How Capitalism Is Dismembering America by Paul Buchheit

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/22-0



Too many Americans are unaware of the extreme disparities that have been caused by the unregulated profit incentive of capitalism. Our winner-take-all system is flailing away at once-healthy parts of society, leaving them like withered limbs on a trembling body, even as the relative few who benefit promote the illusion of opportunity and prosperity for all. Concerned citizens armed with facts are not fooled. Instead, the more they learn the angrier they get. And as in revolutions of the past, discontent leads to change.


Hacking Off the Poor Half of Society

Some wealthy and uninformed individuals have referred to the lowest-income 47% of Americans as the "takers," who enjoy government benefits at the expense of the high-earning one percent. But their claim is meaningless. The total amount paid out in 'welfare' (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is less than the investment income of just three men in a single year.

The monthly TANF income for a family of four is less than what the average member of the Forbes Top 20 made in one second at the office.

The 47% don't own stocks. They don't own anything. The so-called 'takers' have ZERO wealth. The value of any assets owned by nearly half of the country is surpassed by their debt.

[woo me with science]

1. Let's repeat that:

The total amount paid out in 'welfare' (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is less than the investment income of just three men in a single year.

The monthly TANF income for a family of four is less than what the average member of the Forbes Top 20 made in one second at the office.

The 47% don't own stocks. They don't own anything. The so-called 'takers' have ZERO wealth. The value of any assets owned by nearly half of the country is surpassed by their debt.

[xchrom]

2. +1

[abelenkpe]

10. the 47 percent

because they have nothing also get to pay more for healthcare and credit. While the well to do get discounts for both. What a great system....for keeping people down.

[marmar]

3. Our Lizzy Borden economy.

[el_bryanto]

4. Discontent leads to change?

We'll have to see on that one.

Bryant

[Dragonfli]

5. The way it was qualified in that statement, I believe it does

Last edited Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)

"...And as in revolutions of the past, discontent leads to change."

He appears to be talking about an extreme level of discontent that leads to, or grows out of revolution. The French became a tad discontent a little over two centuries ago and that let to change (among the change it led to was a new aristocratic fashion fad called headlessness).

There are many other examples throughout history some of them quite recent.

That's how I understood the sentence with the word revolution anyway. I may have it all wrong.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

8. That's how I read it, too.

[abelenkpe]

12. revolution and war

in the past did serve to bring about change. But now we are a world armed with nuclear weapons and our governments have far superior force. Change will have to come through non violent means and that will require a unified public.

[Dragonfli]

17. Are you suggesting nuclear weapons will be used in an internal conflict?

I don't think you realize what those things do. The smaller ones we built in WWII were city killers with radiation deaths that spread across large areas that were literally only as predictable as the wind (some more immediate and others slower, with side effects like cancer). I think the newer ones are far more powerful. Using nuclear weapons internally would be like chopping of your head to spite your face.

Governments in modern times are falling in places, regardless of superior force, you get to read about it in the news. It is possible, the winning as always may go either way. It would be marked at first by large scale gatherings of the desperate angry masses, rioting and breaking through police lines like they used to protect the sacred bull on wall st and escalate from there.

Only a sociopath would prefer uprisings and revolution because they are always bloody and pit countrymen and even brothers against one another. What you don't understand is that usually they aren't planned, they happen when critical mass is reached and some seemingly insignificant thing sparks and sets the thing off. There are exceptions, like when revolutions are instigated and guided according to plan by CIA types, but they aren't likely to do that at home like they have in South American and third world countries where they want to install someone that will play ball.

If it goes too far with their poverty for most and opulence for a very few, the social dynamic will play out as it always does and many will die, the only thing new is perhaps many more will die as a result of more powerful weapons that you feel (and are likely correct) will be used against the poor and desperate angry masses, I doubt nukes will come into play, even neocons and neolibs aren't quite that stupid.

[abelenkpe]

22. No

I'm not saying nuclear weapons will be used. I'm saying they are a deterrent. That this crisis cannot be solved as they have been in the past. That non violent means will need to be utilized.

[Dragonfli]

23. I agree to a point, it would be saner and more productive using non violent means, I just see

a very well known recurring social dynamic that has always appeared when they push it too far, it is part of human nature as well as human history. I do hope a peaceful means can be found before the inevitable powder keg blows up as it nearly always has in the past. Uprisings are only successful sometimes and loaded with bloody death nearly all the time. What you propose and I hope we can accomplish has not left much of a fingerprint in history and will have to be invented almost from scratch the whole way, it will also require total solidarity and universal restraint during a time when desperation and anger are on the increase, if I had to cold guess the odds, I'd put my money on the thing blowing up, and my hopes on a newly evolved peaceful method of equalising the wealth and liberty disparities.

[abelenkpe]

24. Completely agree

With what you say. Such solidarity does seem out of reach. I'm just being hopeful.

[hedda_foil]

6. Severing the Head from the Global Body

Severing the Head from the Global Body

If you could gather together the world's 200 richest individuals, ask each one his or her net worth, get the actual numbers from Forbes, and then add it all up, the total would be more than the total wealth of half the population of the world, 3.5 billion people.

The U.S. is one of the greatest contributors to this shameful disparity. It's no coincidence that we're both the third least taxed developed country and the fourth highest in wealth inequality among all nations. It's also no surprise, with so little revenue going to the general public, that our country is the fourth worst in the overall well-being of its children.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

7. K&R

Thanks for posting.

[DissidentVoice]

9. I hate what "capitalism" has become

It has become a codeword for screwing the poor at the expense of the rich.

Dickens couldn't have put it better when he envisioned the kind of society that the GOP "capitalists" want.

RW'ers try to insult me by calling me a "socialist." I would rather be a "socialist" than a "capitalist" who would sell their own grandmother to make their stock portfolio produce more.

[HughBeaumont]

13. I think you meant "at the behest of the rich" . . .

. . . because "at the expense of" implies that the wealthy are somehow suffering (or sharing the burden) from the poor/middle/working classes being screwn. In fact, they're profiting quite handsomely from such a one-sided deal . . . better than ever.

It's like my right wing and very wealthy boss said the other day: "I think the poor need help, I'm not opposed to that . . . America's government just wants to do it at my expense."

[DissidentVoice]

21. Point taken n/t

[hfojvt]

11. well that is ridiculous

"The 47% don't own stocks. They don't own anything. The so-called 'takers' have ZERO wealth. The value of any assets owned by nearly half of the country is surpassed by their debt."

The 47% who pay no income tax, included me in 2007-2011. I find here my tax form from 2011. $15,814.01 in wage income and $145.21 in taxable interest and 95 cents in dividend income. Even $99.91 in capital gains (:woohoo .

A simple $3,000 contribution to my IRA knocks my AGI down to $12,860.26 and then the Retirement Savings and Contribution credit zeroes out the income taxes.

I own my own home, fully paid for since 2005 (worth a whole $45,000 if you believe the tax assessor) and even owned some stocks in 2011.

Point is that the "people who pay no federal income tax" are not exactly the same people as "those with zero or negative" net worth (although I do not believe that group is as high as 47% either, Only 16.9% of the country had zero or negative net worth in 2002, and another 9.3% had less than $5,000 another 4.8% had less than $10,000 and 7.6% had less than $25,000, I cannot believe that has changed THAT much in ten years, although I doubtless should update my files.)

[Dragonfli]

20. It has changed very much in ten years, from what I was able to find quickly:

I may be reading this wrong, but 26% appear to have assets overwhelmed by debt, I suppose that is the same as 0 or negative assets.

The terms used in the report are “net worth asset poor” and “liquid asset poor”, the latter term is said in the report to apply to nearly half of the population, while the former term is said to apply to a quarter of the population.
This source may be a good place to update your files, they have great state by state data.

http://assetsandopportunity.org/scorecard/about/main_findings/

...nearly half (43.9%) of households—equivalent to 132.1 million people—do not have a basic personal safety net to prepare for emergencies or future needs, such as a child’s college education or homeownership. These families are considered “liquid asset poor,”...
...In addition, 26% of households are “net worth asset poor,” meaning that the few assets they have, such as a savings account or durable assets like a home, business or car, are overwhelmed by their debts...

[Saviolo]

14. No secret as to why people are unaware

The huge money is behind the media corporations and control the message. Corporatist messages make it through, and liberal and progressive voices don't. The Koch brothers even want to buy up a whole bunch of newspapers.

This makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there's no grand conspiracy, here. It's a headless blunder.

No way to get a message out unless you've got money. There are unbelievable amounts of money moving behind just about everything we touch every day. A friend of mine explained to me what's involved in getting a song into the top 5 on radio stations. Has to do with fan requests? Nope. Money. Politicians are more interested in listening to lobbyists with cash than constituents who voted them in.

How do we break the cycle? How do we get giant corporations to take a human cost into consideration for their bottom line? An environmental cost? They'd rather lawyer up, pay a fine that doesn't put a dent in their profit, and continue blithely along in the same dangerous way.

Guess I'm feeling cynical today.

[KurtNYC]

15. Fascism is capitalism in decay

As true now as 100 years ago.

[xtraxritical]

16. Too true, we're in exactly the same situation as at the end of the Victorian era.

[Starry Messenger]

18. +1

[hifiguy]

19. THIS. nt.

[HiPointDem]

25. +1

[whathehell]

26. +10 n/t