Log in

View Full Version : The Politics Of Greed



which doctor
13th July 2006, 05:31
Molly Ivins: The politics of greed

Tuesday, July 11, 2006; Posted: 12:03 p.m. EDT (16:03 GMT)

AUSTIN, Texas (CREATORS) -- I don't get it. What's the percentage in keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour? After nine years? This is such an unnecessary and nasty Republican move. Congress has voted seven times to raise its own wages since last the minimum wage budged. Of course, Congress always raises its own salary in the dark of night, hoping no one will notice. But now it does the same with the minimum wage, quietly killing it.

Anyone who doesn't think this is a country where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer needs to check the numbers -- this is Bush country, where a rising tide lifts all yachts.

According to the current issue of Mother Jones:

# One in four U.S. jobs pays less than a poverty-level income.

# Since 2000, the number of Americans living below the poverty line at any one time has risen steadily. Now, 13 percent -- 37 million Americans -- are officially poor.

# Bush's tax cuts (extended until 2010) save those earning between $20,000 and $30,000 an average of $10 a year, while those making $1 million are saved $42,700.

# In 2002, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, compared those who point out such statistics as the one above to Adolph Hitler (surely he meant Stalin?).

# Bush has diverted $750 million to "healthy marriages" by shifting funds from social services, mostly childcare.

# Bush has proposed cutting housing programs for low-income people with disabilities by 50 percent.

A series of related stats -- starting with the news that two out of three new jobs are in the suburbs -- shows how the poor are further disadvantaged in the job hunt by lack of public or private transportation.

Meanwhile, for those who have been following the collapse of the pension system, please note a series in The Wall Street Journal by Ellen Schultz taking a hard look at executive pension obligations:

# "Benefits for executives now account for a significant share of pension obligations in the United States, an average of 8 percent (of large companies). Sometimes a company's obligation for a single executive's pension approaches $100 million."

# "These liabilities are largely hidden, because corporations don't distinguish them from overall pension obligations in their federal financial findings."

# "As a result, the savings that companies make by curtailing pensions of regular retirees -- which have totaled billions of dollars in recent years -- can mask a rising cost of benefits for executives."

# "Executive pensions, even when they won't be paid until years from now, drag down the earnings today. And they do so in a way that's disproportionate to their size, because they aren't funded with dedicated assets."

It seems to me that we've seen enough evidence over the years that the capitalist system is not going to be destroyed by an outside challenger like communism -- it will be destroyed by its own internal greed. Greed is the greatest danger as we develop an increasingly winner-take-all system. And voices like The Wall Street Journal's editorial page encourage this mentality by insisting that any form of regulation is bad. But for whom?

It is so discouraging to watch this country become less and less fair -- "justice for all" seems like an embarrassingly archaic tag. Republicans have rigged the "lottery of life" in this country in ways we don't even know about yet. The new bankruptcy law is unfair, and the new college loan rules are worse. The system has been stacked so that large corporations have an inside track over small businesses in getting government contracts. We won't see the full consequences of this mean and careless legislation for years, but it starting to affect us already.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/ivins.greed/index.html)

Anti-Red
13th July 2006, 05:44
You know why we are so stinking bad in this country now? It is because of the welfare state you guys love along with free handouts for preffered businesses.

Publius
13th July 2006, 05:44
Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 13 2006, 02:32 AM






AUSTIN, Texas (CREATORS) -- I don't get it.

Unsurprising.


What's the percentage in keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour? After nine years? This is such an unnecessary and nasty Republican move. Congress has voted seven times to raise its own wages since last the minimum wage budged. Of course, Congress always raises its own salary in the dark of night, hoping no one will notice. But now it does the same with the minimum wage, quietly killing it.

Hopefully because they've finally realized that increasing the minimum wage does nothing to increase the condition of the poor, overall.

In fact, it's generally harmful.



Anyone who doesn't think this is a country where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer needs to check the numbers -- this is Bush country, where a rising tide lifts all yachts.

How witty.

Not that I disagree, as it's actually true (and is deplorable).



# One in four U.S. jobs pays less than a poverty-level income.

Misleading.

A lot of jobs go to people living with parents, living with room mates, having spouses with higher paying jobs, people working few hours a week, etc.

A meaningless statistic.



# Since 2000, the number of Americans living below the poverty line at any one time has risen steadily. Now, 13 percent -- 37 million Americans -- are officially poor.

And 'officially' poor in America is actually 'middle class' in most of Europe, if you compare the GDP statistics.



# Bush's tax cuts (extended until 2010) save those earning between $20,000 and $30,000 an average of $10 a year, while those making $1 million are saved $42,700.

Well duh.

Not that I agree with the tax cuts (you can't cut taxes and not cut spending), merely that this is obvious.

Compare what they pay.



# In 2002, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, compared those who point out such statistics as the one above to Adolph Hitler (surely he meant Stalin?).

Oh no, not the asinine statement of some Senator I've never heard of.

My belief system...crumbling away!



# Bush has diverted $750 million to "healthy marriages" by shifting funds from social services, mostly childcare.

Depressing.



# Bush has proposed cutting housing programs for low-income people with disabilities by 50 percent.

I'd be interested in seeing this. I doubt 'cut' is an accurate term.



A series of related stats -- starting with the news that two out of three new jobs are in the suburbs -- shows how the poor are further disadvantaged in the job hunt by lack of public or private transportation.

I fully agree.



Meanwhile, for those who have been following the collapse of the pension system, please note a series in The Wall Street Journal by Ellen Schultz taking a hard look at executive pension obligations:

# "Benefits for executives now account for a significant share of pension obligations in the United States, an average of 8 percent (of large companies). Sometimes a company's obligation for a single executive's pension approaches $100 million."

This is, perhaps, the biggest travesty in the modern economy, what's happening to pensions.

Anti-Red
13th July 2006, 05:49
Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 13 2006, 02:32 AM
"Executive pensions, even when they won't be paid until years from now, drag down the earnings today. And they do so in a way that's disproportionate to their size, because they aren't funded with dedicated assets."
I know this is bad and those executives are greedy, but that is not all execs. Also, what do you propose we do? Greed. Sure Republicans are greedy, but so are the left. The left wants to tell people and control people just as much as Republicans.

red team
13th July 2006, 10:02
The inevitable consequences of money because it is circulated back to those who have monopoly control of money be it Capitalists or "Socialists". You see money in the form that it is in today is never spent as when you spend the gas in your car. When your boss gives you money it goes from your hand to the stores, to the landlord, to the banks and then back to your boss which explains why you need to forever work for a boss which gives you money whether your boss is a company owner or a country owner. But, at least with "Socialist" bosses they don't demand that you circulate back more than you can possibly circulate back in terms of money being that they know that this is a mathematical impossibility. But, nevertheless without demanding the mathematically impossible of you they still have monopoly control of circulatable money which explains why they are still considered bosses.

NoMoreBosses
14th July 2006, 12:55
Guns=beauty

Si Pinto
14th July 2006, 13:49
ANTI RED


I know this is bad and those executives are greedy, but that is not all execs.

Have a look through the media and you'll see loads of reports on execs and MD's awarding themselves obscene pay rises and pensions benefits all over the place.

The BBC has recently said it's cutting a lot of jobs and then it's execs award themselves huge pay rises, pretty sick if you ask me.

That's just one example, there are plenty more.

I don't know where you work (or if you work) but I'd bet you your boss's pay has gone up more than yours over the last 5 years, and his pension benefits are far superior to yours.

How is that fair? Your the one doing the work arn't you?

Welcome to the world of capitalism.


Sure Republicans are greedy, but so are the left. The left wants to tell people and control people just as much as Republicans.

Oh come on, where is that quote from? The Democrats handbook?

If you want us to take you seriously have a little think about what your going to type before you type.

Not being a leftist is your perogative, but a little research into leftist theory will show you how poorly chosen your words are.

This isn't about control, it's about equality, your boss doesn't deserve a higher wage rise than you does he? Does he put in a better shift than you? Almost certainly not. So why should he be allowed to do it?

Now you'd call that type of thinking 'nasty socialism', but it still makes sense whatever name you call it.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!
14th July 2006, 15:53
Si Pinto -

I dont know where you work (or if you work) but Id bet you your boss\'s pay has gone up more than yours over the last 5 years, and his pension benefits are far superior to yours.


Now you\'d call that type of thinking \'nasty socialism\', but it still makes sense whatever name you call it.

Well a COMMUNIST would say that. On the other hand look at the Soviets in the 1980s. They were paying their generals 300x the pay of a soldier.

Now look at the US army its more like 13x.

My look how good socialism is! There is this inalienable thing known as hierarchy see. It has always existed. It always will exist - long after it is STAMPTED OUT.

Si Pinto
14th July 2006, 17:44
Since when was 1980's USSR communist? or even socialist?


There is this inalienable thing known as hierarchy see. It has always existed. It always will exist - long after it is STAMPTED OUT.

What your calling hierarchy I call exploitation.

A worker has a boss = Hierarchy

A worker has a boss who awards himself vast salary increases and perks whilst awarding the worker only inflational increases = exploitation

and you advocate it?

power... UNLIMITED POWER!
15th July 2006, 03:00
Originally posted by Si [email protected] 14 2006, 02:45 PM
Since when was 1980\'s USSR communist? or even socialist?


There is this inalienable thing known as hierarchy see. It has always existed. It always will exist - long after it is STAMPTED OUT.

What your calling hierarchy I call exploitation.

A worker has a boss = Hierarchy

A worker has a boss who awards himself vast salary increases and perks whilst awarding the worker only inflational increases = exploitation

and you advocate it?
hmmm ussr until 1991 was socialist. maybe not your preferred type but you cant exactly pick and choose right? When they stopped paying pensions, then the socialsim stopped.


What your calling hierarchy I call exploitation.

A worker has a boss = Hierarchy
Thats because the worker cant run the whole joint on his own. speicialsition = more efficiencies, right? I mean look at the other car companies compared to Hnery Ford.


A worker has a boss who awards himself vast salary increases and perks whilst awarding the worker only inflational increases = exploitation
so? you think the boss shoyld not be paid more? What kind of boss would that be?


and you advocate it?

yo. You got a problem with that? Its natural and so there aint nothing wrong with that. cf my signature.

Janus
15th July 2006, 03:09
When they stopped paying pensions, then the socialsim stopped.
More like when the state collapsed.


Thats because the worker cant run the whole joint on his own
No, but a group of workers can.


speicialsition = more efficiencies, right?
An entire bureaucracy is generally inefficient.


What kind of boss would that be?
It's called being your own boss.


Its natural
Not really. I suppose that back in the middle ages, people though feudalism was natural as well. :lol:

power... UNLIMITED POWER!
15th July 2006, 03:20
When they stopped paying pensions, then the socialsim stopped.


More like when the state collapsed.
Thats right. The state collapsed. Capitalism is gov dumping.



Thats because the worker cant run the whole joint on his own

No, but a group of workers can.
Nope. democracy tends to anarchy.




speicialsition = more efficiencies, right?


An entire bureaucracy is generally inefficient.
State burocracy yes, or unchecked large company beurocracy too. But whoever owsn the capital will want it handled in the most efficeint manner possible right?




What kind of boss would that be?


It\'s called being your own boss.
Youre free to do that right now actually. No one is stopping you but your inability to service others or accumulate money.



QUOTE
Its natural


Not really. I suppose that back in the middle ages, people though feudalism was natural as well.
Yo. What is natural is not evil. Thats right, otherwise God or Mother Nature is evil too. And Nature obviously isnt or we wouldnt be here right? More like indifference really. But to be fair Aurelis had no experience of totalitariantsm huh? Otherwise maybe an except communism huh?

which doctor
15th July 2006, 03:28
You know why we are so stinking bad in this country now? It is because of the welfare state you guys love along with free handouts for preffered businesses.
America is far from a welfare state.


A lot of jobs go to people living with parents, living with room mates, having spouses with higher paying jobs, people working few hours a week, etc.
What if an uneducated single person goes out looking for a job? They will make shit pay!


And 'officially' poor in America is actually 'middle class' in most of Europe, if you compare the GDP statistics.
Europeans get more welfare.


I know this is bad and those executives are greedy, but that is not all execs. Also, what do you propose we do? Greed. Sure Republicans are greedy, but so are the left. The left wants to tell people and control people just as much as Republicans.
I am greedy, but not in the same way that executives are. I want an uninhibited life, free from interruption, and I demand this!




Well a COMMUNIST would say that. On the other hand look at the Soviets in the 1980s. They were paying their generals 300x the pay of a soldier.

Now look at the US army its more like 13x.

My look how good socialism is! There is this inalienable thing known as hierarchy see. It has always existed. It always will exist - long after it is STAMPTED OUT.
Whether the USSR was truly socialist is debatable. I don't think it was.

Janus
15th July 2006, 03:31
Nope. democracy tends to anarchy.
So, since you think that the US is capitalist, it will become a lawless and chaotic nation?

power... UNLIMITED POWER!
15th July 2006, 03:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:32 AM

Nope. democracy tends to anarchy.
So, since you think that the US is capitalist, it will become a lawless and chaotic nation?
Nope. US is not democracy. Deomcracy like communism dont exist. Us be a republic = strictly limited democracy. Senate stacked with rich to look after capilism interests.

Janus
15th July 2006, 03:40
Nope. US is not democracy. Deomcracy like communism dont exist. Us be a republic = strictly limited democracy. Senate stacked with rich to look after capilism interests.
I'm impressed. You seem to be ahead of some of your buddies here. So what do you want to do about this then?

power... UNLIMITED POWER!
15th July 2006, 03:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:41 AM

Nope. US is not democracy. Deomcracy like communism dont exist. Us be a republic = strictly limited democracy. Senate stacked with rich to look after capilism interests.
I\'m impressed. You seem to be ahead of some of your buddies here. So what do you want to do about this then?
I want the politicians to become richer so they are forced by self interest to lower taxes = more libertarian society as smaller gov = less gov control over people.

Janus
15th July 2006, 03:47
I want the politicians to become richer so they are forced by self interest to lower taxes = more libertarian society as smaller gov = less gov control over people.
:blink: So you wanna make every politician a millionaire? That would really stop the corruption, wouldn't it? :rolleyes: If they are richer they would only want to protect this wealth more. Lowering taxes would only help them out more rather than the poor.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!
15th July 2006, 03:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:48 AM

I want the politicians to become richer so they are forced by self interest to lower taxes = more libertarian society as smaller gov = less gov control over people.
:blink: So you wanna make every politician a millionaire? That would really stop the corruption, wouldn\'t it? :rolleyes: If they are richer they would only want to protect this wealth more. Lowering taxes would only help them out more rather than the poor.
They are already all of them millionaires BTW. I want to make them billionaires so they develop a desire to smash the state.

And you cant stop corruption unless you stop the government.




If they are richer they would only want to protect this wealth more. Lowering taxes would only help them out more rather than the poor.
Hopefully they protect their wealth by dismantling government. And there should be no tax at all. Business is more than capable of running everything with an efficeincy only dreamed of (yeah right) by governemtn blugers..

Janus
15th July 2006, 04:11
I want to make them billionaires so they develop a desire to smash the state.
:lol: The state exists to protect this wealth. That is the whole point of the state. Why would they want to smash it and loose this newfound wealth?


Hopefully they protect their wealth by dismantling government. And there should be no tax at all. Business is more than capable of running everything with an efficeincy only dreamed of (yeah right) by governemtn blugers..
:blink: How could they protect their wealth by dismantling the very thing that protects it? And business efficient? :lol: That must be why they have to hire people to conduct surveys on what would be best for their corporation and analyze those statistics. Really efficient. :rolleyes:

power... UNLIMITED POWER!
15th July 2006, 04:51
The state exists to protect this wealth. That is the whole point of the state. Why would they want to smash it and loose this newfound wealth?Because rich like capitlaism. Many are livertarians. But what if we replace the state with a giant corporation/s? who run everything? Thats still something to protect wealth right?


And business efficient? That must be why they have to hire people to conduct surveys on what would be best for their corporation and analyze those statistics. Really efficient.
Those are dumb business run by dummies who exist in this world. But tell me would you be more efficeint with your own money or taxpayers money?

Janus
15th July 2006, 05:07
But what if we replace the state with a giant corporation/s? who run everything? Thats still something to protect wealth right?
But who would protect people's money and property? That requires a state.


But tell me would you be more efficeint with your own money or taxpayers money?
Mine own. What's your point?

Zero
15th July 2006, 05:07
Originally posted by "power... UNLIMITED POWER!"+--> ("power... UNLIMITED POWER!")Many are livertarians.[/b]
Don't you EVER invite me to a Potluck. Ever.


"power... UNLIMITED POWER!"
But what if we replace the state with a giant corporation/s? who run everything?
That would be Mussolini's Corporatism that your thinking of. Check it on Wiki.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!
15th July 2006, 05:13
Originally posted by Zero+Jul 15 2006, 02:08 AM--> (Zero @ Jul 15 2006, 02:08 AM)
Originally posted by \"power... UNLIMITED POWER!\"@
Many are livertarians.
Don\'t you EVER invite me to a Potluck. Ever.


\"power... UNLIMITED POWER!\"
But what if we replace the state with a giant corporation/s? who run everything?
That would be Mussolini\'s Corporatism that your thinking of. Check it on Wiki. [/b]
No. Mussonlini was statist. Im talking libertarian capitalism here. No gov at all.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!
15th July 2006, 05:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:08 AM

But what if we replace the state with a giant corporation/s? who run everything? Thats still something to protect wealth right?
But who would protect people\'s money and property? That requires a state.


But tell me would you be more efficeint with your own money or taxpayers money?
Mine own. What\'s your point?
Simply this - the gov runs schools for zillions of dollars. Privately funded it would be mere billions. More efficeincy = savings! = more money in our pocketsesss yessss? Countries with more capitalism less tax are richer my preciossss?

which doctor
15th July 2006, 05:58
Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER!+Jul 14 2006, 09:14 PM--> (power... UNLIMITED POWER! @ Jul 14 2006, 09:14 PM)
Originally posted by Zero+Jul 15 2006, 02:08 AM--> (Zero @ Jul 15 2006, 02:08 AM)
\"power... UNLIMITED POWER!\"@
Many are livertarians.
Don\'t you EVER invite me to a Potluck. Ever.


\"power... UNLIMITED POWER!\"
But what if we replace the state with a giant corporation/s? who run everything?
That would be Mussolini\'s Corporatism that your thinking of. Check it on Wiki. [/b]
No. Mussonlini was statist. Im talking libertarian capitalism here. No gov at all. [/b]
So you are an anarcho-communist. Most libertarians support a government, but not a coercive one, just one to protect the property of individuals.

Janus
15th July 2006, 08:46
Simply this - the gov runs schools for zillions of dollars.
:lol: Nice exaggeration but here in the US, education is being cut down.

Privately funded it would be mere billions. More efficeincy = savings! = more money in our pocketsesss yessss? Countries with more capitalism less tax are richer my preciossss?
If you wanna reduce the state, ok, but cutting down on education is another thing.

If countries with little or no tax are supposed to be richer then why aren't the Persian Gulf countries higher up in the GDP per capita list and lower in the unemployment and poverty list?