gunnergoz

I guess you see no problem with a system where unlimited funds allow one side to set the tone and topic of the debate, the people who will run for office and the environment that the elected officials will have to function in. I'm more of a populist. I don't want money to dictate election results, rather issues and candidate positions on them should. Accumulated wealth allows the issues to be framed and the discussion shaped however those funding the advertising and candidates choose. And why should allowing corporations to influence elections be considered in any way democratic? Should I get two votes because I am (1) a voter and (2) a major stockholder in some major firm? That is what I see you saying. Anything that allows power and wealth to tilt the election process is not influence or persuasion, it is subversion and economic bullying.

This all sounds peachy, and if it happens to be true, I'd congratulate you upon your great good fortune (pun intended) but my concern is that today we have a wealthy elite that is hoarding the nation's wealth for their own purposes. What is not squirreled away overseas in tax shelters is used to buy luxuries, but it is certainly not put to work in the economy. Through their control of the financial industry (where a number of these 1%'ers have made their bucks) and banking, the wealthy can cause the American economy to stall or to move forward - whatever their political inclinations decide is right for them at the moment. Right now, they'd love to usher out Obama and reinstate a GOP ruled Congress, so it is eminently in the interests of the wealthy to let ordinary Americans swing on the rope and suffer, encouraging them to vote out the Democrats in favor of Republicans, who are more easily manipulated and who already buy into the ethos of wealth and power. I have nothing against the wealthy, but I think that some of them are actively pursuing and enlarging their wealth at the expense of other Americans and the national interest. The shift of money to them over the past 30 years, gutting the middle class, is proof of that fact.

Actually, it is pretty self-evident, I thought. Extreme concentration of wealth is anti-democratic because, given the lack of regulation of campaign spending in our country in particular, those possessing this extreme wealth (the top 1% of earners) can sway elections by mounting massive and deafening propaganda campaigns that sway voters into selections based upon factors other than reason and national interest. The ability of the rich to use their wealth to consolidate political power thus wrests that power from the voters, who only get to hear what the wealthy want them to hear about and vote for who the wealthy make available to run for office. Mind you, I am talking about extreme wealth, not just ordinary investors and people earning less than $400,000 per year, which is what the cutoff is for the definition of the 1% club. And if one thing history has taught us, money is power and concentrating one is the same as concentrating the other. Democracy can not work in an environment where power is so skewed towards those that can dictate political campaign themes and candidates. It applies to both parties, too.

I agree with you - the overpowering accumulation of national wealth in this 1% of Americans is what is causing the entire system to go "Tilt." Now I just wish we could press the "Reset" button. Having this much power (for money is in the end, the means to an end) in the hands of a few is so anti-democratic that I cannot believe that so many people do not see it as such. I don't care if a person is GOP or Dem, conservative or liberal, in the end their vote is as meaningless as mine if the system is corrupted by all this money being applied to serve the interests of a very few. We all have a dog in this hunt. That is why election reform like this one, http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/pages/fair-elections-now-act/ is so important to our future as a democracy. Without such reform, we will just end up a tinpot dictatorship hiding in an Uncle Sam suit. It may already be too late. The economy is on the skids and there is little hope of recovery as long as this 1% hangs on to all the wealth, or squirrels it away overseas. How many billions does a guy need? Apparently, you can't have enough. You can't have a game of marbles if one kid owns them all. Unless, of course, you charge the other kids to rent from you the marbles that were formerly theirs, you could have a game of sorts. That's where we are now, I think.

And the fancy financial industry's manipulation of these shady derivatives markets had nothing to do with anything? You blame "government" for all these problems. I blame selfish and heavily influenced elected officials who sold out to the banks and financial institutions by discouraging and underfunding regulation. Government is not the problem. Bad leadership is the problem. That and unfettered greed. Government's function is to provide a check upon such negative factors in the marketplace. The elected officials running government failed to live up to the obligations of their offices. Government is a tool. Used badly, it works badly. Blame the tool user and not the tool.

Runyan, I'm trying to do it, but I just can't wrap my mind around your logic: how will proper regulation of the financial market cause monetary meltdowns? I don't even buy the idea that it will cause excessive debt. It was the very Laissez fair philosophies you advocate that, when implemented by the Reagan and succeeding administrations, ultimately enabled the present financial crisis: not government regulation. The whole idea is to regulate unreasonable excesses in the financial sector - excesses of the sort that led to the out of control derivatives market that, along with frankly stupid home loan practices, nearly brought down Wall Street and necessitated the massive government bailouts in order to save the economy. It was not government "interventionism" that did all this, but rather the lack of effective government oversight to begin with. Ever hear the old saying that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?" It certainly applies here. And once again, you resort in the end to totally bogus tactics like dragging out the red herring of North Korea, as if its form of government is what is being suggested by those who see the need for regulation of these runaway market practices. Such hyperbole does nothing to further the discussion and actually backfires most of the time. Why? Because, if your arguments have to depend upon this sort of phony smoke and mirrors finale, it is like admitting that your ideas will not stand up to logical dissection and must hide behind tired cliches, much like a aging stripper might use fans to conceal her flabby, saggy body. Keep in the fight pal, but keep the punches clean and focused. Clinching in the corner is not going to win any bouts for you.

Funny, that's what the ladies probably say about you too. As for making love to a coffee machine goes, for an Italian like me, it would of course have to be a espresso/cappuccino maker. But I seem to have become strangely attached to Ukrainian teas of late...go figure. Such is life. :D

Yep, we really do live on different planets. So you are looking forward to a time which preceded and caused the Crash of '29? Gosh, the huevos of that leaves me breathless my friend.

Whether one is a religious believer or not, the point I get from that phrase in the Declaration of Independence is that there are certain rights granted to people by virtue of their being people (human beings) and that these rights can not be arbitrarily withdrawn by the state. The phrase "the Creator" is sufficiently vague to permit its definition in any number of ways, some of which would might even satisfy an atheist. That phrasing was the brilliance of the Founding Fathers coming through as they attempted to create something that would last beyond them.

Runyan99- FWIW, I am enjoying this intellectual sparring with you and do not mean for it to be something to add to your stresses or my own. In regards to your latest comment, I don't think that comparing dysfunctional systems is entirely constructive. Greek leaders were no more thinking of their nation's long-term interests when they made their economic policies effectively bribing their populace into submission, than were our own leaders when they catered to corporations and banks by permitting unfettered investment activities in the financial sector. Each government was catering to its "base" but in the case of the Greeks, at least the base was the entire populace and not some narrow segment of it. Neither government took the long view and both nations suffered at the hands of their elected officials.

Interesting comment but I cannot buy into it. For one thing, your use of the term "collectivize" is a hot button word that implies that communism is just around the corner. For that matter, we already "collectivize" defense and many other government functions which impinge upon "individual liberty." I routinely see such "trigger words" as "collectivize" used to simplify complex arguments into black and white and seek to drive the discussion into the realm of emotion rather than reason. Next, I would have to argue that freedom DOES foster inequality, when that freedom is unchecked by personal conscience, or rule of law (and policy, i.e. regulation). Our current economic crisis is a perfect example of what happens when the concept of absolute economic freedom is taken as license to unhinge the nation's economy in the pursuit of personal profit. Finally, you speak of "suppressive evils" and in the context of the greater discussion, I can only assume you refer to legally established regulation by government. In a country where we now have a Patriot Act that authorizes government spying upon its citizens' most innocent activities, I find such concerns about legitimate regulation of the economy to be pointed at the wrong enemy. Yes, we do suffer from "suppressive evils" but reasonable government regulation of an out of control corporate investment and banking system is not one of them.

Thanks for your interesting comments and question. In the America I would love to live in, the government would have reasonable policies backed by law, which protected the rights of individuals to receive health care within the means available to government care providers. This would hopefully be a far more humane and flexible system than one that is ruled by profit motives which encourage current private corporate insurance providers to curtail member benefits or to terminate medical coverage just when it is most needed by the member. An appeal system and the courts would have to decide whether individual cases exemplified governmental neglect or abuse of a citizen's rights. I would want that government provided medical care could not be cut off until all appeals and court remedies were exhausted. Citizens determine who their leaders will be and these elected officials will be responsible for adequately funding this system. Obviously, the system's ability to provide the most care for the most people, would depend upon citizens' belief that such care is beneficial to the entire society. If people are divided as to the benefits to be derived from keeping us all equally healthy, then such a system would never work and would instead be tied up in endless political wrangling. We currently have a debate about these issues, but it's content and direction has been polluted by advertising and lobbying from the medical insurance industry, which is fighting for its right to make profits. Medical insurance as a business is in a moral conundrum that it cannot resolve itself: it must make profits, and profits are only possible when premiums from healthy members exceed the expense of treating ill ones. Given our national demographics, with increasing numbers of aging Americans, the trend is that more medical care will be required, not less. So the question is: do Americans see the health of one and all as being equally, less or more important than the right of medical insurance corporations to make a profit?

ASL Vet- Thank you for asking and I suppose it is only fair that I define where I am coming from. A wealthy individual is to me one whose annual exceeds the federal poverty line by a factor of 100. If the poverty line for a single American is $10,000, a wealthy individual by definition earns at least $1,000,000 a year. I have to make up my own definition because, interestingly enough, the Federal government does not see fit to define "middle class" and "wealthy" individuals in the way they do the poor. Could it be that they did not mind stigmatizing the poor and at the same time did not wish to reveal who was really well of in this country? Worth pondering. Fair share assumes that wealthy individuals were taxed at the standard rate of 35% and they did not find ways to avoid paying it beyond the same standard deductions that the poor have to restrict themselves to. It is a fact that many multi-millionaires and most large corporations dodge paying federal income taxes (and state ones too, while we are at it) by setting up overseas headquarters of by using various loopholes in the tax law which were conveniently set up for them by US congressmen whose re-elections they (the wealthy and corporations) underwrite. My "fair share" in a just America would encompass an income made possible by a job that earned a sufficient amount to live upon, taxes that were proportional to my income and medical care that should be the same for each American, no matter what their income. As to the latter, let me refine what I believe: I don't see adequate medical care as a privilege or an economic item to be consumed, but a human right. Finally, I see human altruism as an evolutionary trait that benefits the species and survival of the fittest as a trait that no longer suits a socialized, civilized species (mind you I did not say "socialist.") Given that latter view, I see one of the essential roles of government in a civilized society as being a force to balance out the influences of increased wealth and power that tend to gather when a few individuals are able to collect a majority of the nation's wealth. Money attracts money and the more you have, the greater your ability to gather more wealth. One role of government, in my mind, is to equalize that force with judicious application of laws that recognize that to have an economy that is lopsided is to enable forces that tend to destroy democratic government at the same time they enable an oligarchy, i.e. a government run by a select few people. Your mileage may vary, of course, but that is where I am coming from.

Air travel (by jet or whatever replaces them) will, I think, tend towards larger and larger aircraft carrying more and more passengers in their blended wing bodies. Think cattle car at 50,000 feet. There will be a strong economic call for relatively inexpensive air travel for the masses for the forseeable future, IMO but it will lead to less comfortable situations for the passengers, since less per-person space is the only possible tradeoff when you start packing the bodies in. And lets not even talk about what the experience at the terminal will be like, both at departure and arrival. As for the in-flight perks - perhaps they will just hit them all with sleeping gas after takeoff and put them out of their suffering.

So you channel Glenn Beck too?

Nice. Enjoy it and be sure to keep the shiny side up!

I'd seen this before and had to chuckle. Wait until our esteemed passenger has to put some Rupees or other coinage into the little slot next to the toilet door, the next time he flies Virgin. Virgin passengers have to feel a bit like their namesakes - somewhat wary of getting screwed. But this is the path that all airlines seem to be committed to following, in order to make profits in this economy.

Yes, blame it on the Mexicans, one sounds really hip and savvy doing that. American corporations, in a bid to make still more bloated profits from corn fields in the Midwest, destroyed the Mexican corn farming industry by having our own elected officials authorize subsidies to their American corporate farms, thus making our corn far cheaper than the Mexican farmers could afford to grow it for. Guess where many of those farmers ended up, looking for work? Demographics may be a lesson in failed government, but that government was working at the behest of the corporations and the wealthy who clamored for more and more profits, no matter what the side effects might be. Now we all have to live with the result of that economic policy choice which benefited only shareholders and CEO's.

Runyan99 - What's crazy is what California has become because of wealthy individuals who don't care to pay their share towards the state's operating costs. I remember the conservatives arguing against Prop 13 with the logic that it wasn't right for them to have to pay for the education of other people's kids. Then they didn't want to pay for the care of the mentally ill and Ronnie closed all the state mental hospitals, letting loose thousands to become homeless on the streets. And with the falling education revenues gutting the educational system, young people began dropping out in droves, then to fall into a lifestyle of guns, gangs and drugs - establishing a marginal society within California society that just raised more kids who did not appreciate the benefits of education. California is paying the price for having a core of voters who were simply just not into anything that did not directly benefit them, and who actively promulgated all the malarkey about self-sufficiency and the evils of taxation and public assistance. Today, they retreat daily into their exclusive gated communities to count up their stock dividend proceeds and complain that they still pay too much for services they don't need, like prisons, public libraries and emergency rooms. You and I clearly will never see eye to eye on this stuff - do you even live in California, I wonder? Either way, I've said my piece, which is based upon my experience paying taxes and living here for the past 46 years and watching it go downhill thanks to people who simply don't care a whit about anything but their own immediate interests.

Definitely explains why so many people have "half baked" ideas.

There is nothing wrong with paying taxes to a functioning government that provides properly for its citizens. Yes I was once a California homeowner and I opposed Prop 13 because I could see that it would ultimately kill the states ability to properly fund its educational system in particular. As for the stuff about welfare state, etc, the fact is that a lot of people were attracted to the state's once generous aid benefits and that was not right - it was largely corrected later by welfare to work and other similar programs. There needs to be a balance. AFAIC conservatives have destroyed the state with their demonization of any policy which might further the well-being (not welfare) of its citizens and by backing the policies that inflated property values and permitted bank loans to be written to those who otherwise would not have qualified for them, all in the name of bank and investor profits.

AFAIC, California went downhill starting when Reagan became Governor and the Prop 13 crusaders began beating their insane drum. I recall one of Reagan's aides being invited to give a talk at my college (Sacramento State) soon after the election and he spoke eagerly of wanting to drive us "pinko student liberals off the cliff like so many lemmings" (his actual words, they were burned into my memory at the time.) I assume that was his boss's philosophy as well.

The human race is, on the whole, a rather sorry lot but it is all I have to work with. Still, short of wartime or self-defense, I'd rather not see killing made into a tax-funded public circus supervised by elected officials of dubious moral fiber. I'd like to think we can do a bit better than that as a species. (Normally I'd use the word "civilization" over "species" but I don't think we're there yet.) (Present company excepted, of course - we're all very civilized here in the forum.)

What, you want me to lose my lunch?

I'll bet the Lovely Liverpudlian has a personality to match her physical er, charms.