Class warfare by Cenk

[RGacky3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTiJxalIVUA

As was said, class warfare is being waged on the poor and middle class by the rich, numbers don't lie.

What he comes short of saying is calling for fighting back, which is whats nessesary, of coarse its its difficult when you understand whats going on and still try to be a liberal centrist.

I like how he points out that our income inequality is worse than the former bannana republics.

[L.A.P.]

I HAVE AN IDEA!:D How about we just abolish the stock market.:D

[RGacky3]

You can't abolish the stock market unless you abolish corporations.

[L.A.P.]

you can't abolish the stock market unless you abolish corporations.

We should do that too!:)

[Revolution starts with U]

Guys, dont you understand.. WE HAVE TO DEREGULATE AND CUT TAXES MORE!!!!!
:confused: :mad: :crying: :laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

I have to admit--the Eighties was the good old days. Lots of people made lots of money. Now you have to remember almost all of that money is on paper. Real Estate, stocks, etc. it's not like it is REAL. Secondly, as long as the standard of living of most people goes up--what difference does it make how much rich people make? Bill Gates billions mean nothing to me one way or another.

But on the other hand the problem of inequality is a problem of taxes. All the government needs to do is tax the rich and things could get back to something more reasonable. Personally I'm all for the tax cuts to remain for the poor but they should definitely hike them up for the rich.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think the evidence is clear that "a lot" people stayed pretty stagnant during the 80s, in terms of real wealth adjusted for inflation. And "a few" people made a lot of money.
But I do agree with progressive taxing, if we must have taxes at all. In fact, I like the original concept of not taxing anyone's income but the top 10%.

[RGacky3]

Lots of people made lots of money.

Lots of people lost their jobs, lots of people saw their wages stagnate, lots of people lost their union representation, lots of people saw their wages dropped, lots of people saw their benefits drop, a lot more people than the people who made a lot of money.

And I base success on how many people benefit, or how society is benefited overall, not how much money is made by a few people.

Also a huge bubble started to build.


Secondly, as long as the standard of living of most people goes up--what difference does it make how much rich people make? Bill Gates billions mean nothing to me one way or another.


THe standard of living of most people did'nt go up in the 1980s ... Even if it did, if you with 9 other friends found 10,000 dollars, I bet your other buddies would be pissed if you took 9,000 and let them split up the other 1000 "But what difference does it made, you guys got some money too."

Eitherway its irrelivant because peoples living standards did'nt go up generally speaking in the 1980s.


But on the other hand the problem of inequality is a problem of taxes. All the government needs to do is tax the rich and things could get back to something more reasonable. Personally I'm all for the tax cuts to remain for the poor but they should definitely hike them up for the rich.

I agree, but there are better ways to do this sort of thing, such as socializing industry.

[Bud Struggle]

Lots of people lost their jobs, lots of people saw their wages stagnate, lots of people lost their union representation, lots of people saw their wages dropped, lots of people saw their benefits drop, a lot more people than the people who made a lot of money.

And I base success on how many people benefit, or how society is benefited overall, not how much money is made by a few people.

Also a huge bubble started to build. I still have the same problem--I'm not really interested in looking after the "general population" or having somesort of "universal welfare." I am very happy looking after me and mine and wish you all the best in looking after you and yours. I really don't want other people and their problems to be part of my life. I certainly won't be a problem on your life.

What my point is--I want to secure my private life. I don't wnat you in it, I don't want to be a part of yours.


THe standard of living of most people did'nt go up in the 1980s ... Even if it did, if you with 9 other friends found 10,000 dollars, I bet your other buddies would be pissed if you took 9,000 and let them split up the other 1000 "But what difference does it made, you guys got some money too." That's business and power--you need to have a fight over this. I have no problem with that.


Eitherway its irrelivant because peoples living standards did'nt go up generally speaking in the 1980s. Got no big screen TV? (I don't) Got no iPod and Cell Phone? (me-nope. I don't wear a watch either. :D) There's a lot more consumer goods people have since the 80s. People are better off.


I agree, but there are better ways to do this sort of thing, such as socializing industry. Look at what hapened who the Anarchists took over businesses in Spain. Not very pretty.

[RGacky3]

I still have the same problem--I'm not really interested in looking after the "general population" or having somesort of "universal welfare." I am very happy looking after me and mine and wish you all the best in looking after you and yours. I really don't want other people and their problems to be part of my life. I certainly won't be a problem on your life.


Except that the government and social institutions should be looing after the general population, so you don't have too.

If you don't have to give to charity or volunteer in soup kitchens thats fine, but we don't care about that, we're fighting for the government and the economy to work for the people.


What my point is--I want to secure my private life. I don't wnat you in it, I don't want to be a part of yours.

Fine, but, what does that have to do with what I said in my post?

YOu did'nt respond at all, I said the 80s were NOT as great as what were you were saying, they sucked for a lot of people, and your tyring to change the subject.

THe point was, Deregulation, privatization, and Raganite economics DOES'NT WORK, the fact that you don't want people peeking in your house does'nt have anything to do with it.


That's business and power--you need to have a fight over this. I have no problem with that.

Then STFU about unions needing to be "fair," or revolutionaries needing to be nice to capitalists.

Don't have a double standard.


Got no big screen TV? (I don't) Got no iPod and Cell Phone? (me-nope. I don't wear a watch either. :D) There's a lot more consumer goods people have since the 80s. People are better off.

More consumer goods does'nt mean people are better off, thats such a retarded measure of general welfare its almost pointless to respond to it.


Look at what hapened who the Anarchists took over businesses in Spain. Not very pretty.

. . . . No, actually it was pretty, better for most people than when they were run by the capitalist.

[Conquer or Die]

This wealth disparity does not count the fact that the population on a whole has experienced a massive increase in overall wealth in all classes of society. This rate of increase is specifically due to Corporatist and State-Capitalist policies. All Cenk wants you to do is get more of that for yourself at the rich's expense.

The problem is not with "wages" which represent mostly stolen wealth the problem is with "control." Labor must be in control materially speaking - period.

Bud Struggle: No issues with you being a hermit in Appalachia and living your private life. Go with God. Until then, get with the program.

[Bud Struggle]

Except that the government and social institutions should be looing after the general population, so you don't have too.

If you don't have to give to charity or volunteer in soup kitchens thats fine, but we don't care about that, we're fighting for the government and the economy to work for the people. I think the government should stay out of everyone's business. Everybody should be allowed to do what they want for the most part. People should take care of themselves. I don't want or need to be in some sort of general health plan. I don't want or need to be in some sort of general retirement plan. I can take care of meyslf. You take care of yourself.




Fine, but, what does that have to do with what I said in my post?

YOu did'nt respond at all, I said the 80s were NOT as great as what were you were saying, they sucked for a lot of people, and your tyring to change the subject. They were good for a lot of people not everyone--but it's not the government's job to take care of everyone. They need to pave the roads and defend the country.


THe point was, Deregulation, privatization, and Raganite economics DOES'NT WORK, the fact that you don't want people peeking in your house does'nt have anything to do with it. It'smore than that. It's how I raise my children it's what is taught in their public schools it's what the laws are in my community. It's what I do with my land and my property, what I can do and can't do with land that I've bought and paid for.


Then STFU about unions needing to be "fair," or revolutionaries needing to be nice to capitalists.

Don't have a double standard. I've never said anything about anyone being fair--Communist, Capitalist; Bourgeoisie, Proletarian--it's just business. Nothing more.


More consumer goods does'nt mean people are better off, thats such a retarded measure of general welfare its almost pointless to respond to it. It doesn in a backhanded way. If you can avoid the consumerism you have a lot more than if you don't.



. . . . No, actually it was pretty, better for most people than when they were run by the capitalist. And how did that work out?

[RGacky3]

I think the government should stay out of everyone's business. Everybody should be allowed to do what they want for the most part. People should take care of themselves. I don't want or need to be in some sort of general health plan. I don't want or need to be in some sort of general retirement plan. I can take care of meyslf. You take care of yourself.


Cool, I take it you will be REFUSING to take any medicare or social security. I'm glad, your a patriot.

But if your ok with the countries oil, industrial infestructure, health care and other national resources being out of your hands, and out of the peoples hands, and in private tyrranies hands then fine.

I guess you'd rather your health care and pensions be run by corporate CEOS for profit, rather than a public institution you have a say in not for profit but for the public good (and unless you can preform sergery on yourself and pay for all your healthcare out of pocket then don't give me none of your individualistic mysticism crap).


They were good for a lot of people not everyone--but it's not the government's job to take care of everyone. They need to pave the roads and defend the country.


THe governments job is what we tell it its job is. #1. But again if you'd prefer private tyrannies to control the commons instead, then thats fine, you'd have loved the USSR man, you don't have a say there either :).


I've never said anything about anyone being fair--Communist, Capitalist; Bourgeoisie, Proletarian--it's just business. Nothing more.


When ever we talk about unions you always say "well, I guess thats fair", or "they are getting over paid" or "they should fight for whats fair."

If your ok with the buisiness class being ruthless and destroying the lives of working people, then I guess you'd be ok with the reverse.


It'smore than that. It's how I raise my children it's what is taught in their public schools it's what the laws are in my community. It's what I do with my land and my property, what I can do and can't do with land that I've bought and paid for.

Again, nothing to do with anything, reaganomics does'nt work.

As for the other point, as long as your property does'nt interfere with everyone else then I'm fine, but I'm not paying for a government to defend YOUR property rights :).


It doesn in a backhanded way. If you can avoid the consumerism you have a lot more than if you don't.

No, it does'nt, if it was'nt there would'nt have to avoid it, not difference at all.


And how did that work out?

Very well actually, next time hopefully, 2 massiave foreign backed armies won't bomb the shit out of it :), other than that, it worked much better than reaganomics, and actually did what it promised it would (reaganomics did not, trickel down never happened).

[Conquer or Die]

The Laffer Curve (trickle down) is a fact. It just exists in a utopian situation. Socialists are not bound by the desire to return to Physiocratic maxims because they are realistic.

If you say that "trickle down doesn't work" you'll be destroyed in a debate. Trickle down works, just not in any situation outside of farms in France.

[Bud Struggle]

Cool, I take it you will be REFUSING to take any medicare or social security. I'm glad, your a patriot. Actually my wife and I have already decided to donate all of our Social Security to charity. (Catholic charities.)


But if your ok with the countries oil, industrial infestructure, health care and other national resources being out of your hands, and out of the peoples hands, and in private tyrranies hands then fine. My business is in my hands--other people business should be in their hands. If I choose to buy other people's products, I will, if not--so be it.


I guess you'd rather your health care and pensions be run by corporate CEOS for profit, rather than a public institution you have a say in not for profit but for the public good (and unless you can preform sergery on yourself and pay for all your healthcare out of pocket then don't give me none of your individualistic mysticism crap). I'll but my own insurance. Easy as that.


THe governments job is what we tell it its job is. #1. But again if you'd prefer private tyrannies to control the commons instead, then thats fine, you'd have loved the USSR man, you don't have a say there either :). They should keep out of my affairs and I will keep out of theirs. That's all I ask. If I want to give money to charity, I will do it--I don't need to government to do it for me.


When ever we talk about unions you always say "well, I guess thats fair", or "they are getting over paid" or "they should fight for whats fair."

If your ok with the buisiness class being ruthless and destroying the lives of working people, then I guess you'd be ok with the reverse. That's over the top. I have no problem with unions--if they could get people more money, good on them. They fit in a lot of places and in some they don't. I'm all for people having a free vote on having a union of not.


As for the other point, as long as your property does'nt interfere with everyone else then I'm fine, but I'm not paying for a government to defend YOUR property rights :).EXACTLY!!!!


No, it does'nt, if it was'nt there would'nt have to avoid it, not difference at all. Consumerism is an individual choice--far be it for me to tell people how to live.


Very well actually, next time hopefully, 2 massiave foreign backed armies won't bomb the shit out of it :), other than that, it worked much better than reaganomics, and actually did what it promised it would (reaganomics did not, trickel down never happened). I've been reading up on the Anarchists in Spain lately--I'm not as pro Anarchist as I once was. But that's another story.

[Conquer or Die]

I've been reading up on the Anarchists in Spain lately--I'm not as pro Anarchist as I once was. But that's another story.

The libertarian delusion is pretty infantile in hindsight. It's a necessary component of a functioning society but not a coup of justice or even of freedom. At its best it is the ultimate expression of an individual's complexion, at its worst it is confusing and unrealistic.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's all well and good that you have the ability to pay for your healthcare. Gratz on you. But what about those that cannot? The argument is bunk; I take the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness very seriously. That includes healthcare, education, and equal representation under the law.
Unless you blame the poor for being poor. I think this kind of short-sighted, generalizing thinking isn't very healthy.

[RGacky3]

Actually my wife and I have already decided to donate all of our Social Security to charity. (Catholic charities.)


God bless you.


My business is in my hands--other people business should be in their hands. If I choose to buy other people's products, I will, if not--so be it.


It should'nt be in other peoples hands if it effects everyone, thats the whole point of democracy, everyone has a say in what effects them. But again, you ignoring the fact that much of the economy not just a personal matter. Your living in the 1700s.


I'll but my own insurance. Easy as that.


Again, you ignored my post. Also, stop calling yourself a social-democrat, you sound like a clown.


They should keep out of my affairs and I will keep out of theirs. That's all I ask. If I want to give money to charity, I will do it--I don't need to government to do it for me.

Your world is where freedom is bought, thats the world you want aparently.


That's over the top. I have no problem with unions--if they could get people more money, good on them. They fit in a lot of places and in some they don't. I'm all for people having a free vote on having a union of not.

They fit in all places if thet get more for the workers.


EXACTLY!!!!

Fine, if you can hold no to what you have without property rights, then I got no problem with it.


Consumerism is an individual choice--far be it for me to tell people how to live.


Do you read my posts? YOu said consumer goods made peoples lives better I said they don't, you said they do because if you don't buy them your better off, now this shit? What are you talking about, follow the conversation.


I've been reading up on the Anarchists in Spain lately--I'm not as pro Anarchist as I once was. But that's another story.

First of all, what have you been reading? Second of all tell me, Anarchists in spain gave more freedom and democracy to the spanish people than the US has ever done for its people.

[Left-Reasoning]

Guys, dont you understand.. WE HAVE TO DEREGULATE AND CUT TAXES MORE!!!!!
:confused: :mad: :crying: :laugh:

I don't know about deregulate, but, certainly, taxes on the poor should be abolished.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'll agree with that Left-Reasoning. Really I would be pro getting rid of taxes all together if we could assure proper protection of society (but that proves extremely difficult).

[Left-Reasoning]

I'll agree with that Left-Reasoning. Really I would be pro getting rid of taxes all together if we could assure proper protection of society (but that proves extremely difficult).

I think taxes can be useful in getting rid of some of the Capitalists vast amount of stolen wealth and then the resources can at least be put to somewhat productive uses.

[Bud Struggle]

I think taxes can be useful in getting rid of some of the Capitalists vast amount of stolen wealth and then the resources can at least be put to somewhat productive uses.

In theory that's where it is already. It's mot like millionires have vast sums of loot hidden away in gold dabloons hidden under their matress. rich people have their money in assets that produce wealth: factories, stores, businesses. Those things in turn produce jobs for the hoi poli. That is how it is supposed to work anyway.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

You can tell that a person is a liberal when they refer to the working class as the middle class.

[Revolution starts with U]

Or an american, as our culture tries to push the idea that we are all middle class.

[RGacky3]

In theory that's where it is already. It's mot like millionires have vast sums of loot hidden away in gold dabloons hidden under their matress. rich people have their money in assets that produce wealth: factories, stores, businesses. Those things in turn produce jobs for the hoi poli. That is how it is supposed to work anyway.

Or financial gadgets, All assets producte wealth, no matter who owns them, wealth will be produced, the problem is, on whose terms, and for whos benefits.

[Bud Struggle]

You can tell that a person is a liberal when they refer to the working class as the middle class.

I don't think you'll find many Americans that will admit to being "Proletarians." It is just not a word common to American useage. I also doubt you'll find many poor people admitting to being poor--Lower Middle Class is a term they would use.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, my mother cringes everytime I say we were poor (we lived in a trailer park on food stamps with free lunch at school, that isn't like 3rd world poor, but pretty poor nonetheless). She says, "lower middle class." Everyone in America is middle class except Bill Gates, didn't you guys know this? :laugh:

[RGacky3]

I don't think you'll find many Americans that will admit to being "Proletarians." It is just not a word common to American useage. I also doubt you'll find many poor people admitting to being poor--Lower Middle Class is a term they would use.

Most will admit to being working class, or "working people" as opposed to buisiness men.

[Bud Struggle]

Most will admit to being working class, or "working people" as opposed to buisiness men.

Lower middle class is an even better term. "Working" is an actual activity that you either engage in or do not engage in. You certainly can't define people on welfare as "working class"--they don't actually work. I work. ;)

(Speaking of working--WalMart hasn't hired me yet. No contact even. :rolleyes: )

[RGacky3]

Lower middle class is an even better term. "Working" is an actual activity that you either engage in or do not engage in. You certainly can't define people on welfare as "working class"--they don't actually work. I work. ;)

Nope, Lower middle class is meaningless, Working defines how you make your money, by your labor, thats class, you make your money by owning a company (and yeah you might do work too, but we're talking economics here).

[Bud Struggle]

Nope, Lower middle class is meaningless, Working defines how you make your money, by your labor, thats class, you make your money by owning a company (and yeah you might do work too, but we're talking economics here).

So then what about all those Welfare moms and students and the people living off of unemployment or a small pention?

[RGacky3]

So then what about all those Welfare moms and students and the people living off of unemployment or a small pention?

They are still working class, because within their only option without government assistance is working for money. Also most of those people come from families that are working class, and most of them try and get jobs where they can work.

[Bud Struggle]

They are still working class, because within their only option without government assistance is working for money. Also most of those people come from families that are working class, and most of them try and get jobs where they can work.

I come from a family that's working class--I don't buy the "family" aspect. And if I didn't have investments--I'd have to work. Meh.

I think we need a better description than working class. I'm not totally discounting it--I'd just like something a bit more accurate.

Maybe: Working Middle Class. They work--as you said, they aren't poor, so they have some money, but they don't exactly have to work--they are just in that lower middle class income bracket.

[RGacky3]

I come from a family that's working class--I don't buy the "family" aspect. And if I didn't have investments--I'd have to work. Meh.

I think we need a better description than working class. I'm not totally discounting it--I'd just like something a bit more accurate.

It does'nt need to be more accurate, it does'nt its purpose, most people understand it.

You don't HAVE to work you own a company, your not working class, its as simple as that.

[Bud Struggle]

It does'nt need to be more accurate, it does'nt its purpose, most people understand it.

You don't HAVE to work you own a company, your not working class, its as simple as that.

I think America is pretty happy being Middle-Class with Bill Gates at one end and few poor sprinkled at the other.

[Lt. Ferret]

It does'nt need to be more accurate, it does'nt its purpose, most people understand it.

You don't HAVE to work you own a company, your not working class, its as simple as that.


my wife owns a company. get back to me when you have any idea about what business owners do or dont do in terms of work.

[Revolution starts with U]

If America is so happy with her economic/class situation, why is it so easy for capitalists to conscript these reactionary tea-partiers? :confused:

[Bud Struggle]

If America is so happy with her economic/class situation, why is it so easy for capitalists to conscript these reactionary tea-partiers? :confused:

Comrade--they want to go back to the haycion days of Ronald Reagan and the fall of the Evil Empire. :D

[Revolution starts with U]

That doesn't answer the question of how it is so easy to conscript worker's into the cause of "end welfare for the poor, more welfare for the rich! Privatize profits, socialize losses, and conquer the world!"
Why is this so easy? Because people are fuckin broke, losing their house, struggling for food, and don't know who to blame. They've been hegemonized to believe that first the ones trying to help them gain access to housing, education, and healthcare are the real slavemasters, and they should give more power to the people taking their house away.

[RGacky3]

I think America is pretty happy being Middle-Class with Bill Gates at one end and few poor sprinkled at the other.

I was talking about class in the sense of how you get your income, and America is'nt sprinkled with poor, its full of them. What you call middle class is mostly, working class.


my wife owns a company. get back to me when you have any idea about what business owners do or dont do in terms of work.

If she employs people part of the money she's making is from other peoples work, and most large companies the income of the owners is almost entirely from other peoples work, that does'nt mean its not hard work to manage a company, but thats not how the wealth is made.

I'll put it like this to you slave owners did a lot of work controlling the slaves, but the slaves did the harvest :).

[Bud Struggle]

That doesn't answer the question of how it is so easy to conscript worker's into the cause of "end welfare for the poor, more welfare for the rich! Privatize profits, socialize losses, and conquer the world!"
Why is this so easy? Because people are fuckin broke, losing their house, struggling for food, and don't know who to blame. They've been hegemonized to believe that first the ones trying to help them gain access to housing, education, and healthcare are the real slavemasters, and they should give more power to the people taking their house away.

What are you saying? People are idiots?

[Revolution starts with U]

Willfully ignorant, is more like it. Glorification of corporate and gangster culture has made them think they can "buy in" to the system.
Capitalism's greatest trick was putting Che Guevara on a t-shirt, and selling that shit!
How can you revolt against the commercialization of revolution?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Willfully ignorant, is more like it. Glorification of corporate and gangster culture has made them think they can "buy in" to the system.
Capitalism's greatest trick was putting Che Guevara on a t-shirt, and selling that shit!
How can you revolt against the commercialization of revolution?

Don’t get caught up in the spectacle of opposition. Oppose the spectacle.

[Robert]

Capitalism's greatest trick was putting Che Guevara on a t-shirt, and selling that shit!
How can you revolt against the commercialization of revolution?
Trick? Supplying a demand?

If you want to look revolutionary, wear a suit and tie. (Have you ever seen a photo of Marx in a t-shirt?)

And who looks more serious, this guy?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRGdPmFR0OK20sFPiw4fcjoK5FhgL0uC C4a_DP5rpMU4cPvMIE&t=1&usg=__6tcmfmN3RNcR7gGhpydkoHFA5ag=

Or these guys?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcrkfDQAOsA7SMCDbsx2mLB94JLfZcJ 7sZJgf3PMCEMW8ygFU&t=1&usg=__8ilTb1d4SEQTekSTqsvc5l7hko0=

Note color of tie and matching hanky. These guys got it goin' on!

[Bud Struggle]

^^^The Hammer of Capitalism has posted! ^^^

;):)

[NGNM85]

This story caught my attention...


dJyjNiL4zZg

[RGacky3]

Your too late NGMN85, theres already a thread about that story.

[Dermezel]

The US Imperialists are being subverted and cannibalized by their own fake expert industry.

[Lt. Ferret]

Yes, but my Cannibalism industry is taking off!

[Revolution starts with U]

Are you the creator of Fuman meat?

[Lt. Ferret]

they are my direct competitors.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'll take two large femurs to go then