The Populism of Billionaires

The tea party, if it is unified in any way, prides itself on being a populist movement. So it is odd that many of its candidates and financial backers are well-heeled and pedigreed. What, one has to ask, do these people know — or care, beyond their own political aspirations — of the struggles of working-class Americans?

http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Opinion/The-Populism-of-Billionaires,153110

ziggy wrote:

The tea party, if it is unified in any way, prides itself on being a populist movement. So it is odd that many of its candidates and financial backers are well-heeled and pedigreed. What, one has to ask, do these people know — or care, beyond their own political aspirations — of the struggles of working-class Americans?

http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Opinion/The-Populism-of-Billionaires,153110

That would be a good question to pose to people like George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, or Jay Rockefeller.

ziggy wrote:

The tea party, if it is unified in any way, prides itself on being a populist movement. So it is odd that many of its candidates and financial backers are well-heeled and pedigreed. What, one has to ask, do these people know — or care, beyond their own political aspirations — of the struggles of working-class Americans?

http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Opinion/The-Populism-of-Billionaires,153110

Oh by the way, I'm a working class American. My wife and I together earn just under the median wage for West Virginia and we pay nearly 40% of our income in one tax or another.

What I want you to explain to me is right have you to take from me or anyone else no matter their income level to give to someone that is unwilling to be productive?

The legal authority for federal income taxes levied without apportionment among the states according to their respective populations is in the 16th Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The authority to spend monies is in other parts of the Constitution and in laws that Congress has enacted.

ziggy wrote:The legal authority for federal income taxes levied without apportionment among the states according to their respective populations is in the 16th Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The authority to spend monies is in other parts of the Constitution and in laws that Congress has enacted.

I know what the US Constitution says. I want to know where you have the moral right to use the force of government to take what I have worked for and redistribute it to those who will not attempt to better themselves or choose to live off the efforts of others?

You question is false on its face. As I have said before, it has nothing to do with who "will not attempt to better themselves". It is that the U.S. economy is deliberately managed such that at any one time from 4 to 10 percent, sometimes more, of the people are unemployed. Those people are the victims of an economy that is successful and fruitful for some, mediocre for others, and not al all for others. In such a managed economy, those who are successful because of the way the economy is managed owe to those who are unsuccessful because of that management some measure of minimal subsistance.

ziggy wrote:You question is false on its face. As I have said before, it has nothing to do with who "will not attempt to better themselves". It is that the U.S. economy is deliberately managed such that at any one time from 4 to 10 percent, sometimes more, of the people are unemployed. Those people are the victims of an economy that is successful and fruitful for some, mediocre for others, and not al all for others. In such a managed economy, those who are successful because of the way the economy is managed owe to those who are unsuccessful because of that management some measure of minimal subsistance.

Above is what Ziggy said. I would like to compare it to a paragraph I ran across this morning.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Is it just me or do the two seem similar?

ziggy wrote:You question is false on its face. As I have said before, it has nothing to do with who "will not attempt to better themselves". It is that the U.S. economy is deliberately managed such that at any one time from 4 to 10 percent, sometimes more, of the people are unemployed. Those people are the victims of an economy that is successful and fruitful for some, mediocre for others, and not al all for others. In such a managed economy, those who are successful because of the way the economy is managed owe to those who are unsuccessful because of that management some measure of minimal subsistance.

Ziggy, if that is the way you feel, then why don't you immigrate to Cuba. I notice you haven't, thus far. Now, my question is not false on its face. It is valid question that needs answered.

My wife and I started off with nothing and we worked hard to get where we are, very hard. We raised three kids and put them through college and never asked a cent in the process. We fell down, we got up and continued on. We now see what we have worked so hard for being eroded away by people who unwilling to make the effort to better themselves. I can give dozens of examples right here where I live. It burns me up everytme I see some baby factory and her stud, standing in line at the grocery store paying for their food with food stamps, which I paided for with my taxes, and then using thier own money to buy a case of beer, a caton of cigarettes, or a handful of lottery tickets.

My wife is severly ill at present and while you and your touchy feelly leftist brethern are whining about the plight of the illegal aliens giving them free healthcare, I get to crack open my wallet and fork over thousands, even though I have good insurance. Somehow I fail to see the equity here. We are legal citizens who has been productive our entire lives, yet, we get shafted so you can feel good about yourself by saying you supported the government taking from us to give to those who break the law or are too lazy to work and better themselves.

Personally, I don't think you have either the guts or the brains to explain to me what moral right you have to use the force of government to extort what I have worked from from me and redistribute it to the unproductive.

ziggy wrote:As I have said before, it has nothing to do with who "will not attempt to better themselves". It is that the U.S. economy is deliberately managed such that at any one time from 4 to 10 percent, sometimes more, of the people are unemployed. Those people are the victims of an economy that is successful and fruitful for some, mediocre for others, and not al all for others.

Now for ever n' ever, ..... ever since his "grocery bagging" days, ..... Ziggy has been convinced and considered himself a part of the group of "and not at all for others" .... so you fellows are just wasting your time discussing such subjects with him.


So unless you are just entertaining yourself, , give it up.

.

Ziggy,

I don't see the relevance of given candidates being rich. The one tea party favorite in Delaware couldn't even pay off her student loans. Of course, the left mocks her for that, too. It seems like the left wants it both ways--to mock both rich and poorer candidates alike.

If a given candidate is upright and has good ideas, they could have a BA or a PhD, have experience as a street sweeper or college professor, and I will support them. Being wealthy is not in itself good or bad, and neither should it make you more, or less, fit to hold office.

I am in the midst of a conversation with a gentleman in another forum and he made the statement that because Michael Jordan grew up poor, he will have a different perspective and be more appreciative of labor then Jerry Buss of the LA Lakers whom he claims was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and as a result has never broke a sweat in his life.

What he failed to do was his research and discover that Buss worked and graduated with a BS of Science Degree from the University fo Wyoming in 2 and a half years then went to USC and got his Masters and Ph.D. in physical Science, went to work for what is now MSHA before doing some work in the aerospace industry and before becoming a Professor at USC.

He went into Real Estate simply to subsidize his teaching salary and allow him to live in Southern Ca and has a result of hard work and brains struck it rich enough to purchase 3 or 4 professional sports teams and become a billionaire.

The Ziggy's of the world assume that every billionaire got there as a result of doing nothing and thus their support for conseravtive candidates is simply to reward others who have it equally as easy. What he fails to recognize is that perhaps their support for conservative is because they know how intrusive government interferes with those willing to work and sets them back while rewarding others for doing nothing.

I'll clean this up in a bit and clarify some points later but for now I've got to go to one of my two jobs to support my and my 3 children's schooling.

Cheers

When did proseperity become a crime in this nation?

In addition to my points Ziggy and Stephanies question, I wonder what you have to back your belief of your assertations regarding our economy.

Stephanie wrote:When did proseperity become a crime in this nation?

The politicians made it a crime so they could buy votesw fromt he gallible and lazy.

Stephanie wrote:When did proseperity become a crime in this nation?

Shortly after LBJ launched his Great Society Program , ...... (which is now run by the Applachian Regional Commission), .... and tens of thousands of young liberals were hired to administer and run those programs and they quickly learned they could easily "feed at the public trough" by requesting and getting Grants approved for just about anything they could think up.

Two main goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. Johnson's success depended on his skills of persuasion, coupled with the Democratic landslide in the 1964 election that brought in many new liberals to Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

And the ARC spends hundreds of MILLION$ every year via Grants. And here is what they spent in 2009, to wit: http://www.arc.gov/funding/ARCProjectsApprovedinFiscalYear2009.asp ..... all 400+ projects listed. With 22 in WV, including: $800K on renewable energy, $490K preschool, $850K Workforce Training

In my opinion the ARC was one of Bob Byrd's primary "Political Payback" pipelines.


.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:You question is false on its face. As I have said before, it has nothing to do with who "will not attempt to better themselves". It is that the U.S. economy is deliberately managed such that at any one time from 4 to 10 percent, sometimes more, of the people are unemployed. Those people are the victims of an economy that is successful and fruitful for some, mediocre for others, and not al all for others. In such a managed economy, those who are successful because of the way the economy is managed owe to those who are unsuccessful because of that management some measure of minimal subsistance.

Ziggy, if that is the way you feel, then why don't you immigrate to Cuba.

Why would I? I am mostly OK with the economic system here pretty much the way it has been most of my life. You are the one pissin' and moanin' about how lousy the system is here. So if it is that bad for you, then why don't you go somewhere else where it might work better for you?

Now, my question is not false on its face. It is valid question that needs answered.

No, it is a false question. You are trying to set up a non-existant premise- that everyone who is unemployed is so solely because they don't want to work for a living- "better themselves", in your words.

My wife and I started off with nothing and we worked hard to get where we are, very hard. We raised three kids and put them through college and never asked a cent in the process. We fell down, we got up and continued on.

Ok. Sounds like you have done well. So what are you whining about?

We now see what we have worked so hard for being eroded away by people who unwilling to make the effort to better themselves.

How is what you have being "eroded away"? Are you and your wife unemployed?

I can give dozens of examples right here where I live.

Examples of what? Of unemployed people? Again, the American system is managed to maintain some percentage of unemployment. It is not about people who are "unwilling to make the effort to better themselves". It is about the political and economic powers that be who manage the economic system to create that exact effect- that some folks are unable to "better themselves" because they do not have a seat (a job) at the economic table.

It burns me up everytme I see some baby factory and her stud, standing in line at the grocery store paying for their food with food stamps, which I paided for with my taxes, and then using thier own money to buy a case of beer, a caton of cigarettes, or a handful of lottery tickets.

So maybe they should just go off somewhere and die of starvation? If they were dead and gone then you would not need to feel so burned up about it- out of sight, out of mind.

My wife is severly ill at present and while you and your touchy feelly leftist brethern are whining about the plight of the illegal aliens giving them free healthcare,

I am sorry your wife is ill. But you have not seen me whining about the plight of illegal aliens and that we should give them free healthcare. But if you had been paying attention, you would have seen me demanding that the government enforce the immigration laws rather than turning a blind eye to illegal immigration so that certain employers can have a larger pool of unemployed people to chose to hire from- at what is effectively even less than "slave wages". You have simply have not been paying attention to what I having been saying here.

I get to crack open my wallet and fork over thousands, even though I have good insurance. Somehow I fail to see the equity here. We are legal citizens who has been productive our entire lives, yet, we get shafted so you can feel good about yourself by saying you supported the government taking from us to give to those who break the law or are too lazy to work and better themselves.

Cato, I was born into the system we have in the USA today. I did not create it. I feel neither particularily good nor particularily bad about it. It is what it is- for better or for worse- better for some, worse for others.

Personally, I don't think you have either the guts or the brains to explain to me what moral right you have to use the force of government to extort what I have worked from from me and redistribute it to the unproductive.

Again, I did not invent the American system of economics. Like you, I was born into it. Those who are "unproductive" are that way because the managers of the economic system want them to be that way. When the economic managers call 4 and 5 percent unemployment rates "full employment" and proceed to insure that unemployment rates do not fall below those levels, the result is just what you complain about- that some level of the people will be unemployed- what you call "unproductive". And I have seen that cycle repeat itself several times over my adult lifetime- low unemployment rates deliberately manipulated to stop theose rates from going lower and to create / maintian higher unemployment rates. Maybe that is as good a way to manage an economic system as we can come up with. Or maybe it isn't. But either way, then let's just be honest enough to say so- and stop blaming those at the bottom of the ecomomic pyramid for being victims of a system that insures their place there. Maybe 85 or 95 percent of us are better off if some 5 to 15 percent of us are unemployed. If so, then let's at least stop blaming those of us who are unemployed for being victims of a system that works mostly OK for most of the rest of us.

ziggy wrote:Those who are "unproductive" are that way because the managers of the economic system want them to be that way.

I note that you've offered nothing to back that BS opinion up.

Yes I have. I have explained how the system is managed to insure that some 4 to 10 percent of people are unemployed at any one time. And if you don't believe it happens that way, then you have not been paying attention over the past 40-50 years.

If you sincerely believe what you posted earlier, you should be actively engaged in trying to end the Fed. Does the Mt Party have a position on the Federal Reserve? How about your Senate candidate? Do you know what his position is?

For the record, I sincerely believe that any of the other candidates running to fill the vacancy left by the death of Sen. Byrd would be preferable to Joe Manchin.

Unemployment above 0% is advocated as necessary to control inflation, which has brought about the concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU); the majority of mainstream economists mean NAIRU when speaking of "full" employment.

NAIRU
Main article: NAIRU

Phillips Curve before and after Expansionary Policy, with Long-Run Phillips Curve (NAIRU)The following should be understood in discussions of NAIRU: Governments that follow it are attempting to keep unemployment at certain levels (usually over four percent, and as high as ten or more percent) by keeping interest rates high. As interest rates increase, more bankruptcies of individuals and businesses occur, meaning less money to hire staff or purchase goods (the making and distributing of which requires workers, which means jobs). It might also be noted that the main cause of inflation is not high employment, but rather the ability of banks to make money with little to no backing with things of value (commodities such as gold and silver are some examples), thus flooding the market with money and decreasing the value of each dollar already issued in the process, assuming the economy has not kept up to this increase in issued loans. Economists such as Milton Friedman [4] and Dr. Ravi Batra have theorized ways that a modern economy could have low inflation and near full employment (as in close to 100% of those who are not students and are healthy enough to work, and who wish to work at any given point in time), as of yet these have yet to be widely disseminated through the press or introduced by most governments. Paul Martin - former finance minister and past Prime Minister of Canada - once held that full employment could be achieved, yet let go of this idea after gaining power. For more on this see the expose "Shooting the Hippo" by Linda McQuaig, author and former columnist for many of Canada's top newspapers.

Friedman's view has prevailed so that in much of modern macroeconomics, full employment means the lowest level of unemployment that can be sustained given the structure of the economy. Using the terminology first introduced by James Tobin (following the lead of Franco Modigliani), this equals the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) when the real gross domestic product equals potential output. This concept is identical to the "natural" rate but reflects the fact that there is nothing "natural" about an economy.

At this level of unemployment, there is no unemployment above the level of the NAIRU. That is, at full employment there is no cyclical or deficient-demand unemployment. If the unemployment rate stays below this "natural" or "inflation threshold" level for several years, it is posited that inflation will accelerate, i.e. get worse and worse (in the absence of wage and price controls). Similarly, inflation will get better (decelerate) if unemployment rates exceed the NAIRU for a long time. The theory says that inflation does not rise or fall when the unemployment equals the "natural" rate. This is where the term NAIRU is derived.

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

Stephanie wrote:If you sincerely believe what you posted earlier, you should be actively engaged in trying to end the Fed.

To favor ending it, I would first need to believe that the manipulations referenced are wrong and should not occur. I am not convinced that they either are or are not wrong- just that this is the way it is, and that as long as the economic system is so managed, that we owe some minimum levels of subsistance to those who are doomed to assurance of being at the bottom of the economic pyramid.

The manipulations are responsible for this economic system. They print money out of thin air in an attempt to control the markets, inflation, and unemployment. Just who do you suppose it is that is flooding the market with fiat currency to "control" inflation? The very same quasi-government agency who also decreases the supply of currency when they are worried about deflation.

It's like a giant shell game and every American is forced to participate because Congress refuses to fulfill its Constitutional obligation in regards to our currency.

Ziggy,

What you posted is nothing but pure BS. You can say all you want about the American economic system, but in the end that does excuse anyone from not succeeding if they desire to and work hard at it. The fact of the matter is people don't succeed because they don't try. Instead they have bought into a political system that steals from the productive and gives to the unproductive.

Now, again I ask you by what moral authority do you or anyone else have to take from the productive and give to those who are not productive?

ziggy wrote:Yes I have. I have explained how the system is managed to insure that some 4 to 10 percent of people are unemployed at any one time. And if you don't believe it happens that way, then you have not been paying attention over the past 40-50 years.

You haven't explained anything. You have expressed your opinion and that is all.