Go Home

America Speaks. Will The Politicians Listen?

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (459)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1167)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

eRobin from Factesque at the Philadelphia AmericaSpeaks town hall yesterday.

Have any of your friends ever invited you over to his or her house to discuss "a wonderful opportunity", and it turned out they wanted you to sell Amway? First, they try to win you over with sheer enthusiasm. When that doesn't work, they tell you how their products protect the environment - and then, if that doesn't work, you begin to see a delicate sheen of sweat on their upper lip and there's a growing edge of desperation to all that cheer. See, because their upline manager told them if they can't sell the product, and then sell their friends on selling the product themselves, the problem is with them, and not with their overpriced, heavily-hyped product line. It's because their faith is not pure.

That's what yesterday's AmericaSpeaks event reminded me of. (That, and a game show, with personable hosts with really good teeth, great special effects and Fabulous Prizes!)

For the first time in a long time, I might have some faith in America. Because no matter how many times the facilitators of this event (which was funded heavily by Pete Peterson, the conservative billionaire who wants to cut Social Security) tried to steer us toward cutting Social Security and Medicare, the 3500 or so people who took part in this national town hall weren't buying it. Sure, there were Fox News junkies here and there, and some cautious, low-information voters who kinda-sorta disagreed, but the majority who attended seemed to have their own ideas about how to solve the deficit "problem."

You know what most of them wanted to do? Soak the rich -- and cut defense spending. (Are you listening, President Obama?)

I thought maybe it was just my table, but when they tabulated the results, it was pretty much the same throughout the crowded ballroom of several hundred attendees. (Whew!)

And although the lead facilitator told us we couldn't expect the opinions from a Northeast city to be reflected in the national results, the tabulation from the 19 cities across the country showed pretty similiar sentiments. In fact, the only places in which it varied from a progressive agenda were on more complex, less familiar topics like the tax deductions businesses take to keep jobs in this country. ("They leave anyway!" my tablemates exclaimed.)

That, in spite of an ultra-sophisticated, full-scale marketing push. When you arrived, you were given a glossy information packet and asked to fill out a questionnaire about core values. Now, clearly this approach had been focus-grouped, because the common theme quickly seized on by the moderators was our desire to leave a better world for the next generation. (Apparently they thought this would translate to a spirit of self-sacrifice. Hah! Guess they haven't noticed we have nothing left.)

When we talked about the economic recovery, I said the deficit had nothing to do with it. "It's only a 'crisis' when the GOP is out of power and they want to cut entitlements," I said. "The top economists are all saying you don't worry about the deficit in a major recession, so why would we even accept this premise?" (I think I made our facilitator nervous. So did the guy who said he was worried about a double-dip recession.)

It was also a happy moment when we pointed out that they forgot to include the possibility of cutting the estate tax in their budget estimates. That, and the loud snickers sprinkled throughout the room when our hosts showed a video starring Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg. Oh, and via Twitter, I learned that the L.A. crowd booed the Peterson Foundation rep.)

Even more heartening, though, was how carefully everyone looked at the questions. You know what else they said? They'd rather see no cuts at all in any social programs than give Congress the go-ahead to slash them. They don't trust them to look out for the interests of the vulnerable over the corporate interests. (Hell, one guy at my table even quoted Karl Marx! "Shouldn't matter who said it if it's a good idea," he said.)

You know what everyone said they supported instead of Medicare cuts? Medicare for all! In fact, people wanted to spend more money on all social programs!

About the only real non-progressive moment came when a couple of the older participants said they thought they could support raising the age at which you got full Social Security benefits. "Wait a minute," I said. "That's actually a benefit cut. If you paid in for all those years expecting to get that, you can't turn around and take it away." They hadn't thought of that.

We talked about personal responsibility vs. government care, but agreed we just didn't trust Congress to make those decisions.

The facilitator kept saying things like, "Are you keeping in mind future generations, and the young people who aren't present here today? Are you voting for their interests as well?"

Several of us pointed out that a single-payer system was best for their interests - that it would stimulate the economy and generate more jobs. (Although by the time the sentiment was shown on the conference screen, it said "single-payer option in our healthcare system" or something similarly convoluted. Which, you know, kind of defeats the purpose of single-payer and kills the economic benefits. But whatever!)

One of the guys at my table went off on a rant about Social Security "running out because the politicians stole the money."

"Hold on, Social Security is not running out," I said. "It's completely funded through 2036, and even if we didn't do a thing, it would still pay out 80% of the benefits. All we have to do is raise the cap on earnings and raise the payroll tax by one percent, and we'd be fine." (I was in sales. I'm pretty persuasive. Come to think of it, why aren't progressives holding town hall meetings on Social Security?)

Anyway, there were many, many insidious attempts to reframe the debate. But people were pushing back on just about everything - in the nicest, most polite way. But they definitely pushed back. Despite the little hints from the emcee about "those who are still in denial" and "making hard choices," the attendees held their ground.

And politicians did not get the go-ahead signal to go anywhere near Social Security.

Frankly, I was surprised. But in a good way! Now we'll see just how AmericaSpeaks frames the results. But I want to tell you: Today, Americans did us proud. I hope they keep their guards up.

Because this is only the beginning. Obviously, the plan is to wear down our resistance with more clever infomercials like this one.

P.S. They also asked what we'd like additional meetings like this to cover. Several people suggested we talk about the Afghanistan war. No, America's not lost - not yet.

Oh, and don't believe the "official" reports that so many attendees supported cuts - it was push polling. (Although certainly the politicians will believe otherwise, in which case, Mission Accomplished!) You can see the worksheet for yourself here.

More from DDay, who attended the L.A. event, and from Digby, who watched at home.

Share This Post

Link To This Post


103 Comments
fuddled's picture

Obama has been through enough crises in just the last 18 months to stop playing the "safe" and Raum's Beltway secure cruise mode. At any time, he could have used one of these crises to ship Raum out and start playing the Main Street card with key Congressional progressives. He just wants to bide his time and get out safely.

virtually0's picture

propaganda extravaganza to cut "entitlements", as he refers to SS and Medicare. Obama loves nothing more than punishing the average American, esp if it means keeping the moneyed elite happy, then plastering the media and blogs with propagandists to to try to present the opposite appearance (see his lackadaisical response to the Gulf oil spill/cleanup, his failure to regulate and his continued secret push for widespread offshore drilling, making a secret deal with the insurance lobbyists to kill the wildly popular public option and all possibilities for cost control while locking in the healthcare status quo with the exception that now you're *required* to pay a monthly tithe to the criminal insurance companies, meagre stimulus money headed the average American's way/lackadaisical response to 10% unemployment, weak-tea and failed attempt at keep Americans in their homes). And now, his behind the scenes assault on the meagre SS 'entitlements' that we pay into. He bypasses a Democratic, *elected* Congress to appoint a "bipartisan" commission stacked with rightwingers and co-chaired by 2 people who dislike SS. Obama is an old-school rightwing Republican of the sleazy, dishonest kind.

What's extraordinary about this assault on Social Security is that a Democratic president is leading it. Obama is arm in arm with GOP conservatives like Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson, who for decades has demonized Social Security as a grave threat to the Republic and has spread some $12 million among economists, think tanks, foundations and assorted front groups to sell his case. If Obama pulls the deal off, this will be his version of "Nixon goes to China"—a leader proving his manhood by going against his party's convictions. Even if he fails, the president will get some protective cover on the deficit issue. After all, he is targeting Big Government's most beloved and trusted program—the New Deal's most prominent pillar.

In setting up his National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, Barack Obama is again playing coy in public, but his intentions are widely understood among Washington insiders. The president intends to offer Social Security as a sacrificial lamb to entice conservative deficit hawks into a grand bipartisan compromise in which Democrats agree to cut Social Security benefits for future retirees while Republicans accede to significant tax increases to reduce government red ink.

Obama's commission is the vehicle created to achieve this deal. He ducks questions about his preferences, saying only that "everything has to be on the table." But White House lieutenants are privately talking up a bargain along those lines. They are telling anxious liberals to trust the president to make only moderate cuts. Better to have Democrats cut Social Security, Obama advisers say, than leave the task to bloodthirsty Republicans.

The president has stacked the deck to encourage this strategy. The eighteen-member commission is top-heavy with fiscal conservatives and hostile right-wingers who yearn to dismantle the retirement program. The Republican co-chair, former Senator Alan Simpson, is especially nasty; he likes to get laughs by ridiculing wheezy old folks.

Whacking the Old Folks

with an empty rhetoric of hope and change

From Adolph Reed Jr.
May 4, 2008

I've never been an Obama supporter. I've known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal…

... This fabrication, along with those embroideries of the candidate's own biography, may be standard fare, the typical log cabin narrative. However, in Obama's case, the license taken not only underscores Obama's more complex relationship to insider politics in Daley's Chicago; it also underscores how much this campaign depends on selling an image rather than substance.

There is also something disturbingly ritualistic and superficial in the Obama camp's young minions' enthusiasm. Paul Krugman noted months ago that the Obamistas display a cultish quality in the sense that they treat others' criticism or failure to support their icon as a character flaw or sin…Increasingly, Obama supporters have been disposed to cry foul and charge racism at nearly any criticism of him, in steadily more extravagant rhetoric.

...I often tell my students that, even though Paul Wellstone was my good friend from college to his death and an individual for whom I always had great respect, no politician in this system is likely to be a person you'd want for your sister-in-law or brother-in-law. And, as many Progressive readers may know, I'm hardly a Clinton fan. I'm on record in last November's issue as saying that I'd rather sit out the election entirely than vote for either her or Obama. At this point, though, I've decided that she's the lesser evil in the Democratic race, for the following reasons: 1) Obama's empty claims to being a candidate of progressive change and to embodying a 'movement' that exists only as a brand will dissolve into disillusionment in either a failed campaign against McCain or an Obama Presidency that continues the politics he's practiced his entire career; 2) his horribly opportunistic approach to the issues bearing on inequality - in which he tosses behaviorist rhetoric to the right and little more than calls to celebrate his success to blacks' stands to pollute debate about racial injustice whether he wins or loses the Presidency;...

...It's like what brings on the downfall of really successful con artists: They get themselves onto a stage that's so big that they can?t hide their contradictions anymore, and everyone finds out about the different stories they've told different people.

Peter G's picture

That's your best argument? Why it's virtually nothing. If that guy's parents had wanted him to win an election they wouldn't have called him Adolph. Interesting argument though. The scary black man who played the white liberal elite.? I guess I understand how Adolph views the world now.


Hasa Diga Eebowai

in America." S. Madrak

Do not marry anyone running for President.


"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter

Peter G's picture

speed dating?


Hasa Diga Eebowai

ricky's picture

they guy never had a minister who said anything bad about America
after Pearl Harbor through the surrender of Jap[an and between 9/11 and the date people realized there were no WMD in Iraq.


"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter

without one, defeat is certain...

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

cw's picture

;D

that although SS technically is not running out, but that it's load with I.O.U.s in the form of US T-Bills. So, instead of our SS taxed cash, SS has T-Bills which the taxpayer must pay interest and principle on. Our SS tax has been taken out and replaced with I.O.U.s for the last 20 years.

Evet's picture

shoes, clothes, jewelry, place mats, dishes, water glasses, wine glasses, stemware, magic markers, picture frames, flower pots, lamps, wall hangings, curtains, venetian blinds, magazines, books, deck furniture, sheets, blankets, pillows, comforters, cell phones, computers, eye glasses, sun glasses, yoga classes, pilates classes, manicures, haircuts, massages, luggage, pet toys, handbags, wallets, hats, watches, winter boots, crystals, wind chimes, paint, flowers, plants, blow dryers, curling irons, straightening irons, manual tooth brushes, elctric tooth brushes, waterpicks, razors, scissors, Q-tips, hair pins, ribbons, scrunchies, cotton balls, tweezers, eye liners, lip liners, towels, washclothes, floor mats, throw rugs, sponges, bar soaps, liguid soaps, soap on a rope, shower curtains, fragrances, candles, candleholders, garden tools, gardening gloves, gardening hats, workout outfits, water bottles, makeup, mirrors, shampoos, conditioners, creams, hair color (don't tell her I mentioned that) vitamins, batteries, note pads, address books, paper clips, ball point pens, STORAGE CONTAINERS (to make room for more shit), bottled water (we already have excellent tap water and just to make sure, a built in filtration system), dumbells, exercise balls, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, elec fans, scarves, winter coats, gloves, snow-scrappers, and geegaws, trinkets, baubles, knicknacks, trifles, gimcracks and tchotchkes of every imaginable sort.

Bill Lumbergh's picture

After looking at that list, I'm glad I'm divorced. Sometimes I forget how much crap my 'better half' accumulated.
Shopping is not entertainment, it's brainless consumption.

Not at all funny, that.

Evet's picture

before your allowed to board your flight.

Hellava list - thank God the local Walmart SuperCenter is open 24 hours.

shoes, clothes, jewelry, place mats, dishes, water glasses, wine glasses, stemware, magic markers, picture frames, flower pots, lamps, wall hangings, curtains, venetian blinds, magazines, books, deck furniture, sheets, blankets, pillows, comforters, cell phones, computers, eye glasses, sun glasses, yoga classes, pilates classes, manicures, haircuts, massages, luggage, pet toys, handbags, wallets, hats, watches, winter boots, crystals, wind chimes, paint, flowers, plants, blow dryers, curling irons, straightening irons, manual tooth brushes, elctric tooth brushes, waterpicks, razors, scissors, Q-tips, hair pins, ribbons, scrunchies, cotton balls, tweezers, eye liners, lip liners, towels, washclothes, floor mats, throw rugs, sponges, bar soaps, liguid soaps, soap on a rope, shower curtains, fragrances, candles, candleholders, garden tools, gardening gloves, gardening hats, workout outfits, water bottles, makeup, mirrors, shampoos, conditioners, creams, hair color (don't tell her I mentioned that) vitamins, batteries, note pads, address books, paper clips, ball point pens, STORAGE CONTAINERS (to make room for more shit), bottled water (we already have excellent tap water and just to make sure, a built in filtration system), dumbells, exercise balls, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, elec fans, scarves, winter coats, gloves, snow-scrappers, and geegaws, trinkets, baubles, knicknacks, trifles, gimcracks and tchotchkes of every imaginable sort.


Hasa Diga Eebowai

Hechicera's picture

If you are for raising taxes on the wealthy to help with the deficit (for social programs) then why do you use the following language in the article?

"Soak the rich"

That seems counter productive, and I think you're smart, so I don't get it. Why not "wealthy paying proportional share" or "people at the top giving back to society/people/community" or even "returning to the previous tax structure that worked". Anything that sounds productive not vindictive.

Some in Germany get it. We need to make it socially and morally responsible for the top to contribute a proportion needed to keep the whole community going. However, I can't see us getting there with "soak the rich" language as the starting place.

Susie Madrak's picture

Because people were angry, and I wanted my words to reflect that.


A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.

Terrible's picture

because the rich have been "soaking" them for a long time. Quite literally.

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Hechicera's picture

Do you really feel then that reforming the system is (a waste of time, not worth it, doomed to fail, whatever) and you want to skip right to the angry bloody revolution part (which also may or may not work)?

Note: I agree with you that we desperately need to fix the tax structure in this country. Your smarter than I am as a salesman vs my engineer self, and you have more experience in politics, though I know big business. Your actions while emotionally justified make no sense tactically. We have the same goal, but I think I have less clue than you how to get there. My husband living through a civil war makes me less inclined to "go directly to bloody revolution" as an initial move. ;)

So when we're done screaming, then what?

chervilant's picture

I so appreciate what you've said, and, moreover, HOW you've said it!

After months of online research, I've concluded that the relative anonymity of the inner tubes 'allows' or even encourages most bloggers to post vulgar, puerile, incendiary comments with relative impunity. Thus, many blogs are verbal minefields, with rare and precious bon mots from the more sane and erudite among us.

Early in my research, I tried responding in kind to the angry and verbally vicious bloggers--which usually netted an intensification of vulgarity or sarcasm, with the other party casting aspersions on my gender, my intellect, or the way I expressed myself. Then, I switched to advocating that we all reject the bipartisan red herrings promulgated by the Corporate Megalomaniacs and their media stooges--which also netted an intensification of vulgarity or sarcasm, with the other party casting aspersions on my gender, my intellect, AND the way I express myself!

Now, I encourage bloggers who engage with me to focus on our commonalities rather than our differences, and to explore ways to communicate effectively with each other AND that segment of our population we disparage herein with such pejorative terms as 'wing-nuts' and 'conservatards.' Plus, I use the 'ignore' option when someone is perniciously puerile, sexist or vulgar (e.g., on this site, ysbaddaden and his ilk).

And, since I have almost wrapped up my article, I tend to spend less time online than I did when I was collecting data. Most of my posts lately have been raw emotion about the Gulf catastrophe. At times, I find myself sliding into the naked anger abyss, and indulging in name-calling and character-assassination, just like most of the rest of us. I'm hopeful I will grow out of this at some point in my 50+ years on the planet... lol

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

You call a comment on a blog site an article?


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

chervilant's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]
ysbaddaden's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

chervilant's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]
ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

I realize this might be going to too much depth for you to grasp, but my comments to people who may or may not have me on ignore, are more often than not, not necessarily for their eyes, but the eyes of other readers on this site.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

ron's picture

2 of you who are on each others ignore list are starting to communicate.

chervilant's picture
lol

You're so cute. :)


[Deleted. If someone is on your ignore list, THEN IGNORE THEM. Quit posting about it. It's off topic-Sitemonitor]

chervilant's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]
chervilant's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]
ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Sounds like a marriage

Don't it?


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Peter G's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

Hasa Diga Eebowai

ysbaddaden's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

"Bored by the tedious and improving conversation of those who have neither the wit to exaggerate nor the genius to romance... "

Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Hechicera's picture

The Greater Internet Dickward Theory is nothing new. "Asbestos Undies" was the watch word on Usenet forums back before the web. If you really want to see it in action go visit 4chan or buy an XBOX, grab a FPS game and join team voice chat. These boards are moderated, and Susie is not empowered by anonymity. Apples and Oranges.

The internet can be a valid place to vent in places where community has developed. I remember using a few exclamation marks myself in comments, recently. >.>

Using aggressive language when staking out a policy position is not even in the same realm as what you suggest. My question was serious because Susie is not anonymous and will be in personal contact with people. It was in bold in an article on a website that gets heavy traffic. She's also smart enough to be aware of all that. Oh, and ys is funny. While I'm not surprised by Susie's answer (though still confused tactically) sometimes humor can be the right balance to emotion to keep things going and to keep things bearable.

chervilant's picture

I was referring to your adjuration, Hechicera, to use language that's less incendiary--not your assessment of Susie's position. In fact, my post wasn't about Susie or her 'position' at all.

Our technology has given us the capacity to anonymously vomit our personal thoughts into myriad public forums. A good many of us do so with malice aforethought. As I've done a goodly amount of research over a significant amount of time, I feel qualified to observe that our online discourse has grown increasingly uncivil, and that's the focus of my response to your post.

Does anyone need to use incendiary or divisive or pejorative language to share a thought or a policy position or anything on the internet? Do bloggers need to post sexist, racist, sarcastic or derogatory statements online? Do these types of posts facilitate understanding or communication or consensus-building?

"Aggressive language"? Somehow, you lost me with your final paragraph. Did you intend to sound condescending?

Finally, as far as ysbaddaden is concerned, he is on my ignore list because--at long last--I can no longer stomach his sexism and his misogyny. I find it disheartening that there are so many men like him who don't understand why objectifying women is so wrong.

Peter G's picture

not the least of which are passive-aggressive twelve-year- olds armed with an on line thesaurus. Please continue your research. Get back to us in a couple of decades.


Hasa Diga Eebowai

MsPithy's picture

By using "soak the rich" to describe forcing those who profit the most to pay their fair share, we prove to the right wing that we are not afraid of their hyperbole. We remove one of their talking points by saying, "call it soak the rich if you want, that IS exactly what we should do. And, here's why, ...." (insert any economic statistic that shows how the wealth of our nation is flowing to the top. All the statistics show precisely that fact.)

Without their talking points that literally fall out of their mouths, Republicans don't have much to say.

Cats r Flyfishn's picture

5% don't have a clue that the 95% are feeling pain. The wealthy live in their own created worlds and believe that everyone else life is just as cushy as theirs. Because they are greedy, they want every cent that they can steal from us and the only thing left is Social Security and boy do they want to get their hands on that. Think about... Social Security is a steady flow of money and they want that steady flow to fill their banks accounts.

deconstruct's picture

Thats not true for all of them. My uncle is in that top 5%-and hes well aware of the financial pain most americans are in right now.

Evet's picture

unfortunately most of the well off are so over their heads in greed and money now they forgot you need to take care of your people.

Cats r Flyfishn's picture
...

Does your uncle help people that are needy? Sure, there are wealthy people that give back and work to make this world a better place. Pete Peterson is not one of them and neither is Palin, Beck or Limbaugh for that matter.

deconstruct's picture

He donates time and money to his local homeless shelters. He has given some homeless people jobs-and they have worked for him for years.

Cats r Flyfishn's picture

Your uncle is a kind and caring person. If only more wealthy people were like him this world would be a better.

EATEN!


"Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

I can't wait for Tuesday. Tuesday is Soylent Green day. I hate Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow - it's tasteless odorless crud.

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Tofu?


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

cw's picture

but, the most advanced theories to date propose the following associations:

Soylent Green = The rich.

Soylent Red = Communists.

Soylent Yellow = Chickenhawks.

New flavors are developed all of the time. For instance, Soylent Purple for the plutocrats, Soylent Pink for socialists, and Soylent Blue for depressives.

Just give 'em some time and we'll have a color for every occasion...

Strange. That's what I thought Gatorade was.

Hechicera's picture

Do I need to quickly get a tan to be safe?

chervilant's picture

Does your Uncle self-identify as a member of 'that top 5%' or does he qualify statistically? To qualify statistically, your Uncle would have an annual income of $153,000 or more (in terms of US$ for 2006). If he broke the 1% barrier, he has an AGI of over $388,000.

In more relevant terms, I make far less than a third of what the top 5% of income earners make, and better than 75% of my income has to cover my housing, transportation, insurance and food expenses. My meager discretionary income allows an occasional movie or used paperback, eating out about once every six weeks or so, and new underwear every six months or so (this is mostly because, as a teacher, I use most of my spare change to buy stuff for my students).

In stark contrast, someone who makes better than $150,000 a year must struggle to decide if they want granite countertops in their state-of-the-art kitchen or stainless steel... Most of the denizens of this rarified subsection of our population do not bother their fine minds with the vagaries of the hoi polloi...

Peter G's picture

don't charge by the word. It would make such a dent in your disposable income.


Hasa Diga Eebowai

MsPithy's picture

of these numbers for the top earners. A person making $388,000 is just not that rich. I think the super-duper rich can hide their income from these statistics. Is unearned income counted? All forms of compensation? Hidden accounts, charities, whatever, they spend lots of money on tax accountants, they must get something for it.

chervilant's picture

I hesitated to use these numbers, but they are the statistics posted as the given parameters for memberships in the top 1% and the top 5% of income earners.

You make a valid point about hidden 'income' and the super-duper rich. When I was in training to become a mortgage loan officer, I worked with my mentor's most monied client. His wealth had increased exponentially after he built an extensive REO (real estate owned) portfolio. During the subprime blitz, this investor had us rewrite all his investment property loans (over 120 properties--we did them in batches of twenty at a time) at the point he felt the rates were the lowest they would go. He just about nailed that point. I calculated the expense of each refinance, as well as the amount he would save over the remaining life of the loan, and he reaped quite a benefit, both immediately and as a tax benefit when he filed.

People who play the capitalism game exceptionally well are quite good at making their money (and tangible resources) make more money.

deconstruct's picture

I was discussing this issue with my parents a few weeks ago. I told them we could cut it in half, and probably still annihilate the world twice over. They apparently dont mind spending several hundred billion dollars, because they didnt want to make cuts at all in defense. I guess they dont mind wasteful spending-as long as its on something they agree with.

Cats r Flyfishn's picture

If when they are eligible, are they ready to hand over their Social Security checks and their Medicare to the rich.

Evet's picture

is about 2 million people. As a result the rest of us are 46 stater's facing Greek style deficits.

...will never be revealed. It's the Black Budget which pays for all the things that are done in secret. Huge amounts of cash are simply going away with no oversight and no explanation.


"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman

Evet's picture

holdovers in the Obama administration. I recall Bush didn't waste anytime cleaning house of Democrats when he was installed.

Cats r Flyfishn's picture

Has been so busy plugging holes in the dike that he hasn't had the time to clean out the boy Bush's scum balls.

Evet's picture

they poke 6 more holes in the dike.

Cats r Flyfishn's picture
...

At least 6 more.

Evet's picture

estimate. I wonder if he'll ever come to and think . . "wait a minute, why am I surrounded by Bushies in my adiministration?"

Different Anonymous's picture
.

Occam would suggest: "because he wants them there."

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Wasn't Occam bearded?


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

VJBinCT's picture

To think that there are Americans left who actually understand issues and talk back! The you tube mash up of enthusiasm shown by folk over Donovan's goal the other day in the World Cup match could be used here to good effect: http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/ne... Go,USA... Still hope for us as a nation, perhaps.

ThatDeborahGirl's picture

I think that the GOP likes to give the impression that they're really in charge, but they're letting Obama think he's the President.

A lot of us have fallen for this, especially with the media firmly in the hands of the GOP. But the GOP keep playing this game to their peril and to their embarassement on every single issue.

Whether it's been the bailouts, healthcare, Obama's schooling of the GOP in Baltimore this past winter or even the BP oil "spill" fiasco, Obama's response has been the same:

1. He does not panic. He stops and listens to people. He takes time & effort to get the facts, not just what people want him to here.

2. He deliberates. He actually takes the advice of his advisors (gasp) and he throws in a little of his own panache just to make things interesting and to put his own stamp on things.

3. He makes a decision, he makes a plan and he carries it through. And after he makes his decision, no amount of whining, bitching, moaning, pleading and media idiocy is going to make him change his mind. He may make adjustments, but the plan is the plan and it's going to stay the plan and he's going to work the mutha fuckin plan.

And it's would be funny (if they weren't so damned dangerous) to watch the GOP run themselves in circles, whipping themselves into a frenzy while Obama on a steady treadmill of "I am the President."

The GOP is still on the 2008 treadmill of "you really can't let this black guy run the country can you?" and America's all like - "Uh, yeah, sure - seems to be doing a pretty good job to me."

Obama's true showdown with the GOP is going to have to come after the next elections. And then hopefully in his second term, he can finally bring our troops home and we can stop nation building in Irag or gaurding poppy fields and mining Afghanistan or just bombing the hell out of Pakistan because hey, Osama son of Laden is hiding over there somewhere right?

Joe Biden is right. This is a big fucking deal.

Evet's picture

administration of Bush and GOP holdovers and Bush damage control specialists and plumbers.

Agreed. My greatest concern with Obama two years ago was not his intelligence or his integrity; it was his lack of experience.

The Executive Administration is one of three branches of our Federal Gov, and it is as expansive as the other two at least. The President, for the most part, is a figurehead. He must appoint, assign, and recommend all kinds of people to actually run things. Barry didn’t have the information necessary to know who the good guys and bad guys were. He kept in place some very bad people, and appointed a mixed bag of nuts.

2 years into the job he should know the difference. I’m looking forward to a purge after this year’s mid-terms.

MaryK's picture

It is! Wonderfully said, Deborah girl.


"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman

Cats r Flyfishn's picture

Obama sets traps and perhaps his appointments on the deficit commission is a way of putting an end to the dismantling of Social Security by placing this issue front and center. Obama is a smart person and I don't believe that he thinks dismantling Social Security is a good idea.

Hechicera's picture

Once discussions start the Republicans there must decide whether to touch the third rail of SS/Medicare or the third rail of tax increases (which they made for themselves by past tactics).

If they try to avoid it hopefully the dishonesty of their position will become more obvious to more voters as they try and try to explain it.

Susie Madrak's picture

Having just been in D.C. and talked to a lot of Hill staffers, think tankers, etc., it is OPENLY discussed that Obama is going to sell out Social Security to get Republican support on other issues. You have a lot of very, very depressed people in the District right now.


A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.

Cats r Flyfishn's picture

is political death and Obama will get nothing in return if he does it. What could Obama possibly get from Republicans that he would be willing to send seniors to the poor house?

Cats r Flyfishn's picture

Then working adults will need to make room for their parents to move in with them because after having the 401K's raided, Social Security is all that seniors have left and taking a cut in Social Security means less money to live on. Make room, girls, because GPop and GG will be moving in.

Peter G's picture

mean that it is at all true? I ask because I see many things openly discussed that are absolute nonsense.


Hasa Diga Eebowai

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

and over ruled and trashed everything Bush Co did, like Bush Co did to everything Clinton did.

What a missed opportunity.

woodrowfan's picture
ty

Thanks for going, and pushing.

I've seen a few of these budget balancing things online and they are all crap. You can never make military cuts, only increases in spending. You can cut taxes, but not raise them.

It's not like Obama and company don't have a lot on their plate , not to mention dealing with Repug / Reich wing sabotage and obstruction at every single turn , but I don't understand why cleaning house of the Bushlerites wasn't at or near the top of their list from the very beginning . I think it's typical Democrat weakness and fear , not wanting to upset the Repugs and the Reich too much , someone needs to tell them who's boss and who's in charge right now and remind them of how vicious and brutal the Bush / Cheney regime was and that they had the Republican's complete blessings and support the entire time they were in the White House . Do you think the Repugs are going to play nice when they regain power / control ? Right . The Repugs have supplied the Dems with enough "ammo" to keep the Repugs in the back seat for a long time to come but they won't use it , why ? Why can't the Dems be more aggressive and tough ? They are likely to defeat themselves ... once again . It drives me nuts , is frustrating as heck .

rwgate's picture

In the last few months of his term, Bush moved a lot of his appointees, people subject to being removed by the new administration, into safe civil servant positions. This, in effect, prevented their wholesale removal as it's nearly impossible to remove a civil servant position. Bush even created many new civil positions that hadn't previously existed to hide his people. It was obvious, and legal, and impossible to stop until Obama became President.

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

I told my doctor at the VA my finger hurts when I do this,

So he said stop doing that:

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/m...


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

ron's picture

that Republicans have put holds on over 100 nominees that Obama has appointed. Again, the republicans are blocking any progress that can be made.

David762's picture

Looks to me like their 100+ years of planning empire (Spanish-American War, 1898), and 40+ years of intense prosthelytizing in MSM has failed to forward their Oligarch-Serf mentality.

For their agenda to be realized, no doubt the kid-gloves must come off, the mask fall away, and the true nature of the police state, "FEMA" camps included, must be exposed. I would expect that some new "Pearl Harbor-level" domestic event will occur that can be used to justify martial law -- all the other pieces (legislation and firepower) are already in place.

"PNAC" wasn't written just for the global empire; the domestic underpinnings are essential ...


"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy

dnyknot's picture

how about the G of M , read a couple articles that said the GOV is looking at martial law for the gulf , in the event of an explosion from that well . One geologist said the amount of methane is over 1 million times normal and that the methane is under 30-70,000 psi should that explode it would be a much bigger problem than what we have now .

Scary eh


every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

smchris's picture

Sorry, but it's as simple as that, isn't it?

Now what?

1) Work within the system. Next time we'll get politicians who actually DELIVER change!! Really. Like, for sure!!

2) Or............???

Susie Madrak's picture

Underpants gnomes!


A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

glogrrl's picture

No.


“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”

chervilant's picture

Blah, blah, blah, Politicians, blah, blah, blah...

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

That's what passes for erudition now days?

Say don't you have to get into line already for tickets to the new Twilight movie?


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Peter G's picture

That was her most informed and reasoned opinion yet. And she didn't even pat herself on back by way of self congratulations for the profound insight. Be fair. Those insights are becoming more acute with every post.


Hasa Diga Eebowai

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Comments are closed on this entry