Maher Tells Media To Be Honest About Income Disparity

The real issue here is liberal ideology, not economics per se. Supply side really means that the private market is more powerful and effective than government intervention. By implication, supply-side economics represented a rebuke to the premises of activist government, and therefore to Liberalism itself.

Steven Hayward, in his book, The Age of Reagan, explained why SUPPLY-SIDE irks Liberals so much:

"The most significant of the challenge to liberal orthodoxy was…its premise that the decisions and actions of the private market were more powerful than government intervention. By implication, supply-side economics represented a rebuke to the premises of activist government, and therefore of liberalism."

Bill, why not stick to your statements that you send to my personal email account?

He's preaching about that old saint-reagan-the-mad's holy ideology about the piss-down-economics that has so dis-served amerika the last decades. He only has himself to preach that insanity to.

Yes, some things are conveniently ignored, such as the fact you pointed out that these EVIL RICH in the top 1% pay almost 40% of the total taxes!

I must respectfully ask that you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges....
If the 1 % is paying 38% of the taxes, it begs the question what percentage of the income are they acquiring? ..

Tax payment via percentage is skewed unless it is related to the actually income generated as a base line.....So, how much of the income did the 1 % make?

There is no research that confirms that this alleged "income disparity" is the cause of any problems.

In fact, in an era when there was MORE "concentration of wealth" - the late 19th century until the 1920s - it is possible that we had more growth and prosperity than during our entire history!

Think about this: If having fabulously rich people leads to poverty, then the country with the most rich should be that with the largest number of impoverished people, right? Response?

Your pronouncements sound like you believe that there is some kind of conspiracy among the super-rich to divide us. Please explain how they coordinate this. I would like specifics, thanks.

Do you know that the "studies" that present these huge disparities are severely flawed? For example, these are based on the incomes in the quintiles, and the changes in the incomes among them. But, there is a limited range on 4 of the 5 quintiles, and not on only one. Before we proceed with this, I would like you to tell me which of the 5 does not have a limited range. In this way, I can proceed, knowing that you are conversant with this.

Thanks.

Mishima. I must agree with you. Wealth disparity is not the cause of the problem. It is the result. However, once it becomes manifested, its continuance perpetuate and magnifies the problem... There comes a point at which the ultra rich could divert a disaster by addressing the problem.
Failure to do so and allowing themselves to become enslaved to their excessive riches is a step along the way to major complications which threaten us all.

True. We cannot know for certain, but if the government would stay out of business - and that means limiting lobbying, no more bailouts and strong liability laws – the income would probably get more equitably distributed. But even if there is a super rich class, it does not matter. Why does anyone care?

I am not really concerned about the ultra rich. I am concerned about government intervention influenced by the rich to the extent that it enables them and disadvantages me.
As far as their wealth and the disparity, there will always be disparity, but when the disparity it is facilitated by the very institutions that are supposed to protect us from abuse, when our government takes sides and no longer encourages equity, but allows the wealth to influence their decisions, then it becomes a problem.

Glad to hear it! It seems that many are angry at the rich for being just that. That is dangerous because it leads to anti-capitalist thinking and makes government control of the economy and socialist policies look very appealing. It is, as you say, the collusion of government and the market. I think that the only way that government should be involved with the economy would be some minimal consideration for how any policy might affect the ENTIRE population, not specific sectors. I believe that is what the “general welfare” meant.

This sort of influence pedaling will always occur – in both directions. That is not to condone it, of course, but we need to look at the whole picture, but put the emphasis more watching government. If business is limited in campaign contribution and lobbying, for example (and that includes foreign sources), it brings much of the problem to a halt.

Yes, we keep hearing the charges of "unfair," but if one actually looks at the incomes as a percent of all incomes, we see that the people in the top 1%, 5% or even 10% pay MORE than their "fair share."

The top 10% are contributing to about 70% of the total revenue, while the lowest 50% contribute only 2.7%. They are paying for the services used by those 50% also - roads, the military, courts of law and on and on.

If they are generating or acquiring 78% of the wealth, then they are not paying half of what they should. And when viewed from a progressive tax perspective, they are paying even less than that.

The top 1% have less than half of what you wrote; they have about 38% of the total wealth.

If we look back almost a century, we see that it has not changed much. In 1922, the top 1% owned almost 36%; recently, it is 35%, virtually the same. It dropped then went up, reaching its peak under Bill Clinton at 39% in 1995, over 15 years ago.

It can be looked at in another way: The top 1% get less than 25% of the total national income, but they pay 37% of the total taxes.

So, either way one looks at it in terms of their paying 37% of the taxes – by total wealth owned (36%) or income (25%), they are paying MORE than their “fair share.”

If we take a longer view of incomes, we see that incomes have INCREASED, not decreased.

Adjusting for inflation, incomes rose from about $40,000 in 1967 to almost $50,000 recently. The issue is that they have had a moderate decline from A PEAK in 1999 of $52,000. Again, looking long-term, things have gotten much better over the past 40+ years. See Table H-5:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html

Well, I have come to respect what you say. I must therefore do some research of my own to validate, or repudiate your finding before I reply. Your figures are at odds with what I remember. However, I will not use memory to challenge you, I will get some facts. If they bear you out, I will concede the point. If they do not, I will offer my counter point. I must admit I like your preparedness when you enter a battle. It is impressive. I am sure I will end up disagreeing with you, but I do like your style.

Talk to you later.

Really? You think I want to be in the 1%. Nah!

I am not defending them at all, not a whit. I do not care about them. What I AM defending, of course, is free market capitalism and protection of individuals' property fro confiscation by the government.

I am not just trying to be "confrontational," of course; I simply reply to your statements. It would be dishonest to read what you write and not take the opportunity to question you further. I have disagreed with you, but not insulted. I suspect your anger stems from my lack of agreement with you, and you should reflect on that.

I, too, realize that it is unproductive and wasteful to confront for its own sake, so I am disappointed that you view my disagreement in that way.

I hope you can find the wherewithall to not personalize so much and just stick to content.

Oh, are you willing to reciprocate? You insisted that I watch the video - over two hour long one - to see some "truth," so I assume that you are willing to view the one I posted about the free market.

That is a reasonable request and could lead to some fruitful discussion, don't you agree?

I read the article, and it does not seem to apply for a number of reasons. First of all, those who go to political (or religion) forums should know they will be confronted and people will disagree. You know the cliche, of course: Don't talk about religion or politics. Well, this is a political forum.

Next, that article referred more to social networking and the pettiness that probably surrounds it. I am not being pompous or pretentious, but I really would not know because I do neither Facebook or Twitter.

But there is something I WOULD like relate: I have met two people from these discussions. One aligned with my politics, and the other simply did not. I got along with the second one with no problem. With the other, we got along just fine, and did not even talk politics at all. Laughed, and he showed my wife some new food she never had tried. At the end of the meeting, I found his parting comment amusing: "You know, you drive me crazy on the forum." We both laughed.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I ain't no Libertarian. They have a basic flaw: No real value system. Only the extreme of individualism. I have not even read Rand.

In your opinion should the federal and state authorities have the right to confiscate the profits and assets of convicted drug dealers?If no, why not? If yes; then why not by extension confiscate the personal assets of those engaging in wire fraud, mail fraud, securities fraud, and bank fraud?

Yes, I think they should. The only question is what to ethically do with the money.

Yes, and if other forms of fraud happened, the perpetrators should have their funds confiscated, the victims should be reimbursed, and those who committed the fraud should go to jail.

I am surprised you even ask that. It appears that maybe you have misinterpreted my posts or have put them into a frame of reference that would lead you to interpret them that way. I will state things clearly: Less government regulation and BIG penalties for those who knowingly damage others' health, the environment or commit fraud or cheat. In addition, cut back on government spending - across the board, everything. No exceptions, none. Most of all, get government out of health care. Eliminate almost all regulations there, and definitely no ObamaCare.

How do you define a "free" market? Do you use any historical references? What existing or historical market do you consider the most "free'. Free from what? In your opinion. Are monopolies part of a free market/ Are national borders part of a free market? Are purity standards part of a free market? Maybe you have actually given some thought to what you mean by free markets. However it has been my experience that free marketers usually mean let me sell my opium to your people but don't tax me.

There is no "perfectly free" market, just as there is not perfect love or perfect person or perfect philosophy, and so on.

The definition of free as applied to the market is that there is a legal framework in which - to the greatest extent possible - people can make voluntary exchanges with the protection from fraud and with the protection of private property - no matter how much property.

There is much right now. Haven't you ever negotiated for a house or a car? Or for work done on your yard or house? No government telling you the price, but the government will protect your property - someone cannot just take it the next day as they do in Somalia I suspect where the free market cannot really operate efficiently. We all operate in a relatively free market right now, despite what the media is telling people. I can try to sell my labor where I want and nobody can tell me; I can buy a car or use a bicycle; I can rent or buy a house; I can buy clothes or stick with what I have. I shop on books on Amazon, looking for bargains. I got a credit card because it gave me 20,000 free miles - no coersion.

You realize its checkmate in three moves, right? I can pick apart every static stance you take. Because in reality , you're just a conservative who likes things stacked in your favor. Just like there is no "ether", there is not and never has been a "free market". So, basically, you believe in nothing. Prepare for a withering barrage.

All people of all perspectives should read information from other sources. Especially Rand, that way when you understand what an insane bitch she was,and one is able to understand the pathetic meanderings of crazy Republicans like Paul Ryan, Ron Paul and Rand Paul (Hmmm..must be something about the name Paul that makes one delusional). Knowing your enemies weaknesses is the first step in winning the war, And , believe me this is a war, total war.

I answered your questions, so why not respond to the content instead of resorting to that old fall-back of name-calling, then declaring victory? You claim that you can pick apart every stance, but that is as far as your assertion goes; instead of following it up, you label and call names.

Nice.

Yes, you are right; it is good to read the other side. I had a 3-year paper subscription to Nation Magazine, and I subscribe to Media Matters via email.

You wrote, " believe me this is a war, total war."

I am interested in that perspective. Sometimes I think it is true, but other times I think that those who think it is war are really only those who are interested. How do you think it can play out?

I didn't call you a name, unless "conservative" is an epithet to you. Conservative's are usually trying to preserve something. I stated my opinion that you are a conservative who is trying to preserve a set of circumstances that you find advantageous; and that according to you this particular set of conditions equate to some first principles of a "free market". I haven't declared victory yet, I merely smell it.I haven't delivered my main arguments yet; I've merely outlined the formula I will use to show, 1) that that there is no free market and there never has been; and 2) that the financial crooks and politicians who destroyed our economic system over the last 10 years are indeed bad guys; not free market "heroes". The original argument suggested by Bill Maher is that because of the cheating, lying, stealing, and political corruption over the last ten years by Wall Street criminals, our society has become economically unbalanced. He suggested the analogy of beating this pinata of corruption with a stick of regulation; and the candy (retribution and restitution) will then fall out. Other posters mentioned that the cry for justice was being taken up by Occupy Movements. You suggested that they were dirty hippies who needed to get a job.You challenged the board to give one incident of fraud by your "free market" heroes; and suggested nothing is seriously wrong. Does that about sum up the argument? I intend to prove every shred of your position untenable.

Conservative is a compliment, of course.

Anti-free marketers often use what Thomas Sowell calls “All or Nothing” responses to “deny whatever needs denying.” This tactic “enables virtually any general statement, however true, to be flatly denied, simply because it is not 100 percent true in all circumstances.” These propagandists use it to deny there is true liberty, for instance, or that there really is a free market. When a reasonable person refers to the benefits of the free market, these dissemblers will say, “Show me where a completely free market is.” They will search for any minute flaw or infinitesimal error and blow it out of proportion., insisting that because of the “problem” they uncovered in a person or idea, everything related to, and surrounding either is to be rejected without exception or qualification.

I deny the existence of a free market. I challenge you to define "free market" and then show that this free market that you define exists now; or ever existed. Define it, and then show where it exists or has ever existed. Can you do that?

Knocking out the "free market" BS is just my first salvo, since so many apologists for the banksters are always shouting, " let the free market do this and the free market will take care of that." Once i destroy this free market myth, then I'm going to focus on the particular abuses of the last ten years; and prove why regulation, and then more regulation is necessary; (for the same reason we all have locks on our doors); and there is no "invisible market hand" that will rescue us from savagery and criminality. It takes a government elected by free men. Because an elected government is the only legitimate source of regulation;and the only bulwark against abuse. That's why conservatives want to destroy government all around the world; so there are no cops on the beat;and they can continue their stealing and cheating.

Throughout our history, liberal/progressive ideals both from Democrats and Republicans have always eventually won out in the long run. The country has it's stages where conservatism prevents small steps toward progress and equlity for all, but eventually the American people, in their infinite wisdom, always choose progress over returning to unenlightened values. The branches on the tree of freedom grow longer and more welcoming with the passing of years and gather up all those tenacious people who fight with their lives to brought on board. I have watched for 60 years as this country becomes more and more inclusive and accepting , sometimes a maddingly slow process but an inevitable process despite the fears of those who are terrified of change.
Forty years ago, women were second class citizens, African Americans were still treated a chattle, Jews were not allowed in certain hotels or neighborhoods, hispanics were only valuable as housekeepers , Asians as gardeners, gays regarded as sick , twisted perverts and harrassed and victimized by police everywhere, an unmarried woman with a child was considered an outcast, a woman who had sex outside of marriage was derided as a slut , immoral and was shunned. Today, all of those stereotypes have been shattered. Religious fundamentalists still harbor their misguided prejudices and the Catholic Church still persecutes gays as sinners. But their congregations reject their teachings as outdated and irrelevant to a modern society, just as they reject their impractical teachings on birth control, abstinence and abortion rights. Every national poll confirms these trends.
On the foreign front Americans are becoming increasingly citizens of the world not just citizens of
the U.S. They are skeptical of foreign intervention after having been lied into wars and having our treasury being spent on everything but our own needs. Which is not to say they are becoming isolationists. They are quite willing to help other countries who demand freedom from tyranny as long as the operation is done surgicaly and quickly and does not involve the deaths of more Americans. Libya and Egypt being prime examples, and our commitment to Israel is certainly not isolationist.But the neo-con war mongers of the Bush years will have a very hard time ever regaining a foothold on our foreign policy for many years to come . The sabre rattling currently being esposed by several of the republican candidates in regard to Iran will not be looked upon in a favorable light by the majority of Americans who are sick and tired of useless wars and belicose
politicians.
Progress cannot be stopped , only delayed by fear mongering and intransigence, but only temporarily because we are intrinsically a progressive people with honorable intentions and an inner sense of basic fairness and concern for our fellow citizens.

Yes, excellent post. I hope you watched the video in my last post entitled, "I, pencil." It is important because the spread of free market capitalism has formed the foundation of the progress to which you refer. Notice the very last statements on the video. Because of free market capitalization - now sometimes referred to as globalization - more people live in freedom that ever in the history of the world.

Not only that, free market capitalism gave us the prosperity which allowed many, many people the leisure to look at their own societies. THAT is the underlying and inextricable edifice that allows reform; it does NOT stem initially from government. Unless we had some prosperity, we could never have children in school, be literate, or have the time and inclination to better our lives and our society.

I simply hate to see people turn against the very source of our prosperity and liberty. It almost seems like they are not even cognizant that they are destroying the very foundation of what they are protesting.

My goal is not to deny the existence of market forces. My goal is to make you think about its true nature;and the degree of "imperfections " and imbalances that have corrupted our system over the last 10 to 12 years. When I'm finished cataloging these for you, then maybe you will see why the Occupy crowd is upset with the current state of affairs.

First you wrote this:

"I deny the existence of a free market."

I responded with an explanation. Then, you write this:

"My goal is not to deny the existence of market forces."

Revealing, very revealing.

Two points:

1. Did you watch the video? It is less than 3 minutes.

2. You keep talking and talking and talking and talking about what you are going to tell me, what you are going to demonstrate, how you are going to "prove" something. For two days already.....

You and I have a very different connotation to some words. When I use the word market forces, I'm referring to a set of conditions that prevail and need to be actively analyzed and adjusted if they are not working for most of the people at the current time I'm using the last twelve years as my evaluation period.In my opinion you are basing your evaluation of the current conditions on a mythical template you call the "free market" that was handed down to Republicans by God on stone tablets. You refer to this mythical free market in your arguments as a singular goal to be achieved that will solve all social problems. Its the connotation of "the invisible hand" and "Mr. Market" who if you will just trust will resolve all perceived social injustice. Its not working my friend. And I haven't forgotten my promise to prove to you in detail that it is not working with numerous examples. They are coming. I'm just taking my time to organize the the extensive material.

Guy, I'm going to tell you why I don't watch videos. If you believe that your video makes a very important point, then sum it up in a few sentences. If this is YOUR thinking, then put it in YOUR words. If somebody else is doing your thinking for you, then why am I debating you? Well, actually I enjoy debating you because I believe you are open to argument and persuasion, although maybe not persuadable to my point of view. However I don't want to debate a a guy on a video. Why does "video guy" need a big production to make his point. My first thought is probably its just slickly produced propaganda. My position is you came on strong with your claims that Bill Mahar and OCWS are all wrong; but in my opinion the nut of your argument is your conservative orthodoxy. I'm attempting to give you the chance to identify and justify your bedrock belief system about the state of the social contract. You obviously think its fine. I think its broken. I think your heroes broke it; and they're doing everything they can to shift the blame to abstract collective noun "big government" so that the people; won't hold them personally accountable ;and so that they can continue with their cheating---which by the way brings us back to Bill Mahar's main points.

I simply disagree that free market capitalism had anything to do with social progress. It was the citizens of this country who fought tooth and nail for equal rights and demanded it from their representatives.

You wrote that I “refer to this mythical free market in your arguments as a singular goal to be achieved that will solve all social problems.”

Please stop distorting. I never wrote that, and I wrote TO THE CONTRARY. Read my comments about the impossibility of achieving any “perfection” – IN ANYTHING.

I refer to the fact that a “free” market – to the extent it can be free (be sure to remember those 7 words and don’t distort again!) – is responsive to feedback, and this feedback gets distorted when the government interferes. Some “interference” may be necessary at times, but it WILL, it HAS TO, distort the feedback. In addition, free markets can be sensitive and respond to this feedback, take chances, and encourage creativity (change) – But it cannot if the economy is “managed” by GOVERNMENT. It simply cannot.

You refer to “social” injustice. Why does it seem incumbent on government worshippers to add “social” to justice? It is because this “social” shifts REAL justice – justice based on individual actions – to GROUP justice. This usurps TRUE justice because it classifies groups and necessitates some kind of compensation based on group membership.

But I believe that an Invisible Hand will “resolve all perceived social injustice?” The thought never crossed my mind. In a free market, there will be more inequality than in a managed economy. This is one of the basic contentions with those who would want a managed economy; they want a central authority to “equalize” incomes. With that, we lose liberty, of course.

I DID explain the essence of the video. I DO agree with you: If a person cannot explain an idea but presents a link to a video or cut and pastes an article, I refuse to respond. It is only when it buttresses what the person obviously knows and has explained. That video presents in a more dramatic and entertaining fashion, something of importance that few people consider: The incredible number of people cooperating to produce ANYTHING. Also, there are so many things that go into the production of an article as simple as a 5-cent pencil, if one actually believes that a government can manage an ECONOMY, the very idea becomes absolutely ludicrous.

So, two points about the free market (remember those 7 words: to the extent it can be free):

1. The market gets distorted when it cannot get true feedback from prices, and government intervention distorts that feedback.

2. There is are imponderable numbers of factors that go into the manufacturing of a single item, it is absurd and the height of hubris to think that an entire economy or even a section of it can be managed.

Free market capitalism was prerequisite to social (and other) progress; without the prosperity it engendered, there would have been virtually no social progress, of course. Two reasons:

1. The demands of free market capitalism led to political reforms, one of the most essential being the protection of private property, inextricable from basic rights. This spread to more and more people, and this meant that they had more power and wealth. They demanded more rights. Without basic rights, there could be virtually no reforms.

2. Prosperity spread and grew. That is incontrovertible; all one would have to do is compare our standard of living, lifespan, and housing to that of a century ago. As people prospered, they looked around to improve their lives. Without that foundation, it social “progress” would not have been possible.

But free market capitalism also forms the foundation for cooperation and trust. There is the economic fallacy that many seem to believe: “one man’s gain is another’s loss.” Simply not true, and history bears this out with no question. Almost everyone benefits.

It is enough (almost) to make one believe in some form of numerology. But in the rethugs case, a cow pie , is a cow pie, is a cow pie.

"You refer to “social” injustice. Why does it seem incumbent on government worshippers to add “social” to justice? It is because this “social” shifts REAL justice – justice based on individual actions – to GROUP justice. This usurps TRUE justice because it classifies groups and necessitates some kind of compensation based on group membership.

But I believe that an Invisible Hand will “resolve all perceived social injustice?” The thought never crossed my mind. In a free market, there will be more inequality than in a managed economy. This is one of the basic contentions with those who would want a managed economy; they want a central authority to “equalize” incomes. With that, we lose liberty, of course."

NOT YELLING---Drawing your eye to my answer

My basic political education and resulting bedrock beliefs are based on the writings of John Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, among others. These were the luminaries of the Enlightenment, and were read by and greatly influenced our Founding Fathers. Your question leads me to believe that you may be a social Darwinist or anarchist. You probably are familiar with the authors I mention; but maybe not to the extent that my professors emphasized them;(or maybe you have studied them and rejected their arguments). As a common reference point I've copied a portion of an article from Wikipedia below. I'm not saying you are; but if you are a social Darwinist or an anarchist (and I think some Tea Party types, if they really put a little thought behind what they are espousing and to whom they've formed allegiances, they indeed fall into the categories); then our philosophies and politics will find no middle ground. Our nation and its founders believed that they were forming a government based on the arguments of the Enlightenment philosophers who argued for a social contract as the legitimate basis of government. If you reject those arguments in favor of some kind of economic invisible hand that will mete out appropriate justice, then that's one of our basic differences.(By the way if you read Adam Smith's " Wealth of Nations" he advocates for the social contract concepts---Ayn Rand does not, she is a social Darwinist (so was Hitler, by the way).
Article below excerpted from Wikipedia

This article is about the political and philosophical concept. For Rousseau's 1762 treatise on the concept, see The Social Contract. For other uses, see Social Contract (disambiguation).
The social contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.[citation needed]

Social contract theory played an important historical role in the emergence of the idea that political authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most social contract theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any political order, usually termed the “state of nature”. In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous social contract thinkers. Each drew quite different conclusions about the nature of political authority. Hobbes advocated absolute monarchy, Locke advocated natural rights, and Rousseau advocated collective sovereignty in the name of "the general will".[citation needed] The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence, and social contract notions have recently been invoked, in a quite different sense, by thinkers such as John Rawls.

Although developed for understanding human societies, sociobiologists have found the notion illuminating for understanding societies of other social species and even interspecies symbiotic relationships.[1]

As soon as the part that you copied from Wiki started, I stopped reading. I do not respond to “cut and pastes” unless they are supports of what the poster wrote, and you did not write much of anything, but only name-dropped. Of course I am not what you conveniently accuse me; I am neither a SPENCERIAN Social Darwinist (like the predecessors of today’s Liberals, the PROGRESSIVES, were), nor an anarchist.

As I wrote before, measures for “social” justice undermine true justice because it focuses on groups, not individuals.

The part quoted from Wiki was an addendum---my answer can stand alone. It was for your convenience---like referencing a Bible quote. I could assume you were familiar with Locke, Rousseau and Montesquieu---and how their writings --according to must historians-- were the philosophical basis of our Republic.I'm also fairly certain that, like most people, you are not a "pure' anything. I'm just saying that anyone who does not give up their "right" to be the ultimate power in the universe; to form a more perfect union; for the greater good; is less capable rather than more more capable of appreciating and participating in a country, or church or any institution of society, based on traditional western Christian culture, from whence our republic derives. In my opinion the way you phrased your question implies that you are more individualistic than community oriented in the sense I just described. More of an Ayn Rand attitude of, I got mine, if you need something; well, then, that would just constitute too much government.

When I was growing up, I always felt, there was a contract which created a balance in our economic life. The period for this contract started in the mid 1930's . Its was forged by the experiences of the Depression and of World War II. Signed in blood by the returning veterans. It included for example, Social Security, Glass-steagall the rights of unions trust in government; belief in education; loyalty to your country; and numerous other givens (that we can discuss). It was clock like and it worked well for all, and it pointed in a Progressive direction of each generation being better off than the previous. In my opinion your Ayn Rand type, labor arbitraging, Wall Street parasites;broke that contract and broke our trust;and broke our economy. What we really need is regulation, restitution, and restoration of the American contract. I'm hoping our discussion will help with your awareness of just what Occupy Wall Street may be about.

The is kind of a dilemma in the emphasis on either community or individualism. We really cannot have it both ways. I suppose you also know about one of the seminal works in the early days of Conservatism, "The Quest for Community."

The cult of individualism has taken hold of many minds, and people read Rand without really thinking it through.

That said, it can appear that someone who stresses the individual over the state is a kind of social Dawrinist, Randian, Libertarian.

It is a mistake to think government can provide that sense of community. As you said, it is true that people looked more and more to government, especially since it SEEMED that it took us out of the Great Depression, then saved the world for democracy, then protected us from the communist menace. We were willing to trust government and empower it more and more.

But government destroys community. Simply put, it is because almost anything govt does in social policy takes the trouble out of things. Every time the government takes some of the trouble out of performing the functions of family, community, vocation, and faith, it also strips those institutions of some of their vitality - it drains some of the life from them. It's inevitable. Families are not vital because the day-to-day tasks of raising children and being a good spouse are so much fun, but because the family has responsibility for doing important things that won't get done unless the family does them. Communities are not vital because it's so much fun to respond to our neighbors' needs, but because the community has the responsibility for doing important things that won't get done unless the community does them.

Over time, an elaborate web of social norms, expectations, rewards, and punishments evolves over time that supports families and communities in performing their functions. When the government says it will take some of the trouble out of doing the things that families and communities evolved to do, it inevitably takes some of the action away from families and communities, and the web frays, and eventually disintegrates.

I care little for "prosperity." I am far more concern with the societal aspects of the welfare state and all-powerful government.

The government should not legislate morality, and it should stay out of local affairs.

The dilemma is not so much a dilemma in that one choice negates the other. I think it is more a matter of emphasis. The Chinese embody these two dimensions in the teachings of Confucius versus the more individualistic way of the Tao. Like contemporary American we are looking at each other across a great divide. There are many essentials to our respective belief systems that we have in common---but there is a big difference regarding where we are; where we should go; and what route we should take. I think things are really (insert swear word here) and Wall Street Criminals and their paid off minions in Congress are to blame; and we must have restitution, reformation, retribution and restoration to a pre-Gingrich era. The last decent Republican was Bush Sr. I may not have agreed with all his policies; but he was a patriot; he was trustworthy; he served his apprenticeship in numerous government positions; he was competent and accomplished; and put the country first. Everything his son was a failure at. If he had done just a bit more to help regular working people and to try and reverse the influence of the NEOcons and right and extreme right wing, I'm guessing he would have been re-elected and we wouldn't have had the "Wall Street Gone Wild" episode that has destroyed so many lives and fortunes in our country and Euriope.

I think that there is more to it than that, but the main thing is to get government to stop colluding with business. It is not surprising that people in business will try to get favorable laws passed and ask the government for bailouts. But this is the same as anyone on welfare.

But look at unions. Do you know that the BIGGEST campaign contributors are unions, by far? I mean when I looked, I was really shocked at how disproportionately they contribute.

Take a look-see:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

You will see that of the top 18 donors, not a SINGLE ONE donates primarily to Republicans! 4 are mixed, leaving 14 that give to Democrats. So, of the top 18 that give more to one party or the other, 100% give to Dems! ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!

Of those 14, ELEVEN (11) are UNIONS!

Or we could round it off to the top 20: 15 to Democrats and 12 are UNION. ONE to Republican.

Are you sure you should focus primarily on Wall Street?

Yes ---- absolutely Wall Street. The individuals responsible for this Meyer Lansky Lucky Luciano style crime spree. Not the corporations and banks they hide behind. We need a Rico powered prosecution of the individuals who defrauded our banks, pension funds, and our Congress and millions of honest individual and institutional investors around the world.

This is always the problem those who have the insane belief that they are somehow going to become one of them, it'll never happen. Those voting against their own interests. Poor sad clinically mentally ill wannabees.

Not only was Rand a crazy bitch but she was without doubt about as truly soul-less as it's possible for anything remotely resembling a human being to be. The word "evil" comes to mind. A creature shat up by hell itself, not unlike that fat pasty little gollum like thing karl rove, and that p.o.s milton friedman who's so responsible for bringing us piss-down laissez-faire-style-capitalism (corporate-fasicsm).

Extremely well said!

Excellent post as usual! Always a pleasure to read someone who speaks sanity, and truth!

I find the psychology of "the right" absolutely fascinating. I've been watching the continuing degeneration of their party further and further into further and further right-wing madness since their holy-saint-reagan-the-mad and his "revolution". First their fasustian pact with the "christian right" taking over, then increasingly the laiseez-faire wall-street-bankster crowd. It's been fascinating to see the language these people use and the mutating psychosis. The way they now venerate, and speak of the holy "invisible-hand" has come to be a bizarre merger of laissez-faire, and "prosperity gospel" (that they inherited through their merger with the old TV-preachers from the hey-day of same back in the early 80's), they speak of the invisible hand as the perfect infallible holy hand of their idea of a micro-managing god (that makes the rich rich because they're "holy" and the very gleam in gods eye, and makes the poor poor because they're some kind of sinners, and god hates them). The "market" is the perfect infallible will of god himself to these people (one of the reasons you -can't- reason with them, it's not rational, it's beliefs, it's religion). They speak of "the invisible hand" now in the same terms as religion, it's the hand of god to these people, and nothing less. Perfect all knowing, all seeing, perfect, infallible, all loving and benevolent (and micro-managing all to perfection).

You need to understand they -don't- believe in any social contract -period- in what passes as their heart-of-hearts it's nothing but the law of the jungle they believe in.

We're simpatico. I used to be a Republican. I feel like Diogenes, I can't find an honest republican, except maybe Buddy Roemer. (Or maybe its more like the Biblical Lot trying to save a couple of cities. It may be hopeless)

I could not agree more, and yet she is worshipped like a God by people who are only using her poorly written tracts to justify their own selfishness.

Thank you MSII. I always look forward to your posts as well.

You need to understand they -don't- believe in any social contract -period- in what passes as their heart-of-hearts it's nothing but the law of the jungle they believe in.

Shill , no doubt about it.

I feel sorry for him. I also feel sorry for anyone who has to deal with him.

It would be funny if they were not so dangerous. When I get back from taking care of some business I might just post some more of Hitler's Christian rhetoric.

Do you endorse the person in that video and his policies? He claimed everyone could be a king, of course.

Oh, the Native Americans did not own any land, and one cannot "steal" what is not owned by another.

But concerning "reparations" which you are obviously endorsing, would you be willing to give your house and property back to the Native Americans? If you do not own any, how about your siblings' property and your parents' property? Let's be ethical and moral and do what is right: Don't expect others to pay up when you can. And please give a portion of your savings and income!

National Coalition Of Blacks for Reparations in America (N'COBRA)
P.O. Box 90604 - Washington, DC 20090

Phone 202-291-8400 Fax 202-291-4600
Email NationalNCOBRA@aol.com

There is something important to consider when discussing the idea of the land of the Native Americans (NAs) having been “stolen.”

First, there is the important idea that in order to claim ownership on land, one must first improve it by doing something to make it more valuable. Most NAs in North America were nomadic, and since they had very little property – only what they could carry – their notion of private property was quite undeveloped. They rarely ever improved the land, of course. Outside of the place where he stood, the NA could not really conceive of any permanent ownership.

Next part: Private property rights are a condition of ownership. Unless we have this, there can be no crimes against property, of course. The NA recognized no universal moral law that would require one tribe to respect the previous productive efforts of another tribe. Each tribe occupied the land that suited its purposes for the time being, depending on the weather, game, power of surrounding tribes.

For example, the Apache and Navajo actually evicted the southwestern cliff dwellers.

Even today, land is held collectively on reservations.

In 1961, a federal court said, “No instance of individual ownership is known on tribal lands.”

The Europeans thus had the right, even the imperative, to abolish collectivism of land and replace it with a system of individual rights. In this way, the rights of individual efforts were protected by law. And this included the rights of the NAs!!

Actually, I am in favor of having funds confiscated from businesses that profited from the slave trade. There was a study done, I don't have the info in front of me, but a number of fortune 500 companies and some blue blood families have inordinate wealth as a direct result of slave trade activities and it is documented. I believe that money should be confiscated.

I must admit that I am at a lost as to how to distribute the funds, but I think that it could be used to offer scholarships to the socially disadvantaged. I am not opposed to this money being offered to white or minorities other than black, but I believe it should be administered via a black education institution. This is just a concept. I have not given the idea enough thought to set forth a specific plausible program, but there are things that could be done....

This is money that can be directly traced to the slave trade and profits gained thereby. This has nothing to do with the everyday citizen who in many ways was disenfranchised as well although maybe not as much.

LMAO !!! Thanks Bill

And another well-reasoned post from a Maher fan....