who is best equipped to change this?

[noonereal]

or are we comfortable with this?

(found this over at AK straddling the political fence so I though I'd bring it here where it will be safe ;))


83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

[merrylander]

I disagree with the last point; The top 10 percent of Americans now get around 50 percent of our national income.

[noonereal]

I disagree with the last point; The top 10 percent of Americans now get around 50 percent of our national income.

point taken

[finnbow]

If you think the bloodletting over the health care bill, TARP or the financial bill was nasty, any action by the Democratic Party to change this would likely be just the thing to tip the balance toward the armed insurrection feared in another recent thread. The moneyed/powered interests would pull out all the stops to defeat it.

That said, any effort by Washington to "fix" this "problem" would be an abysmal display of sausage making on a grand scale. It would likely be "eyewash" to appease those who think some sort of reform is necessary without making meaningful change. Hell, every person on Capitol Hill is the beneficiary of the current system and accordingly belongs in the lofty percentiles that you note. They have no real interest in fixing a system that treats them so well. Plus at least half of them are believers in Voodoo Economics (i.e., trickle down) anyway.

[noonereal]

That said, any effort by Washington to "fix" this "problem" would be an abysmal display of sausage making on a grand scale. It would likely be "eyewash" to appease those who think some sort of reform is necessary without making meaningful change.

Oh you mean it would be like the healthcare bill and the bank regulation bill.
Why do you think that? ;)

[Charles]

If you think the bloodletting over the health care bill, TARP or the financial bill was nasty, any action by the Democratic Party to change this would likely be just the thing to tip the balance toward the armed insurrection feared in another recent thread. The moneyed/powered interests would pull out all the stops to defeat it.

That said, any effort by Washington to "fix" this "problem" would be an abysmal display of sausage making on a grand scale. It would likely be "eyewash" to appease those who think some sort of reform is necessary without making meaningful change. Hell, every person on Capitol Hill is the beneficiary of the current system and accordingly belongs in the lofty percentiles that you note. They have no real interest in fixing a system that treats them so well. Plus at least half of them are believers in Voodoo Economics (i.e., trickle down) anyway.

Washington fix the problem? Washington helped create the problem.

As I read once, the Federal Reserve was created to stabilize the currency and control the boom/bust cycle. Since it's inception, the value of the currency has dropped over 95% and the boom/bust cycles are happening more often and with longer duration. Either the directors of the Fed Reserve are complete idiots or they are doing this by design.

Now you can blame our current situation on the Fed Reserve, free trade, globalization, what have you...they are all controlled by the same people.

Voodoo economics or Keynesian economics...doesn't matter, the same people put the magnets in the roulette wheel.

Republicans v Democrats for the good guys? Corporations v Bankers for the bad guys? Robert Reich has some input on this.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2007/10/25/taxes

Would new sausage makers help? Only if they quit playing the old sausage game...which is removing the sausage and replacing it with sawdust.

I'll even advance the notion that our masters are doing a good job. We may be eating greasy sawdust, but we might be eating nothing if not for their control of laissez faire economics. Kinda hard to buy when we're eating sawdust and they're eating the good stuff, along with biscuits, gravy, and over easy's.

I did get a kick out of Obama on the teevee, lecturing the bankers on how he was the only thing between them and the pitchfork. Either that was grand political theater for the Punch and Judy crowd, or the man truly is an idiot.

That's what his job is.

So eat your greasy sawdust and remember...it can get worse.

And as a side note. Even if we do have blood in the streets, and get rid of Obama, or Palin, or whatever fool is sitting in the big chair at the time, along with all of the sausage makers, BIS will still be there...to sell us new ones.

Chas

[piece-itpete]

So eat your greasy sawdust and remember...it can get worse.



Quote of the year!!!

Pete

[noonereal]

so we should just live with it seems to be the consensus

can we at least condemn this situation? or do we really believe the wealthy "earn it"

[Charles]

so we should just live with it seems to be the consensus

can we at least condemn this situation? or do we really believe the wealthy "earn it"

Sure, it stinks.

What can we do about it?

Hope the big boys get tired of us and decide to bend China over the bar for awhile.

Everybody gets their turn.

Chas

[noonereal]

Sure, it stinks.

What can we do about it?



Structure laws that compelled the ruling class to be more socially responsible maybe?

[finnbow]

Structure laws that compelled the ruling class to be more socially responsible maybe?

The trouble is that the ruling class make the laws. The think far more highly of themselves than we do of them.

[noonereal]

The trouble is that the ruling class make the laws. The think far more highly of themselves than we do of them.

granted, but we can vote them out

[d-ray657]

granted, but we can vote them out

It doesn't help when they have control of the media too. NBC is owned by GE; ABC by a conglomerate; and I don't know about CBS. The anchors are making seven figure salaries. I don't that makes them identify very well with the 99.8% of the population making less than them. In addition to the corporate make up of the media, we have Fox running a high profile propaganda machine. It will be hard to convince a majority of the people that we are being screwed.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

granted, but we can vote them out

And vote who in?

More of the same, I'm afraid.

John

[noonereal]

And vote who in?

More of the same, I'm afraid.

John

any trilateralist reading this thread would be thrilled

[JJIII]

granted, but we can vote them out

I don't think that the real "ruling class" are subject to a vote.:(

[d-ray657]

I don't think that the real "ruling class" are subject to a vote.:(

Terrific insight. Sadly it is so so true. In the lyrics of Steve Earle "Everybody's equal as long as they can pay."

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

It doesn't help when they have control of the media too. NBC is owned by GE; ABC by a conglomerate; and I don't know about CBS. The anchors are making seven figure salaries. I don't that makes them identify very well with the 99.8% of the population making less than them. In addition to the corporate make up of the media, we have Fox running a high profile propaganda machine. It will be hard to convince a majority of the people that we are being screwed.

Regards,

D-Ray

They're all running a propaganda machine. The only reason they let Fox in (other than to give you lefties something to bitch about) is so the great unwashed think they can hear both sides of the story.

They all report the same stories, only spin them a little differently. It's all an illusion to make people think that they're informed, to keep them stirred up between themselves.

Playing both sides against the middle. And from what I can see, it's working.

Chas

[Boreas]

The only reason they let Fox in (other than to give you lefties something to bitch about) is so the great unwashed think they can hear both sides of the story.

You're kidding, right? "Let FOX in"? Do you realize how much of the worldwide media Murdoch owns, from Fox to the Wall Street Journal to the Times of London to DirecTV to BSkyB (British satellite monopoly) to Star TV (Chinese satellite company) to who knows what else! If anything, it's Murdoch who decides who gets in.

John

[Charles]

You're kidding, right? "Let FOX in"? Do you realize how much of the worldwide media Murdoch owns, from Fox to the Wall Street Journal to the Times of London to DirecTV to BSkyB (British satellite monopoly) to Star TV (Chinese satellite company) to who knows what else! If anything, it's Murdoch who decides who gets in.

John

Well, you may have a point about Rupert running the show, he is a member of the CFR.

But a right wing crazy???

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/834

I stand by my previous statement, it's all a dog and pony show to keep us entertained, or at one another's throats.

Chas

[Boreas]

Well, you may have a point about Rupert running the show, he is a member of the CFR.

But a right wing crazy???

I don't think I said he was but he does hire them and give them a platform.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/834

Pretty much how I see him.

I stand by my previous statement, it's all a dog and pony show to keep us entertained, or at one another's throats.

You won't get an argument from me about that.

John

[finnbow]

Whenever I think of Murdoch, I can't help but think of the villian in the Bond movie "Tomorrow Never Dies (http://www.allmovie.com/work/tomorrow-never-dies-158896)." Apparently, this character was intended as a spoof on Murdoch.

[Combwork]

[QUOTE=finnbow;34669]If you think the bloodletting over the health care bill, TARP or the financial bill was nasty, any action by the Democratic Party to change this would likely be just the thing to tip the balance toward the armed insurrection feared in another recent thread.

Could that justify limiting access to firearms? Just asking; in practical terms once guns are out there they're out there; not too many enthusiasts would hand them over even if they were asked nicely.

The whole thing about gun control is interesting. Up to the end of the Napoleonic war, the only real gun control over here was cost; your average working man couldn't afford one but when the war ended, that plus the French revolution lead to the government (scared shitless at the thought of unemployed infantrymen wandering the streets, fully armed and unemployed) bringing in the first gun control laws.

[finnbow]

Could that justify limiting access to firearms? Just asking; in practical terms once guns are out there they're out there; not too many enthusiasts would hand them over even if they were asked nicely.

The whole thing about gun control is interesting. Up to the end of the Napoleonic war, the only real gun control over here was cost; your average working man couldn't afford one but when the war ended, that plus the French revolution lead to the government (scared shitless at the thought of unemployed infantrymen wandering the streets, fully armed and unemployed) bringing in the first gun control laws.

While some enhanced degree of gun control is certainly desirable here, we can't even get to the point of having a dialogue on what that degree may be. Gun ownership is so inculcated into our culture (not to mention in many people's interpretation of the 2nd amendment) that any discussion of instituting reasonable controls elicits caterwauls about "the camel's nose under the tent," government overeach, freedom, liberty, Founding Fathers, ...

Accordingly, most national politicians do not see it as career enhancing to even discuss it. The only politicians who dare even talk about gun control are big city mayors. Their constituents are predominately Democrats and are among those most effected by gun violence. They are about the only ones for which support for gun control is not a career ending move.

That said, there are already more guns in the US than there are people. Hell, there are certainly more guns in my house than there are people and by the standards of gun fanciers, I'm just a piker. Controls at this point are tantamount to shutting the barn door after the horse bolted.

[Combwork]

That said, there are already more guns in the US than there are people. Hell, there are certainly more guns in my house than there are people and by the standards of gun fanciers, I'm just a piker. Controls at this point are tantamount to shutting the barn door after the horse bolted.

That's pretty much the point I was making, once they're out there they're out there. The old mantra "guns don't kill people, people kill people" has some truth in it. I reckon when it comes down to it, whether a mugger threatens you with a gun or a knife the result will be the same; you're not going to risk being killed just so you can keep your 'phone.

In theory, as far as the general public are concerned guns are difficult to get but in practice? A friend of mine lives and works in Dundee and tells me that just as some bars have access to drugs, others have access to guns; it's just a matter of money.

You know why I don't like guns? Another friend of mine had a WW2 revolver plus bullets stashed away in my workshop (after splitting up with his wife half his household was there). I didn't know he had a gun until he showed me; he thought I'd be interested in the mechanism. I held it and it felt so right, fitted my hand like a glove. I told him to get the fucking thing out of there and never bring it back.

[Boreas]

In theory, as far as the general public are concerned guns are difficult to get but in practice? A friend of mine lives and works in Dundee and tells me that just as some bars have access to drugs, others have access to guns; it's just a matter of money.

Its' not in the least difficult to get guns here legally. We do have a mandatory (though minimal) criminal background check but there's an exemption for "gun shows", essentially gun flea markets held at the local sports arena, convention center or some such. At these there is no requirement for a background check at all. A convicted murderer, for instance, can just walk in and buy any sort of legal firearm which, by the way, includes many types of semi-automatic military assault rifles.

John

[finnbow]

You know why I don't like guns? Another friend of mine had a WW2 revolver plus bullets stashed away in my workshop (after splitting up with his wife half his household was there). I didn't know he had a gun until he showed me; he thought I'd be interested in the mechanism. I held it and it felt so right, fitted my hand like a glove. I told him to get the fucking thing out of there and never bring it back.

I think part of the difference is that many here have been brought up with guns. For example, I used to go to the rifle range with my dad by the time I was 8 years old. The same now applies to my kids. I belong to a shooting club and take my kids (including my daughter) shooting a lot. Accordingly, they don't fear guns, but they sure do respect them (and fear their use by the untrained).

Even though I own a dozen or so guns, the idea of using a gun for self-defense scares me. Other than for cleaning, my guns stay locked up in a safe in the basement for which I alone have the key. Having a loaded pistol in a bedroom nightstand would scare the shit out of me.

Also, with regard to carrying a pistol for self-defense, I would much rather make it a point to go places and do things where my personal security is not threatened enough to need a sidearm. In fact, there's never been an instance in my life (and I've lived in and visited some pretty rough places) that I felt that I would have felt more comfortable carrying a gun. I think in most instances, a gun will escalate a bad situation into a worse situation.

[piece-itpete]

.... The only politicians who dare even talk about gun control are big city mayors. Their constituents are predominately Democrats and are among those most effected by gun violence. They are about the only ones for which support for gun control is not a career ending move. ...

Heck the only reason they can go pro gun is the poor folks will vote for them regardless of what they actually do. I suppose the specter of 'guns' scare the better neighborhoods though.

Most of those folks most effected by gun violence own one. When gangs control every street corner there is no other way.

When I was selling temp service in the city I sure would've carried a gun. The NRAs magazine has a section on CCW saving people. Happens every day practically.

I believe all kids should receive gun safety training in early elementary school.

Pete

[finnbow]

The NRAs magazine has a section on CCW saving people.
Not specifically on CCW, but on the use of personal firearms being used for self defense, much of which is in the home, IIRC. They don't seem to give as many column inches to gun violence and accidents though.

Happens every day practically.

I don't know the numbers, but I'm dead certain that the incidence of illegal gunplay/violence and accidents outnumber the use of firearms in self-defense by several orders of magnitude. I've been around guns and shot guns for nearly 50 years and I've never met a person to have actually used one in self defense.

I have had a gun pulled on me though - by a CCW carrier (a New Orleans "hobby" cop) over a parking space. Staring down the barrel of a .357 Magnum when the holder is dead drunk and wanting the parking space that you just pulled into is a frightening experience. It's probably a good thing (for me and the miscreant as well) that I was also drunk and not carrying.

Another gun story - I was on the way back from pheasant hunting in high school when we stopped for gas and cigs on the way home. One of the guys (his first (and last) time with us) asked to get into the trunk of the car while we went inside. He got out the 12 guage autoloader that had jammed (and the idiot hadn't cleared it in the field) decided to tinker with it in the backseat when it went off. It blew a hole the size of your fist through the back door of my friend's mothers car. Damn lucky he didn't blow up a friggin' gas pump.

I guess my problem is that it is as easy to buy a gun as a pack of cigarettes in many parts of this country. It's way easier to get a gun that a driver's license nearly everywhere (except inside the big cities). Something just ain't right and the politicians are too scared to address the issue.

I could easily live in a country where they only allowed long arms and no autoloaders of any type (except in certain circumstances). Hell, I have lots of modern guns and I deliberately hunt deer during rifle season with a muzzleloader and even a bow.

[piece-itpete]

Yeah, my neighbor likes his old fashioned hunting too :)

Good gravy I've never had a gun pulled on me! A knife yes...

And me and friends would've kicked that idiots rump for that misfire stunt.

I hope you called the cops on the ccw idiot. The law doesn't play with those guys.

But it doesn't change the fact that we are supposedly free adults.

Pete

[finnbow]

And me and friends would've kicked that idiots rump for that misfire stunt.

No literal ass-kicking. But he had to pay for the body shop for repair. For a high school junior that was serious money. Also, he got so much ridicule from us (and others), he never asked to go with us again (and we wouldn't have let him anyway).

I hope you called the cops on the ccw idiot. The law doesn't play with those guys.

The guy was a cop. More specifically, a "hobby cop" in the old New Orleans parlance. Back then ('75-'78), you could volunteer to train as a temporary cop for Mardi Gras season. They issued you a blue Cop shirt/badge to be worn with clean, new blue jeans. You would carry your own sidearm for this duty. This was a shortcut in those days for a CCW in the city of New Orleans. All sorts of miscreants were "hobby cops" strictly for this CCW benefit.

Also, it was 4 AM New Years Eve and the hot little honey I was with was ready for the horizontal bop. Alas, no phone call to the cops.

[piece-itpete]

I see. Hobby cop = giant ass? :)

Pete

[noonereal]

I don't know the numbers, but I'm dead certain that the incidence of illegal gunplay/violence and accidents outnumber the use of firearms in self-defense by several orders of magnitude. I've been around guns and shot guns for nearly 50 years and I've never met a person to have actually used one in self defense.

I have had a gun pulled on me though - by a CCW carrier (a New Orleans "hobby" cop) over a parking space. Staring down the barrel of a .357 Magnum when the holder is dead drunk and wanting the parking space that you just pulled into is a frightening experience. It's probably a good thing (for me and the miscreant as well) that I was also drunk and not carrying.

Another gun story - I was on the way back from pheasant hunting in high school when we stopped for gas and cigs on the way home. One of the guys (his first (and last) time with us) asked to get into the trunk of the car while we went inside. He got out the 12 guage autoloader that had jammed (and the idiot hadn't cleared it in the field) decided to tinker with it in the backseat when it went off. It blew a hole the size of your fist through the back door of my friend's mothers car. Damn lucky he didn't blow up a friggin' gas pump.

.

Same type gun experiences here. I have documented them here but was told they were the exception. :cool:
http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=105 post 8
It's the norm.

[finnbow]

In addition to appropriate background checks, I think a requirement for a significant amount of training before purchasing a firearm (i.e., several weeks/months long with semi-difficult written exams and practical range exams) would be greatly beneficial. It would weed out the friggin' yahoos who decide to buy a gun at a Walmart on a given Saturday instead of a Sawzall.

[piece-itpete]

We could just go to the Swiss model, 2 years manatory in the Armed Services, 10 in the reserves, gun training for sure, and assault rifles in every house...

Pete

[finnbow]

We could just go to the Swiss model, 2 years manatory in the Armed Services, 10 in the reserves, gun training for sure, and assault rifles in every house...

Pete

No offense to my countrymen intended here, but I'd be a lot more comfortable with a bunch of sensible Swiss having firearms in every house than all Americans. Just sayin'.

[noonereal]

We could just go to the Swiss model, 2 years manatory in the Armed Services, 10 in the reserves, gun training for sure, and assault rifles in every house...

Pete

well I support 2 years manatory in the Armed Services but not assault rifles in every home
yes culture has allot to do with it and I would trust the Swiss with guns before I would trust my fellow country man. Much of our country has not matured out of the tough guy mentality yet.

[piece-itpete]

We have a tough guy mentality? :confused:

Pete

[noonereal]

We have a tough guy mentality? :confused:

Pete

absolutely :)

[Boreas]

We have a tough guy mentality? :confused:

Pete

We don't? :confused:

John

[finnbow]

absolutely :)

+1000. The image of America abroad is one of a Cowboy gunslinger. Why do you think the entire world was ecstatic when Obama was elected. They're tired of us throwing our weight around in a "Ready - Fire -Aim" fashion.

[piece-itpete]

And he's done what differently?

Concrete, something that would say give him a Nobel :p

Pete

[finnbow]

And he's done what differently?

Concrete, something that would say give him a Nobel :p

Pete

Nothing really, other than making them think that we actually care what they think and will take it into consideration. That and their feeling that we won't react impulsively when shit gets a little hairy. Maybe more perception than reality. But in politics, often perception is reality.

[noonereal]

Nothing really, other than making them think that we actually care what they think and will take it into consideration. That and their feeling that we won't react impulsively when shit gets a little hairy. Maybe more perception than reality. But in politics, often perception is reality.

Allot actually making them think that we actually care what they think and will take it into consideration. That and their feeling that we won't react impulsively when shit gets a little hairy. Maybe more perception than reality. But in politics, often perception is reality