who've gained the real-world skills to help themselves.

4. Admit that we love our country every bit as much as you do – and that, given our much greater success at creating strong families, productive 21st-century industries and excellent places to live, we might actually know more than you do about how to make it work better in the future.

5. Last but by no means least: Knock off the hate-mongering, threats and name-calling.
Your heroine, Ms. Rand, predicted rightly that parasites invariably despise the producers they feed on; you should be embarrassed that your own behavior bears her out so clearly. And, just once, say thank you to us for all the contributions we’ve made (or, at least, tried to make) toward your well-being.
We don’t ask for much, but a little gratitude now and then wouldn’t hurt.

Five easy steps.
Do this, and we’ll come back and work with you as co-creators of an America we all can love.

Until then, though, you can pay your own bills.
We’ve decided we have better things to invest that money in – upgraded schools, single-payer healthcare, expanded college systems, mass transit, sustainable technology investments, and forward-looking research to launch new industries that will make us richer yet.

And you’ll have a choice, too: you’ll either learn what it takes to produce like we do, or you’ll get to find out what real poverty feels like.

Would that we had the guts to go Galt.
We probably don't; it's just not in our natures to tell people who are hurting to go to hell, or leverage our economic might to get the political upper-hand.

But there's nothing stopping us from pointing out, loudly and often, exactly who is really who in this producers-versus-parasites relationship.
We didn't draw that ridiculous battle line -- but maybe it's time for us to accept their terms of engagement, stake our rightful claim as the country's actual producer class, and show them just how tall and proud we are to stand on our far more fertile ground.

 
10931352_10153552787698327_816344527885554297_n.jpg
 
10407200_899280823417966_8780228990294790399_n.jpg
 
I'll revisit this page in a few pages.
 
You claim to be Christian, a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, but you only preach the Old Testament and ignore Christ’s very explicit orders to give up wealth, to feed the hungry, to clothe the poor, to heal the sick, to do unto others, to reserve judgment for God, to attend first the beam in your own eye, and above all to be kind.
And not only do you ignore those commands, but actively dismiss them and rationalize them away when they are brought to your attention, then you shouldn’t be surprised when I mock your hypocrisy.
.
 
10929900_10152787721673001_299786159630797453_n.jpg

Just to be clear....essentially every major news publication on earth is lying.
World leaders did not "march" in Paris in support of free speech.

World leaders got together for a photo opportunity and pretended to march - purposely making the angle of the photo and other supporting photos look like they were with demonstrators when they were not.

The news media, as always, towed the line of w
hat the politicians wish to present.

Marching and pretending to march are not the same thing.
There is a difference.

Just like there is a difference between actually supporting free speech and, what almost all these leaders do, which is enforcing restrictions on free speech.
In the crowd we have leaders who have had journalists killed and bloggers jailed, websites banned and freedoms limited.

Politicians lie.
They are not the solution to our problems.
 
This is an interesting topic. My answer to the question of how to get rid of all our problems is by mentally getting rid of all ambitions. Obviously, you won't like that. Meh. Your prerogative. The amount of effort here is impressive though. You get my applause.

As a note, I'd like to say that I don't even know if we can do that as human beings.
 
This is an interesting topic. My answer to the question of how to get rid of all our problems is by mentally getting rid of all ambitions. Obviously, you won't like that. Meh. Your prerogative. The amount of effort here is impressive though. You get my applause.

As a note, I'd like to say that I don't even know if we can do that as human beings.
We don’t all have to agree in order to get along…I think that has been the main issue besides the huge wealth divide…there are many, many, small, easy, things that we could do…or tweak in the tax code….close loopholes the size of a politician's head…but instead, we have Lobbyists for Wall Street writing laws that sell out Main St. - AGAIN.

I will keep trying even though I think most of what I can personally do is futile, because I have an eleven year old Son who I of course want the best for.
And I am willing to sacrifice by paying a bit more in taxes if it means that social programs that I feel are essential are funded then so be it.
The Baby Boom Gen. royally fucked this nation over really well and continue to do so…I predict more unrest before we see any common sense repealing of bad laws like the Supreme Court decisions that allow almost unlimited money in campaigns and politics.

I fight for him and his children…I think it is possible…I still have faith.
 
Last edited:
Huh. You are an interesting person.

I've thought about this as well. And I have no solution yet. I do have a plan for how to get myself to be in the position to have a solution. Sadly, I think at that point, it'll be to the point where people prey upon my insecurities and such.
 
Huh. You are an interesting person.

I've thought about this as well. And I have no solution yet. I do have a plan for how to get myself to be in the position to have a solution. Sadly, I think at that point, it'll be to the point where people prey upon my insecurities and such.
Well, I would certain encourage everyone to be personally responsible for their own well-being into retirement (if such a thing still exists?!) and into elderly-care years if you should live so long (is really expensive the older and more care you require).
I definitely wouldn’t count of the government being a source to live off of…they keep trying to privatize social security so they can gamble it away into their own pockets too…so I wouldn’t count on it being there even for the Baby Boomers who are retiring now and in the next few years.

Here are the predictions:

[video=youtube;6vi3NFt7pOc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6vi3NFt7pOc[/video]
 
10929150_893463867373047_2636033776417018586_n.png


We often hear (and worry) about the Cost of Living – but what about the Cost of Wall Street?

Did you ever stop and consider how much of your work day goes to paying off financial speculators, predators and usurers?

Wall Street takes home:

• Half of your mortgage or rent
• 1/3 or more of your health insurance, food and gas bills
• A growing part of your student loan
• 2/3 or more of the tax money used to build public infrastructure
• A big chunk of your pension or retirement account
• If you're a farmer – 2/3 the value of your grain
• If you're a manufacturer – the crippling costs of capital, and the devastating pull-down effects of free trade

The Cost of Wall Street (COWS) is indeed a COW – it's a Cash Cow for the leisure class, who live in unbridled luxury off the sweat of our brows.
And it's a golden calf that we working people foolishly worship by allowing the stock market and our 401ks – rather than the true wealth of physical production – run our lives.

Wall Street is an idol in dire need of smashing!
The question is how, and the answer is to provide public alternatives to private greed:
• A 1% Wall Street Sales Tax to redirect capital flows from predatory speculation into productive investment
• A National Bank to issue $trillions in long-term, low-interest public credit for:
- Public infrastructure
- Industrial, agricultural loans and small-business loans
- Student loans and home mortgages
• Medicare for All – low cost, not-for-profit, public health insurance
• Stronger Social Security
• Vigorous public investments in basic research, science and technology – in particular our national laboratory system

These New Deal reforms will not only instantly alleviate the pressure now destroying American families – they will unleash the productive powers of industry, creating a full employment economy and a new set of possibilities for our living standards.

Read more: http://againstausterity.org/program
 
Just keep pushing...

On Day One, the new Congress launches an attack on Social Security
http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...ttack-on-social-security-20150106-column.html

750x422

Well, that didn't take long.

As one of its first orders of business upon convening Tuesday, the Republican House of Representatives approved a rule that will seriously undermine efforts to keep all of Social Security solvent.

The rule hampers an otherwise routine reallocation of Social Security payroll tax income from the old-age program to the disability program.
Such a reallocation, in either direction, has taken place 11 times since 1968, according to Kathy Ruffing of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

But it's especially urgent now, because the disability program's trust fund is expected to run dry as early as next year.
At that point, disability benefits for 11 million beneficiaries would have to be cut 20%.

Reallocating the income, however, would keep both the old-age and disability programs solvent until at least 2033, giving Congress plenty of time to assess the programs' needs and work out a long-term fix.

The procedural rule enacted by the House Republican caucus prohibits the reallocation unless it's accompanied by "benefit cuts or tax increases that improve the solvency of the combined trust funds," as paraphrased by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

In practical terms, the advocacy committee says, that makes the reallocation impossible; it mandates either benefit cuts across the board, which aren't politically palatable, or a payroll tax increase, which isn't palatable to the GOP.

Social Security advocates are almost universally aghast at the change. "It is hard to believe that there is any purpose to this unprecedented change to House rules," wrote Max Richtman, president of the committee, in an open letter Tuesday, "other than to cut benefits for Americans who have worked hard all their lives, paid into Social Security and rely on their Social Security benefits, including Disability Insurance, in order to survive."

The rule change reflects the burgeoning demonization of disability recipients, a trend we've reported on in the past.
It's been fomented by conservative Republicans and abetted by sloppy reporting by institutions such as NPR and "60 Minutes."


Disability recipients are easily caricatured as malingering layabouts by politicians, academics and journalists too lazy to do their homework.
They'll say disability benefits are easy to obtain, so lavish they discourage work, and convenient substitutes for welfare payments.

None of that is true.

As I reported in 2013, Social Security's disability standards are stringent.
To be eligible you must have worked at least one-fourth of your adult life (typically from age 22 on), and been employed in at least five of the previous 10 years.

Children qualify under Supplemental Security Income, and workers younger than 31 have to show employment in half the years since they turned 22.

750x422

Previous reallocations harmed the disability program's finances (CBPP)



You have to be too impaired to earn even $1,040 a month on your own.
Just over a quarter of all applicants are approved initially, though an additional 13% or so win benefits on appeal.

All in all, only 41% of all applicants end up with checks.
Sound easy to you?

The new rules drafters say it's necessary to "protect the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund from diversion of its funds to finance a broken Disability Insurance system."

But as Ruffing observes, disability isn't "broken."
Its rolls have grown because of a number of well-understood factors, including the aging of the American population, the entry of more women into the workforce (and thus their eligibility for benefits), and the increase in Social Security’s full retirement age above 65.

Previous reallocations also have hurt disability's funding, including a shift from disability toward the old-age program in 1983 and an inadequate shift back in 1994. "If DI’s tax rate had remained at its pre-1983 level," Ruffing writes, "we wouldn’t need to replenish the fund today."

Do House Republicans understand any of that?
It's doubtful.

If they did, they'd understand that their actions Tuesday are nothing short of shameful.
What a way to begin a new Congress.

 
11290_831136023620830_8523627193231577941_n.jpg
 
Come on, we can do better than this!

Bill Moyers: 'We Are This Close to Losing Our Democracy to the Mercenary Class'

The great journalist sounds the alarm about the rise of the plutocracy and the shredding of the social contract.


I met Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in 1987 when I was creating a series for public television called In Search of the Constitution, celebrating the bicentennial of our founding document.

By then, he had served on the court longer than any of his colleagues and had written close to 500 majority opinions, many of them addressing fundamental questions of equality, voting rights, school segregation, and -- in New York Times v. Sullivan in particular -- the defense of a free press.

Those decisions brought a storm of protest from across the country.
He claimed that he never took personally the resentment and anger directed at him.

He did, however, subsequently reveal that his own mother told him she had always liked his opinions when he was on the New Jersey court, but wondered now that he was on the Supreme Court, “Why can’t you do it the same way?”

His answer: “We have to discharge our responsibility to enforce the rights in favor of minorities, whatever the majority reaction may be.”

Although a liberal, he worried about the looming size of government.
When he mentioned that modern science might be creating “a Frankenstein,”

I asked, “How so?”
He looked around his chambers and replied, “The very conversation we’re now having can be overheard. Science has done things that, as I understand it, makes it possible through these drapes and those windows to get something in here that takes down what we’re talking about.”

That was long before the era of cyberspace and the maximum surveillance state that grows topsy-turvy with every administration.
How I wish he were here now -- and still on the Court!

My interview with him was one of 12 episodes in that series on the Constitution.
Another concerned a case he had heard back in 1967.

It involved a teacher named Harry Keyishian who had been fired because he would not sign a New York State loyalty oath.
Justice Brennan ruled that the loyalty oath and other anti-subversive state statutes of that era violated First Amendment protections of academic freedom.

I tracked Keyishian down and interviewed him.
Justice Brennan watched that program and was fascinated to see the actual person behind the name on his decision.

The journalist Nat Hentoff, who followed Brennan’s work closely, wrote, “He may have seen hardly any of the litigants before him, but he searched for a sense of them in the cases that reached him.”

Watching the interview with Keyishian, he said, “It was the first time I had seen him. Until then, I had no idea that he and the other teachers would have lost everything if the case had gone the other way.”

Toward the end of his tenure, when he was writing an increasing number of dissents on the Rehnquist Court, Brennan was asked if he was getting discouraged.
He smiled and said, “Look, pal, we’ve always known -- the Framers knew -- that liberty is a fragile thing. You can’t give up.” And he didn’t.

The Donor Class and Streams of Dark Money

The historian Plutarch warned us long ago of what happens when there is no brake on the power of great wealth to subvert the electorate. “The abuse of buying and selling votes,” he wrote of Rome, “crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread in the law courts and to the army, and finally, when even the sword became enslaved by the power of gold, the republic was subjected to the rule of emperors.”

We don’t have emperors yet, but we do have the Roberts Court that consistently privileges the donor class.
We don’t have emperors yet, but we do have a Senate in which, as a study by the political scientist Larry Bartels reveals, “Senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle-class constituents, while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators’ roll call votes.”

We don’t have emperors yet, but we have a House of Representatives controlled by the far right that is now nourished by streams of “dark money” unleashed thanks to the gift bestowed on the rich by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case.

We don’t have emperors yet, but one of our two major parties is now dominated by radicals engaged in a crusade of voter suppression aimed at the elderly, the young, minorities, and the poor; while the other party, once the champion of everyday working people, has been so enfeebled by its own collaboration with the donor class that it offers only token resistance to the forces that have demoralized everyday Americans.

Writing in the Guardian recently, the social critic George Monbiot commented,
“So I don’t blame people for giving up on politics... When a state-corporate nexus of power has bypassed democracy and made a mockery of the voting process, when an unreformed political system ensures that parties can be bought and sold, when politicians [of the main parties] stand and watch as public services are divvied up by a grubby cabal of privateers, what is left of this system that inspires us to participate?”

Why are record numbers of Americans on food stamps?
Because record numbers of Americans are in poverty.

Why are people falling through the cracks?
Because there are cracks to fall through.

It is simply astonishing that in this rich nation more than 21 million Americans are still in need of full-time work, many of them running out of jobless benefits, while our financial class pockets record profits, spends lavishly on campaigns to secure a political order that serves its own interests, and demands that our political class push for further austerity.

Meanwhile, roughly 46 million Americans live at or below the poverty line and, with the exception of Romania, no developed country has a higher percent of kids in poverty than we do.

Yet a study by scholars at Northwestern University and Vanderbilt finds little support among the wealthiest Americans for policy reforms to reduce income inequality.

Class Prerogatives

Listen!
That sound you hear is the shredding of the social contract.

Ten years ago the Economist magazine -- no friend of Marxism -- warned: “The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.”
And as a recent headline in the Columbia Journalism Review put it: “The line between democracy and a darker social order is thinner than you think.”

We are this close -- this close! -- to losing our democracy to the mercenary class.
So close it’s as if we’re leaning way over the rim of the Grand Canyon waiting for a swift kick in the pants.

When Justice Brennan and I talked privately in his chambers before that interview almost 20 years ago, I asked him how he had come to his liberal sentiments. “It was my neighborhood,” he said.

Born to Irish immigrants in 1906, as the harsh indignities of the Gilded Age brought hardship and deprivation to his kinfolk and neighbors, he saw “all kinds of suffering -- people had to struggle.”

He never forgot those people or their struggles, and he believed it to be our collective responsibility to create a country where they would have a fair chance to a decent life.
“If you doubt it,” he said, “read the Preamble [to the Constitution].”

He then asked me how I had come to my philosophy about government (knowing that I had been in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations).
I don’t remember my exact words, but I reminded him that I had been born in the midst of the Great Depression to parents, one of whom had to drop out of school in the fourth grade, the other in the eighth, because they were needed in the fields to pick cotton to help support their families.

Franklin Roosevelt, I recalled, had been president during the first 11 years of my life.
My father had listened to his radio “fireside chats” as if they were gospel; my brother went to college on the G.I. Bill; and I had been the beneficiary of public schools, public libraries, public parks, public roads, and two public universities.

How could I not think that what had been so good for me would be good for others, too?
That was the essence of what I told Justice Brennan.

Now, I wish that I could talk to him again, because I failed to mention perhaps the most important lesson about democracy I ever learned.
On my 16th birthday in 1950, I went to work for the daily newspaper in the small East Texas town where I grew up.

It was a racially divided town -- about 20,000 people, half of them white, half of them black -- a place where you could grow up well-loved, well-taught, and well-churched, and still be unaware of the lives of others merely blocks away.

It was nonetheless a good place to be a cub reporter: small enough to navigate but big enough to keep me busy and learning something new every day.
I soon had a stroke of luck. Some of the old-timers in the newsroom were on vacation or out sick, and I got assigned to report on what came to be known as the “Housewives’ Rebellion.”

Fifteen women in town (all white) decided not to pay the Social Security withholding tax for their domestic workers (all black).
They argued that Social Security was unconstitutional, that imposing it was taxation without representation, and that -- here’s my favorite part -- “requiring us to collect [the tax] is no different from requiring us to collect the garbage.”

They hired themselves a lawyer -- none other than Martin Dies, Jr., the former congressman best known, or worst known, for his work as head of the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the witch-hunting days of the 1930s and 1940s.

They went to court -- and lost.
Social Security was constitutional, after all.

They held their noses and paid the tax.
The stories I helped report were picked up by the Associated Press and circulated nationwide.

One day, the managing editor, Spencer Jones, called me over and pointed to the AP ticker beside his desk.
Moving across the wire was a notice citing the reporters on our paper for the reporting we had done on the “rebellion.”

I spotted my name and was hooked.
In one way or another, after a detour through seminary and then into politics and government, I’ve been covering the class war ever since.

Those women in Marshall, Texas, were among its advance guard.
Not bad people, they were regulars at church, their children were my classmates, many of them were active in community affairs, and their husbands were pillars of the business and professional class in town.

They were respectable and upstanding citizens all, so it took me a while to figure out what had brought on that spasm of reactionary defiance.
It came to me one day, much later: they simply couldn’t see beyond their own prerogatives.

Fiercely loyal to their families, to their clubs, charities, and congregations -- fiercely loyal, in other words, to their own kind -- they narrowly defined membership in democracy to include only people like themselves.

The black women who washed and ironed their laundry, cooked their families’ meals, cleaned their bathrooms, wiped their children’s bottoms, and made their husbands’ beds, these women, too, would grow old and frail, sick and decrepit, lose their husbands and face the ravages of time alone, with nothing to show for their years of labor but the creases on their brows and the knots on their knuckles.

There would be nothing for them to live on but the modest return on their toil secured by the collaborative guarantee of a safety net.

The Unfinished Work of America

In one way or another, this is the oldest story in America: the struggle to determine whether “we, the people” is a moral compact embedded in a political contract or merely a charade masquerading as piety and manipulated by the powerful and privileged to sustain their own way of life at the expense of others.

I should make it clear that I don’t harbor any idealized notion of politics and democracy.
Remember, I worked for Lyndon Johnson.

Nor do I romanticize “the people.”
You should read my mail and posts on right-wing websites.

I understand the politician in Texas who said of the state legislature, “If you think these guys are bad, you should see their constituents.”

But there is nothing idealized or romantic about the difference between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens (something otherwise known as social justice) and one whose institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud.

That can be the difference between democracy and plutocracy.
Toward the end of Justice Brennan’s tenure on the Supreme Court, he made a speech that went to the heart of the matter.

He said:

“We do not yet have justice, equal and practical, for the poor, for the members of minority groups, for the criminally accused, for the displaced persons of the technological revolution, for alienated youth, for the urban masses... Ugly inequities continue to mar the face of the nation. We are surely nearer the beginning than the end of the struggle.”

And so we are.
One hundred and fifty years ago, Abraham Lincoln stood on the blood-soaked battlefield of Gettysburg and called Americans to “the great task remaining.”

That “unfinished work,” as he named it, remained the same then as it was when America’s founding generation began it.
And it remains the same today: to breathe new life into the promise of the Declaration of Independence and to assure that the Union so many have sacrificed to save is a union worth saving.


 
I hear psychopaths talk a lot about motivation. Is that because their brain is too crippled to see the antecedent in anything? For the word "motivation" is neither real, rational, or logical in any sense. I think the word they are looking for is "anticipation". Thank you for the articles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow
I hear psychopaths talk a lot about motivation. Is that because their brain is too crippled to see the antecedent in anything? For the word "motivation" is neither real, rational, or logical in any sense. I think the word they are looking for is "anticipation". Thank you for the articles.
If you haven’t read “The Psychopath Test” by Jon Ronson I highly recommend it…same guy who wrote “The Men Who Stare at Goats”.
Anyhow…this book basically explores how psychopaths have infiltrated the highest positions around the world…these types of statements made by the leaders in the field of study.
 
How America's Wealthy Stole the American Dream and Cashed It at an Offshore Bank

Expect government services to further decline while the rich evade paying their taxes.
sad-george-thumb76480801.jpg

http://www.alternet.org/economy/how...le-american-dream-and-cashed-it-offshore-bank


America is the most unequal country in the developed world.
We also pay the lowest taxes among all developed nations.

Is there a connection?

Runaway inequality and declining taxes are linked together through a set of economic policies called the "Better Business Climate" model which came to America around 1980. (By then Margaret Thatcher had already put her version to work in England.)

After the turbulent 1970s, which featured oil boycotts, high unemployment and even higher inflation rates, the policy establishment was hungry for a new simple plan that promised renewed prosperity.

The Better Business Climate model had two key components: cutting taxes on corporations and the super-rich, and reducing regulations, especially on Wall Street.
This potent combination was to encourage the rich to invest, which in turn would lead to more jobs and increasing incomes for all.

A massive boom would then ensue to make all boats rise.
But as we painfully learned, tax cuts and the unleashing of Wall Street led to luxurious yachts for the few and leaky rowboats for the rest of us.

Mind-altering tax cuts

The massive tax cuts which followed changed the way we perceive government and how we think about taxes.
Since everyone hates to pay taxes, a model that claimed tax cuts would actually be good for the economy was enormously seductive.

However, it is easy to forget that before the Better Business Climate model slashed taxes, there was a national consensus that the super-rich and corporations should carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

It was generally understood that if the wealthy had too much money they might be tempted to gamble it on Wall Street, creating bubbles that would take down the economy as happened during the 1929 stockmarket crash which led to the Great Depression.

Money from the wealthy would be used to fight WWII, the Cold War and build the American Dream.
Through high taxes on the largest corporations and on the wealthiest Americans, we could pay for a new national highway system, provide nearly free public higher education, build affordable housing, support full employment and pay for the largest military establishment in the history of the world.

The Great Depression and world war cast a sobering shadow over how we viewed economic stability and high taxes.
Never again would we allow mass unemployment to take hold.

Never again would we allow obscene and illegal financial speculation (or so we thought).
This tax-the-rich national mindset was so pervasive that both Democratic and Republican administrations from Roosevelt to Nixon supported enormously high taxes on the wealthy.

For example, during WWII all income over $2.6 million in today's dollars was taxed at a 94% rate.
Think about that for a moment.

Basically this rate served as a cap on elite compensation.
After bankers hit $2.6 million, they received only 6 cents on the next dollar.

In 1956, during the conservative Eisenhower administration, the tax rate was still 91% of all income over $3.4 million.
In 1976, 70 cents of every dollar of income over $807,000 went to federal income taxes.

In sum, here was a national consensus that such tax rates were both necessary and proper.
For more than a quarter century, we shared an inner sense of justice: To promote the interests of everyone, there should be some limit on what the wealthy could earn.

The current notion that the rich should be able to manipulate the tax codes to pay lower tax rates than the rest of us would have been revolting to previous generations.
Not just revolting, but downright stupid.

We once understood quite clearly that runaway inequality would surely lead to calamity.
Yet, today, the top tax rate is down to 39.6 percent on income over $440,000.

The chart below shows the dramatic decline in these rates.



The downward spiral of tax cuts and government services

During the period of high tax rates, America reached its peak of fairness, as Thomas Piketty demonstrates in his excellent charts on our distribution of wealth and income.
Yes, there were still plenty of rich people and they still lived damn well.

But nearly all of us experienced a rising standard-of-living year after year.
But as soon as tax rates on the super-rich and corporations declined, inequality took off again.


Runaway inequality and runaway democracy

Every nation has a long and sordid history of money buying political favor.
But rising inequality sets in motion a downward spiral that is so corrupt that democracy itself is in danger.

All of us have an intuitive grasp of how elites translate their increasing wealth into political power, which in turn leads to more tax breaks, more money for the few, and even more political power.

As the tax cuts associated with the Better Business Climate model set in, both political parties scrambled to raise money from those most enriched by the new economic policies.
We now even refer to the "money primaries" in which newly declared political candidates scramble for financial support from the super-rich before the first vote is case.

It is done so blatantly that we not accept it as normal politics.
But the consequences are not just that one politician wins over another.

The rest of us pay dearly as we experience a decline in public services.
And we don't even see how why it's happening.

Zero sum taxation

Buying political favor for the few inevitably leads to more hardship for the many.
As the corporate contribution to federal taxes dropped from 32% in 1952 to only 9% in 2013, individual taxpayers had to make up the difference and to be sure, the super rich did all they could to avoid that burden.

That left the broad section of American working people stuck with most of the tab.
More subversively, corporations and the wealthy discovered new ways to move money offshore in order to avoid taxes.

What would have been impossible to even openly discuss in the 1960s is now common practice.
Large corporations simply keep their global profits in foreign subsidiaries. (They often can do so just by switching accounts in Wall Street banks without the money ever leaving the country.)

As the chart below shows, this practice is growing rapidly.



Contrary to the hype of the Better Business Climate model, they less the rich pay, the more tax pressure builds on the rest of us.
This, in turn, increases the pressure to reduce public services, especially for those at the bottom of the income ladder.

But it hits all of us as public employment and services deteriorate.


  • As we feel like we are getting less and less for our tax dollars, anti-government sentiment increases.

  • As we experience declining services, the pressure mounts for more tax cuts, which further erodes government services.
  • As we see our wages stagnate and our benefits deteriorate, we turn against public sector workers who seem to have it better.
  • Corporations then swoop in with privatization plans for public services which often cost us more and give us fewer services.

The net result is ever more money for those at the top and poorer services for the rest of us.

The black hole of runaway tax dollars

Perhaps the biggest tax crime against American working people takes the form of individual wealth parked abroad.
It is now considered normal practice to take money made in the USA and hide it offshore from the IRS.

The numbers, compiled by the Tax Justice Network are staggering:
A significant fraction of global private financial wealth—by our estimates, at least $21 trillion to $32 trillion as of 2010—has been invested virtually tax-free through the world's expanding black hole of more than 80 offshore secrecy jurisdictions.

We believe the range to be conservative.

We don't know precisely how much of this offshore wealth stems from American elites.
But we can assume that most of it comes from the U.S. As the chart below shows, we have nearly half the world's "ultra-high net worth" individuals (UHNW)—people with more than $50 million in wealth.


How much tax money are we losing?
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) reports that we're losing about $184 billion a year due corporate and individual offshore tax evasion.
That's a big number, more than enough to eliminate tuition at every public university, college and community college in the country.

"Pirate Banking" brought to you by bailed-out Wall Street

The Better Business Climate model not only reduced taxes on corporations and the super-rich, but also deregulated Wall Street.
By abandoning the prudent New Deal controls that prevented Wall Street from excessive gambling and outright criminal activity, the Better Business Climate advocates unleashed a new generation of financial manipulation followed by crashes and bailouts galore.

With massive financial deregulation came the rapid expansion of "wealth management" for high net worth individuals.
The name of the new game was moving money into offshore facilities.

Here's how the Tax Justice Network puts it:
Of the top 10 players in global private banking, all 10 received substantial injections of government loans and capital during the 2008-2012 period.
In effect, ordinary taxpayers have been subsidizing the world's largest banks to keep them afloat, even as they help their wealthiest clients slash taxes.

Many of these market leaders in global pirate banking who are in the practice of hiding and managing offshore assets for the world's elites have also been identified as market leaders in many other forms of dubious activity, from the irresponsible mortgage lending and high-risk securitization that produced the 2008 financial crisis, to the latest outrageous scandals involving LIBOR rate rigging and money laundering for the Mexican cartel.

No taxation without representation: revolutionary potential?

We're in a whale of a tax mess.
Runaway inequality will lead to even more runaway taxation.

Meanwhile government will be starved for funds as the tax burden shifts from corporations and the wealthy onto the rest of us.
Government services will decline while the rich evade their taxes and use their money to insulate themselves from the public services they don't need.

Normally, we would expect to rectify the situation through electoral means.
However, the wealth and power of financial elites thoroughly dominate the political process.

Even the Democratic Party fears eliminating outrageous tax loopholes ("carried interest") for billionaire hedge fund and private equity managers that cost the treasury billions of dollars each year.

The combination of deteriorating government services, tax avoidance by the rich, and unresponsive elected officials form a combustible mix.
Nothing short of a massive movement that builds a new political organization will be needed to right these many wrongs.

But it will have to be more than another Occupy Wall Street.
We will need to do the painstaking work of spreading the word, and then organizing the 99 percent into a new political force to be reckoned with.

It took 30 years to get us here.
Expect it to take that long for us to effectively get our act together.


 
10690039_388652501282197_6524834035234472087_n.jpg


This would make for an interesting topic for a new thread…
Is it an Empire?
 
Last edited:
If you haven’t read “The Psychopath Test” by Jon Ronson I highly recommend it…same guy who wrote “The Men Who Stare at Goats”.
Anyhow…this book basically explores how psychopaths have infiltrated the highest positions around the world…these types of statements made by the leaders in the field of study.

Have you read some of the works by Scott Adams? The guy whom theorized the Dilbert Principle. If you can piece together all of it there are some good lessons on accountability. I have always been of the notion that pragmatism is the only evil.