Rich corporations "must share wealth" to avoid unrest

[Joanne98]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Poverty and unemployment reared their heads at the World Economic Forum on Thursday, with speakers urging the elite audience to bridge a growing gap between booming multinationals and the jobless poor.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, who also chairs the Socialist International group of center-left parties, said the global crisis had led to an "unsustainable" race to the bottom in labor standards and social protection in developed nations.

"Politically, I believe we are at a turning point where... there are signs in Europe of more nationalism, more racism, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitism, fundamentalisms of all types," he said. "We need to look to a different model."

Maurice Levy, chairman and chief executive of French advertising giant Publicis, said there was "a huge suspicion about CEOs, bankers, corporations."



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70Q75Z20110127

[postulater]

1. Novel idea.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gtar100]

58. hahaha It takes them so long to see the obvious

What good is it to be rich if you destroy your environment, your planet in the process.

Next is the obvious statement - we shall see!

[Cal33]

114. "Novel idea" and also Wishful Thinking.

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[Peter1x9]

3. They won't start sharing the wealth until the poor are at their doors with pitchforks.

n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

6. BINGO!

[DBoon]

7. Europeans are well aware of this possibility

which is why this conference is European based

American corporation think they can slowly bleed us to death with no pushback

[bergie321]

8. "American corporation think they can slowly bleed us to death with no pushback"

That's because they have been getting away with it for 30+ years and they can still manipulate ignorant Americans to scream and protest FOR them.

[Citizen Worker]

15. The corporate strategy has been working flawlessly for over 30 years, why change now?

[snappyturtle]

47. And can you believe that in Davos the bankers are bitching about

regulation and are tired of all the bad talk about their industry. Here's an article on the same Reuter's page as the linked article in the OP entitled: Sarkozy to JP Morgan Chief: Banks "defied common sense"....it's a two page quick read and very interesting how the banks seem to feel the bad talk has made them out to be the bad guys...I'm paraphrasing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70Q5HB20110127

[Volaris]

73. Awwwww, did witto Jam-Jam get called names for steewing all that money?

yea it sucks to realize that all the stolen money in the world won't buy happiness (or good PR, apparently) doesn't it, bitch. Boo Hoo for him.
Fuck off, Jamie.

[No Elephants]

67. 30 years? John Hancock, Getty, Rockefeller, "'robber barons," Esso, Standard Oil, etc.

Our modern plutonomy "barons" and their government enablers are heinous, it's true, but they did not invent greed or exploitation.

[No Elephants]

68. "think they can slowly bleed us to death" They think they can because they always have & we have

only very, very rarely done anything about it. it's a no brainer.

[mwb970]

10. This should work.

http://www.amazon.com/Radius-Garden-203-Ergonomic-Stainless/dp/B000QUXOM0/ref=sr_1_3?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1296163647&sr=1-3

And, it's ergonomic!

[bergie321]

24. Our pitchforks

Will be Made in China.

[nolabels]

111. Wouldn't that be ironic

effing Nixon, that rat bastard, he probably is rolling over and laughing his ass off knowing he is now getting his revenge on the country that ousted him.

The Road to China: Ten Key Lessons on Doing Business in China:
http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publications_detail3.asp?ID=2226

[Atypical Liberal]

17. Arms have usually been required for revolution.

They won't start sharing the wealth until the poor are at their doors with pitchforks.

Throughout history most revolutions have come through force of arms. Not all, but most. It's why we have a second amendment built into our Constitution.

[bongbong]

20. Nope

The 2nd Amendment was put there to make sure there would be a militia to fight foreign powers, as the Founding Fathers didn't want a standing army.

The whole "2nd Amendment is so we can overthrown the government!" is an invention of the NRA and the repigs.

[Atypical Liberal]

38. Why do you think they didn't want a standing army?

The 2nd Amendment was put there to make sure there would be a militia to fight foreign powers, as the Founding Fathers didn't want a standing army.

The whole "2nd Amendment is so we can overthrown the government!" is an invention of the NRA and the repigs.

This is obviously false and easily disproved.

Why do you think the founders did not want the a standing army under the control of the central federal government? Our entire government was formed as a series of checks and balances. The military was likewise split up into separate units under the control of the states so that the power would not be concentrated in the hands of the central government - it was a balance to federal military power.

You can easily go read contemporary documents that prove this mindset. The Constitution itself says Militias are necessary to a free state. Alexander Hamilton wrote, in Federalist 29:

"If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. "

There are numerous other examples.

I ask you: Why would the founders not want a centralized standing army to fight foreign powers? Surely it would be less effort and more efficient?

[boppers]

61. "Why would the founders not want a centralized standing army"

Because it's incredibly expensive, and prone to warfare.

Here, a snippet from the US Constitution:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

Okay, if they want a war, and a standing army, they can do it. For two years.

This is why we didn't have a standing army until very recently.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

They wanted Militia, not a standing army. A standing army is incredibly inefficient.

[No Elephants]

71. Besides, they were VERY leery of federal government.

[Atypical Liberal]

79. PRECISELY!

Besides, they were VERY leery of federal government.

Exactly so. THIS is why the founders set up a decentralized military system. It was part of the checks and balances of power built into our government.

[Atypical Liberal]

78. But that doesn't explain why they wanted a decentralized force

They wanted Militia, not a standing army. A standing army is incredibly inefficient.

So instead they get to maintain military forces for each state individually. Doesn't sound more efficient to me.

And it still doesn't explain why the military forces were decentralized. Why not have a federal militia?

[boppers]

101. No, the states didn't have to maintain armies, either.

Militia is not an army.... it could simply be a list of the able-bodied who were willing to take up arms. Not much cost associated with that.... no bases, barracks, training grounds, supply chains, etc.

As far as decentralized forces, a centralized force also has centralized costs, i.e., federal taxable costs. Those tend to add up quite fast, especially when people expect to get paid for being a soldier, get paid for using ammunition, etc.

[No Elephants]

70. Your quote pretty much disproves your Reply 17 and supports bongbong's Reply 20.

[Atypical Liberal]

80. How so? n/t

.

[bongbong]

75. Here's your answer

I did the heavy lifting for you.

http://www.google.com/search?q=founding+fathers+abhorred+standing+army

[Atypical Liberal]

77. I want YOUR answer.

Why do YOU think the founders opted for a decentralized military instead of a single army?

[bongbong]

88. That's a funny question!

Unlike repigs and teabaggers, I don't think I can mind-read what the Founders wanted. All the teabaggers and repigs must think they went to psychic school or something. But they're a bunch of anti-American traitors, loyal only to their billionaire idols & the spokesmen for those idols like Adolf Beck, OxyRush, Man Coulter, etc.

I prefer to go by the Founders' historical writings, which quite clearly show they hated the idea of a standing army. One of their big reasons for this was the fact of the history of countries with standing armies becoming dictatorships.

[Atypical Liberal]

89. Very good!

I prefer to go by the Founders' historical writings, which quite clearly show they hated the idea of a standing army. One of their big reasons for this was the fact of the history of countries with standing armies becoming dictatorships.

Very good! We agree that the founders wanted a decentralized military system because they feared a centralized military might be used to oppress the people. James Madison agreed with you when he wrote, "standing armies are dangerous to liberty".

That decentralized military system, designed to balance or counter federal military power, was made up of The People, whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Thus the military power was enumerated ultimately with The People.

[bongbong]

91. A bit too far

You doing some of that mind-reading of the Founders. It's so not necessary, since they left lots of documents with their thoughts in them.

The Founders didn't mind organized Federal troops, since they made provision for them in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). But with limits - they were to be temporary, and to be authorized only by Congress. Kind of knocks your post completely off its footings.

And why do you gun-lovers always drop the "well-regulated", meaning "trained like an army" (per Federalist Paper #29), when you quote the 2nd Amendment? Probably wishful thinking.

[Atypical Liberal]

94. Not mind reading.

You doing some of that mind-reading of the Founders. It's so not necessary, since they left lots of documents with their thoughts in them.

You're right, it's not necessary, because they did leave lots of documents with their thoughts in them. I've read them, and understand them well.

The Founders didn't mind organized Federal troops, since they made provision for them in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). But with limits - they were to be temporary, and to be authorized only by Congress. Kind of knocks your post completely off its footings.

No, it supports it completely, and you are now contradicting yourself. The federal government was not allowed to have a permanent standing army, while the States were charged with maintaining their own military forces through militias. The reason for this is just as you admitted in your last post: "One of their big reasons for this was the fact of the history of countries with standing armies becoming dictatorships." By essentially disarming the central government, while arming the States with troops pulled from the citizens of their respective states, and led by officers also pulled from those same states, the result is clear: Decentralized military forces that could not be wielded by the central government to oppress the states, nor could any one state prevail in oppressing its neighbors.

As you already said, there was a history of countries with standing armies becoming dictatorships. To combat this possibility, the founders set up a system where the central government did not have a standing army. But they also put the military power in the hands of the states

And why do you gun-lovers always drop the "well-regulated", meaning "trained like an army" (per Federalist Paper #29), when you quote the 2nd Amendment? Probably wishful thinking.

I certainly don't. It was definitely the intent that the people be organized into well-regulated militias under their respective states, as a counter to federal military power. Unfortunately, the militias of the founders' day no longer exist - they were federalized in 1903 by the Dick Act. The founders' no doubt foresaw this possibility, which is why the right to keep and bear arms was enumerated for the people, and not the militias. The militias are now gone, so there is nothing to regulate. But the right of the people to keep and bear arms still exists, and for the same reasons as it always did - to eliminate the need for, or at least be able to counter, federal military power.

[bongbong]

95. Doing it again

"It was definitely the intent that the people be organized into well-regulated militias under their respective states, as a counter to federal military power."

Nope. Once again, adding that last little phrase "as a counter to federal military power" is the mind-reading you seem to like to do.

"and for the same reasons as it always did - to eliminate the need for, or at least be able to counter, federal military power."

Nope, nope, nope. You can say it until you're blue in the face, but nothing in the writings of the Founding Fathers indicated they thought this way.

As for "the people", the Constitution always uses "person" when it is talking about individual rights, and "people" when it refers to groups. Thus, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the laissez-faire gun ownership that so many Americans are enamored of. It is only talking about well-regulated militias.

Here's a little backgrounder for you: http://hnn.us/articles/36395.html

Excerpt: "In its 58 page ruling, the two-member Parker majority contradicts nearly fifty other federal court rulings spanning seven decades, as well as four Supreme Court rulings, all of which support the straightforward proposition that the right to bear arms exists only in connection with citizen militia service. ... Alone among federal rulings siding with the Parker majority is a 2001 case from the Fifth Circuit, U.S. v. Emerson, when for the first time a federal court embraced the “individualist” view. ... Individual self-defense was protected for centuries under the common law, just as modern criminal law recognizes legitimate personal self-defense. It had and has nothing whatever to do with the Second Amendment. And the invocations of an armed citizenry struggling to overthrow a tyrannical government arose from natural rights, not from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights."

This is a great cite since it also blows away the "individual rights" mis-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It's what I've been saying for years. Only right-wing biased judicial activism is what produces judgements like Heller.

[Atypical Liberal]

96. Still not mind reading.

Nope. Once again, adding that last little phrase "as a counter to federal military power" is the mind-reading you seem to like to do.

"and for the same reasons as it always did - to eliminate the need for, or at least be able to counter, federal military power."

Nope, nope, nope. You can say it until you're blue in the face, but nothing in the writings of the Founding Fathers indicated they thought this way.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=inference

It's not mind reading, it's simply deductive reasoning from given facts.

As you already agreed, the founders feared that a standing army would be used to impose a dictatorship. We also know that they set up a decentralized military system, putting the power of the military at the hands of the states. We also know that the theme of checks and balances is pervasive through our entire structure of government. It is completely logical, therefore, to deduce that these things are related.

You have not provided any other explanation to account for this decentralization.

As for "the people", the Constitution always uses "person" when it is talking about individual rights, and "people" when it refers to groups. Thus, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the laissez-faire gun ownership that so many Americans are enamored of. It is only talking about well-regulated militias.

This notion has been well put to bed. No one disputes that individuals have the right to free speech just as well as groups of people do. Further, Heller vs. DC has made it a matter of settled Constitutional law that the right to keep and bear arms protects an individual right, irrespective of membership in any organization. Further, McDonald vs. Chicago has made it a matter of settled Constitutional law that this individual right is incorporated under the 14th amendment under the Due Process clause.

Here's a little backgrounder for you: http://hnn.us/articles/36395.html

This is a great cite since it also blows away the "individual rights" mis-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It's what I've been saying for years. Only right-wing biased judicial activism is what produces judgements like Heller.

Well, as you noted, you can keep saying it until you're blue in the face, but your position is contrary to settled Constitutional law.

[Atypical Liberal]

97. More evidence.

Here was Madison's original proposal for the second amendment:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Why do you think he says that state militias the best security of a free country?

Edit to add still more:

From the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776): That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state...

From the Vermont Constitution (1777): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State...

From the Articles of Confederation (1781): ...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

From the New Hampshire Ratification Document (1788): Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

From the Virginia Ratification Document (1788): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

From the New York Ratification Document (1788): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

From Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights (1789): The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

From the Report of the House Committee of Eleven (1789): A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

From the amendments as passed by the House (1789): A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

From the amendments as passed by the Senate (1789): A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

From the Rhode Island Ratification Document (1790): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state...

See the recurring theme? (State) Militias are the "best", "proper", "natural", "necessary", and "safe" security of free states.

It doesn't take a mind reader to understand why decentralized state militias would be so thought of. The decentralization of power makes the forced use of the militias to impose tyranny difficult to impossible.

[Atypical Liberal]

98. And still more evidence.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison in 1811):

"The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers."

[bongbong]

102. Ah! You found the cut-n-paste sites

I see you found the cut-n-paste websites for gun-lovers. I'm always amazed that people who love guns, usually more than anything else, can't come up with their own justifications for their gun-love. Anyway, I'll dispose of your arguments quickly. Let's start with this post.

Your post #98: "Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison in 1811):" ---- Story was not a Founding Father, in fact wasn't even born when the Consitution was written. He had nothing to do with it. Next.

Your post #97: "Why do you think he says that state militias the best security of a free country?" ---- Because he was worried about the newly-independent America being re-taken over by the British, and to a lesser degree, by France or Spain. None of the other quotes in your post indicated anything else. You obviously are not too familiar with the history of the writing of COnstitution, nor of the condition of the USA in those early days after the writing of the Articles Of Confederation. I am. Next.

Your post #96: "As you already agreed, the founders feared that a standing army would be used to impose a dictatorship." ---- Yes, that's why they required an act of Congress to raise the army. The executive branch could not do it by themselves (part of the Constitution that has been ignored since 1949). The reason for the decentralization was simple. It took weeks to move between major cities in those day. For example, to get from Boston to Philadelphia was at least a week's hard ride. Your confusion about their motives on this point comes from your mistake in thinking it was easy to get around in those days. Let's say Spain decided to go into Georgia. It would take months and months to raise the army, a lot whom might be in New England, and get to Georgia. You see, in those days they didn't have many roads.

"Well, as you noted, you can keep saying it until you're blue in the face, but your position is contrary to settled Constitutional law." ---- I guess you didn't read my post before responding to it. I'll quote the article again:

"In its 58 page ruling, the two-member Parker majority contradicts nearly fifty other federal court rulings spanning seven decades, as well as four Supreme Court rulings, all of which support the straightforward proposition that the right to bear arms exists only in connection with citizen militia service. ... Alone among federal rulings siding with the Parker majority is a 2001 case from the Fifth Circuit, U.S. v. Emerson, when for the first time a federal court embraced the “individualist” view."

There was only ONE decision that the NRA loved before 2002, versus dozens and dozens against their position. Just because the republican activist courts overturned decades of precedent and dozens of cases doesn't mean it's right. Just like the Citizen's United "Let America Become A Fascist Dictatorship" decision.

[Atypical Liberal]

103. Have a nice weekend.

I've expended all the effort on this debate with you that I care to.

[bongbong]

104. You too

You have a nice weekend as well. I hope I've helped you understand the Constitution a little better.

[fascisthunter]

99. danke

[No Elephants]

69. Please, Louise. The Framers were not arming us to overthrow the democracy they had just formed.

[Atypical Liberal]

82. Of course not.

Please, Louise. The Framers were not arming us to overthrow the democracy they had just formed.

Of course not. But they absolutely built in the ability to overthrow it should it ever be necessary to do so, just as it had been so recently for them.

[molly77]

34. That's why it was mentioned at Davos.The time is drawing close.

[yodermon]

49. The masses are being mindfucked in 1080p.

[Javaman]

83. They still won't share even then...

Sadly, once the pillagers have ransacked the house, they will find nothing but worthless paper.

[lark]

93. They won't share then either

We will have to appropriate what we need.

[Broderick]

4. Everyone needs an enemy and scapegoat

when it comes to controlling the masses. How did the poor and middle class become that? Corporate media.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. I cannot even begin to imagine what the repukes and tbaggers would say to this...l

They are way too interested in the welfare of the rich and the corporate "persons"...ironically.

http://markmaynard.com/?p=7501

<snip>

The best part of the article is the contribution by Thomas Frank, the author of What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. Here’s a highlight:

….Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America’s poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.

Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:

“You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining… It’s like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy.”

As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.

And here, according to the author of the article, is the big takeaway message from all of this… “If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them. They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best. There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots. As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.”

<snip>

[DeSwiss]

9. K&R

Rich corporations must share the wealth, eh? And yet we're to keep the same corrupt system in-place? So we'd only be back at the same place, and back in hock to them once again, in a matter of time? Bullshit!

That's the way this rotten capitalist system is designed! It runs on PERPETUAL DEBT.

OUR PERPETUAL DEBT TO THE RICH

Don't people get it!?!?!

Why should all of the planet's resources be owned and controlled by a few? Particularly when there is more than enough for EVERYONE?

- It is time for a whole new paradigm.

Rising Above Politics

Sure, they may kick a lot of Republicans asses out of office next election. Big friggin deal! For my people, the same feudalist deal is on the table as ever: work hard, kill when you are told to, trust your betters, and everything will be all right. Plenty of highly politicized leftists and their meeker kin, the last hopeful Democrats, came up as hard as anyone I’ve described here. The Democratic Party definitely doesn’t want them showing up like bikers at a cocktail party and talking real populism. Because there ain’t no big money campaign contributions behind populism.

Look at it this way: Black America suffered lynchings, police dogs and fire bombings just to shit on the same toilet seats as white Americans like you and me, and ultimately waste their lives in front of computer monitors next to us on the same electronic plantation of the gulag global economy swallowing America and the rest of the world.

And so, still I ask (and who am I to ask anything?): Are there any progressives or leftists willing to come out here into the hinterlands and offer the first step. True populist hope? Spell it out in “see-spot-run” language? Talk about our bad teeth and why our elderly parents are rotting in pisshole nursing homes owned by ex-car dealers and attended by imported Asian physicians who barely speak English? Or the dynamics of hopelessness that drive the meth epidemic out here? It will take an entire lifetime of commitment amid a crumbling world. And it will continue to crumble around us even as we work.

There will be not one ounce of glory or acknowledgment or public reward. But it lies there before us, the first fearful and questioning stone on the pathway to the liberation of mankind. True populist politics could give us a quarter turn in the right direction. Genuine socialism could put us on the approximate path to justice. Eco-politics cannot save us from the inevitable, but at least it can teach us to deal with our limitations as a species upon this earth. But one begins the journey at the start of the path, not the promised land at its end.

Can we quit talking and start walking now?

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2007/05/rising_above_po.html">~Joe Bageant, May 2007

[GoddessOfGuinness]

44. They think corporation=small business

[DeSwiss]

50. Instead, corporations eat small businesses like they were peanuts. :-/ n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

106. With plenty of help

From our government.

They couldn't do it if both parties weren't in the bag for them.

[DeSwiss]

109. "Our" government....

...does in fact belong to the corporations and banks. It is a creature of their design and functions at their behest - not ours. It has for quite some time now. So its' not that they couldn't do it without the help of both parties, its that it is designed to give that help while appearing to remain under our control.

- That is until appearances no longer matter.......

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where
the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery..." ~Frank Zappa

[Beartracks]

45. Awesome read from Bageant. Thanks. n/t

[DeSwiss]

52. Da nada. ;-) n/t

[Kingofalldems]

11. K and R for Sarkozy's buddy

[glinda]

12. It is a global race to the top for just a few while everyone dies or becomes homeless.

[sea four]

13. This is an important message.

I wonder why we never hear it from the "liberal" media?

[sea four]

14. Now I remember why.

It's because the media is run by huge corporations, and it earns most of its money by selling advertising space to other huge corporations.

[AlbertCat]

16. Duh!

Greed is not good. I don't care what Ronnie Raygun said.

[katty]

18. brilliant and logical - too bad most wealthy folks don't agree

Sharing and cooperation? That is for large numbers participating in an enlightened society-don't see that happening.

[AzDar]

19. Eat The Rich!

:thumbsup:

[KansDem]

21. I'm with you!

[RZM]

84. I'll pass on the hammer and sickle version

But this I'll take:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwtaIT-HR1c

:)

[Broderick]

23. tastes like chicken and Hákarl

[AndyTiedye]

46. Too Much Chlorestorol

[Broderick]

22. already without rest.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

25. pitchforks vs "let them eat cake"

[mdmc]

26. r

[Kablooie]

27. Sounds like the fourth turning is nigh, but will involve the whole world.

If you haven't heard about it:

http://www.fourthturning.com/html/fourth_turning.html

Interesting theory about cycles of history based on the fact that every
20 years there is a new generation and each generation lives for
approximately 80 years. So there are 4 basic societal turnings that
repeat every 80 years.

May or may not be true but it isn't tin foil thinking.

[tavalon]

59. Wow

I just read the excerpts on that web page. You should make that a OP of it.s own.

[No Elephants]

72. Pete Seeger lyrics have 3 "turnings."

To Everything (Turn, Turn, Turn)
There is a season (Turn, Turn, Turn)
And a time to every purpose, under Heaven

A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep

To Everything (Turn, Turn, Turn)
There is a season (Turn, Turn, Turn)
And a time to every purpose, under Heaven

A time to build up,a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together

To Everything (Turn, Turn, Turn)
There is a season (Turn, Turn, Turn)
And a time to every purpose, under Heaven

A time of love, a time of hate
A time of war, a time of peace
A time you may embrace, a time to refrain from embracing

To Everything (Turn, Turn, Turn)
There is a season (Turn, Turn, Turn)
And a time to every purpose, under Heaven

A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time for love, a time for hate
A time for peace, I swear it's not too late


(PBS special on Seeger is great.)

[paparush]

28. Top .01% - "Yawn. I say, Jeves, throw a few more poor onto the fire before I catch a chill."

[SammyWinstonJack]

36. ...

:evilgrin:

[Exultant Democracy]

29. The social safety net is actually a conservitive ideal. Bismarck came up with it

as a way to prevent the rise of socialism.

[JHB]

30. Is your boardroom breeding BOLSHEVIKS!?

[FailureToCommunicate]

31. +1!

[FailureToCommunicate]

32. Seems related to this thread on income inequality and (ill) health

link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=584914&mesg_id=584914

[underpants]

33. (monkey in the gears) we have laid the seed money for the private military force

the rich and I mean RICH can wall themselves off and protect themselves.

The massive unrest will be the Zombie thing which they will see from atop the hill and laugh about.

[hunter]

35. It would be nice if they shared because it's the right thing to do.

:shrug:

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. Sorry..but

:rofl:

[KoKo]

39. Well...There You Have It............Rich must make some "Consessions"...that's COOL!

How long will it be and How Many Will Suffer..until the "GRAND POOBAH'S get their Shit TOGETHER to see their MIGHT BE A REVOLT of the "Scrounging for a LIVING FOLKS?"


HOW LONG? How LONG? :shrug:

[KoKo]

40. Are "They" finally getting into their "OOGHAH BOOGAH FEAR?"

of those who are oppressed finally giving up on the "System" and going out there "INTO THE STREETS?"

It's hard to know what the "Thinking Is" .....but the "SPIN BACK" is BIZARRE!

[thanks_imjustlurking]

41. "Share"??? "SHARE"?!?!

How about start getting it to its rightful owners - the workers they made it off the backs of and the pension funds and small investors they ripped off? "Share" makes it sound like they earned it in the first place.

[lutherj]

51. My thought exactly. Corporations don't need to "share" anything, they need to be

turned into employee-owned non-profit organizations. If it's not worth doing on a non-profit basis, then it's just a waste of resources, and a blatant scam to convert the modest wealth of the many into the extravagant wealth of the few.

[Abq_Sarah]

110. All corporations?

Or just the "big" ones? There are a lot of small businesses that are considered corporations. My business, for example, while a LLC is for profit. That profit pays my employees and gives me an incentive to work 80+ hours a week. Should my company be taken from me and turned into a non-profit? And what about the millions of people who have their pension plans tied up in the stock market, including many unions? If you take over the corporations, you're stealing their money. Do you think it's going to be given to you?

[Catherina]

53. +100000! My thoughts exactly. Forget sharing. Return the goods.

Dismantle these corporations. We don't need them. Find a different model as he said.

[leftstreet]

57. +1

Exactly!

Welcome to DU

[thanks_imjustlurking]

105. Thanks!

:hi:

[unkachuck]

42. "We need to look to a different model."

....I'm not sure that I'm in with love Socialism or Communism but one thing is for certain, I definitely hate corporate capitalism....

[tavalon]

60. Check out Democratic Socialism

I started out on this board knowing I was raised a Democrat and that I always voted for the Presidential candidate with the D after his name. I've learned a lot here and I've learned that my core beliefs actually align better with the Democratic Socialists. I usually dislike the corporatist (blue dog or DLC) candidates.

Edited to add that I'm well aware that Congresswoman Giffords is a blue dog -my avatar is there to support here because no politician of any I'll deserves assassination or attempted assassination.

[SHRED]

43. when they say "cut government"...

...don't worry about the wealthy.
They will be unscathed and unaffected.
In fact it will benefit their personal portfolios.

----

[Doctor_J]

87. As Hartmann likes to say, "and replace it with what?"

[Amonester]

48. :facepalm:

These 'obvious' solutions will fall straight into deaf ears, and these rich 'talker$' will all be back there again next year.

And you know what? The growing gap between the havemores and the havenots will have grown each and every month to new worldwide record number$. Count on it.

Words are cheap.

[Starry Messenger]

55. k&r

[mackerel]

56. This struck me:

Maurice Levy, chairman and chief executive of French advertising giant Publicis, said there was "a huge suspicion about CEOs, bankers, corporations."

*********************

Levy notes this himself but is he willing to change?

[Turborama]

62. K&R 3rd paragraph describes the results of nationalism aka isolationism

Anyone who supports Libertarianism and/or isolationism should read it again and learn.

Human nature is communal, not isolationist.

[Lars77]

63. Herbert Hoover wrote this in "American Individualism" in 1922

He argued that government should not get involved in the production of goods and services, but that it should have an active role in stopping the accumulation of wealth on few hands - because that is what makes people feel repressed.

How do we stop this? Taxation.


And Hoover wasn't exactly a communist. It gives you an idea of how far off to the right we've gone.

[No Elephants]

74. And what did Hoover do to implement this belief? Ask for volunteers to give up their $$?

"Hoover tried to combat the ensuing Great Depression with volunteer efforts, none of which produced economic recovery during his term. The consensus among historians is that Hoover's defeat in the 1932 election was caused primarily by failure to end the downward economic spiral. As a result of these factors, Hoover is ranked poorly among former US Presidents.


<snip>

Hoover's opponents charge that his policies came too little, and too late, and did not work. Even as he asked Congress for legislation, he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover




In fact, Hoover CUT taxes on UPPER INCOMES, until the Depression FORCED him to roll back his cuts. Meanwhile, he'd been taxing every one else to bits by taxing goods.

And then, there was his brutality to African Americans and rampant racism, but that's another story (as was Ike's racism).




Every now and again, you may catch a Rethug saying something that seems appealing, like Ike's MIC comment--made only on his way OUT of office--but beware. What they actually do usually, it bears little reseblance to what they said that appealed to you.

[Laelth]

81. Hoover was the last progressive Republican.

But he was a progressive.

-Laelth

[Lars77]

85. What presidents say and do are not always the same unfortunately

the sitting president is a prime example of that.

[Enthusiast]

64. K&R

In this nation it is simply a matter of unbridled greed. TPTB do not want to relinquish a portion of their obscene profits or pay their fair share of taxes to keep the social safety net afloat.

[BrightKnight]

65. I'm sure that they will make the changes immediately. - n/t

[indimuse]

66. SHARE?? I say RETURN!!! They STOLE IT!!! n/t

[DirkGently]

76. We'd probably settle for "stop stealing everything in sight & destroying our political system."

[Overseas]

107. +1.

[Doctor_J]

86. Either that, or hire lots of soldiers with guns to quell the unrest

I bet in the US the rich choose my option.

[nxylas]

90. Socialism! Socialism! Socialism!

Repeat ad nauseum until a pitchfork-wielding mob spontaneously appears outside Maurice Levy's office, then absolve yourself of all responsibility when one of them decides to apply "second amendment solutions".

[socialist_n_TN]

113. It would probably be Levy himself .............

(or others of his ilk) that would "......apply 'second amendment solutions'", ESPECIALLY if it happened in the USA. THEY are the ones with the $$$ to kill a protester and get away with it after all. And they know it.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

92. Oh. Greece. That opinion won't fly here

Our president is not exactly center-left, more center-right, or near-right. And his opposition is more-right.

We have no left left.

:hi:

[Imajika]

100. Err, wait, didn't Papandreou impose austerity in Greece?

So he's at this forum saying one thing, but at home his ruling party has imposed the most brutal "austerity" in all of Europe. Not only that, didn't he utterly and completely ignore the hundreds of thousands of workers and union members who took to the street to oppose "austerity"?

[defendandprotect]

108. Unique idea?

[Dover]

112. ...AND PAY TAXES!!! No more tax havens! ...n/t