The ultra wealthy, or at least those of the 1% for whom the "love of money" trumps any other possible consideration, are keen on installing the dynamics of feudalism in the 21st Century; the essence under the gobbledygook of "Reaganomics". For those for whom unlimited accumulation of money and power is their raison d'etre, there is no room for compromise.
"This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Just after WWII, there were questions about what party Ike preferred. In fact, there were serious efforts by Democrats to have him run on their ticket.
I grew up in one of those "I like Ike" households. My folks had served under him in the war. Their loyalty was solid. But their dearest and closest friends were dedicated Democrats. There was a time (for some of us) when religion and politics were less important than who won at bridge and what brand of beer was brought to the table.
Then came Vietnam, Nixon, Watergate. That sent me politically to the left. And my folks never spoke of politics again. They were disgusted. Their political party was the party of corruption and shame.
Senator Angus King (ME-I) was courted by the Republican Senate Caucus to join them. Senator Collins (ME-R) and King still collaborate quite often.
It would be interesting to have a President that declared themselves to be Independent, but in all likelihood, both parties would do what they could to undermine them.
My wife and I were at the airport in Portland, Me and both Senator Olympia Snowe (who I have the utmost respect for) and Senator Collins were waiting for the same flight. The entire time we were waiting to board the flight they didn't even look at each other.
Olympia retired when the Maine Republican Party trolled her incessantly to become uber conservative. She chose to retire instead. Too bad Collins didn't do the same.
Gary, Suzie Q is all talk and no walk. How many times have we heard her proclaim some principle (in that god-awful voice) only to have her vote to overturn that principle.
Leonard Leo hosted a fundraiser for her in his home in Northeast Harbor (They must have lost my address) and also found millions of dollars so she could buy her reelection in 2020.
Her 20 minute speech when she tried to justify voting to approve Kavanaugh was an embarrassment. I can never forgive her for voting for him.
I had thought of voting for McCain in that election, BEFORE he put Palin on the ticket.
I am very distantly related by marriage to Palin. My sister's husband is the link. Interestingly, both of them, and of course, my two nephews by my sister, had a very close call with nonexistence in the autumn of 1620, somewhere in the north Atlantic, when their ancestor fell off of the Mayflower during a gale. Here's that story:
"In the fall of 1620, the Mayflower's ability to steady herself in a gale produced a most deceptive tranquillity for a young indentured servant named John Howland. As the Mayflower lay ahull, Howland apparently grew restless down below. He saw no reason why he could not venture out of the fetid depths of 'tween decks for just a moment...
"The Mayflower lurched suddenly to leeward. Howland staggered to the ship's rail and tumbled into the sea.
That should have been the end of him. But dangling over the side, and trailing behind the ship was the topsail halyard, the rope used to raise and lower the upper sail. Howland was in his midtwenties and strong, and when his hand found the halyard, he gripped the rope with such feral desperation that even though he was pulled down more than ten feet below the ocean's surface, he never let go. Several sailors took up the halyard and hauled Howland back in, finally snagging him with a boat hook and dragging him up onto the deck."
--Nathaniel Philbrick, Mayflower, a story of courage, community, and war
Funny!! I just bought a new 4-pack deck of cards to replace my worn out ones. I want to feel the cards when I play solitaire! I still remember the giant penny jar my folks would pull out when the aunts & uncles came over for pinochle or poker....Don't say good old days, Terry, please don't!!
I LOVE bridge, but haven't played in eons because nobody knows how to play anymore. We played in college a lot ('70s), along with Spades and Hearts. For a while my family was enamored with Italian canasta, which my grandmother brought back with her after a lengthy sojourn in Italy in 1970. It's lots of fun -- you use 3 decks of cards, plus all 6 jokers! I came from a real card-playing family (bridge, set-back, rummy, poker, hearts, even Mille Bornes!) -- poker games on Christmas Eve was our family tradition. Kids now look at you like you're from another planet if one suggests just about any card game! Sad.
I miss playing bridge. I used to play a cutthroat game with a group of plaintiffs' attorneys. They played a killer game, like kill or be killed. I would go home with my shoulders up around my ears, I was so tense.
My Dad was a Life Master at bridge. It's really an enjoyable game, if one isn't faced with an attorney who would rather disembowel you than let you take a trick.
In college, we played Spades and Hearts, usually sitting on the floor and passing around a bottle of Cheracol cough syrup. Original formula with cocaine in it. Good times.
I'm old enough to remember reading Omar Sharif's column on bridge to learn whatever I could, and I suspect most of the folks reading this don't recognize Sharif as either a bridge expert or one of the finest actors of his generation.
It was the only card game I liked. I had some native ability with it, but never wanted to get as technical as serious players are. I like the fact you got to play hands solo, with a teammate, and also as a "dummy", which let you go for a snack.
Ah, Bill, i do remember the good old days when who won at bridge and beer brands were more important than politics. My mother passed on before things got really awful, but my father remained a R until he got dementia. He listened to Rush and I can only wonder if he would support death star. I can't remember what exactly sent me to the left, but I was always a D as a voter. It caused no end of arguments when I was home as if that would have changed my mind.
It's interesting. They had 18 formative years to get their point across yet think another argument will help their progeny see the light, rather than being curious about the reasoning of their family member's point of view. Example: my MAGA car parts manager brother expounded upon the reasons for homelessness and asked zero questions nor wanted to hear the opinions of his psychiatrist sister and public policy son. (Love that Dunning Kruger effect!).
And I have my Mother’s for Stevenson in my life’s collection of Democrats we’ve voted for these many decades. She loved Stevenson for his intellect and humor.
You did not know Stevenson. As good as we want to remember Ike, Adalie Stevenson was an excellent alternative to good old Ike. He had more government experience. But a war hero close to the end of the war was hard to beat.
Truman refused to participate in the overthrow of the Mossadegh government. Eisenhower approved it in his first year in office. We will never shed our responsibility for that, and nobody reading this will live to see an end to its malign consequences.
"banana republic" outlook... Was Iran thing about oil mainly, and/or fear of social revolution? Whatever, Iran got islamic fundamentalism back in spades for that. And you might want to ask what all the motivations behind that were....
Frank, probably both. We have done so many awful things in the pursuit of oil and also the worry about socialism and communism, creating problems we still see today. i think we can thank the recently passed Kissinger for some of this.
Kissinger, J Edgar Hoover, and the "Rumsfield and Cheney" duo were some of the most long-lastingly toxic players ever involved in policy. The hubris of these men has poisoned the world.
Michele, May this give you a laugh: my college roommate when I visited her in the 1970’s (?), told me in all seriousness that, having known Kissinger’s wife in high school (Bronxville,NY), that we could not trust anyone that she married. As she was a very bright friend from a very bright family, I never forgot the story and conclude that she was correct.
You left out the biggest motivation- the Soviet Union operation to forcibly take over the government of Iran.
Growing up as a confirmed liberal/progressive I didn’t credit the concern about the international spread of communism. However, public examination of government archives since the fall of the USSR have revealed how powerful and extensive was international communist movement and it was directed by the USSR. They were willing to sacrifice the well being of their citizens to use their resources to spread their ideology.
I was shocked to learn a few years ago that the American communist party was followed day to day orders directly from the USSR.
If you are speaking of the the Overthrow Mossadegh, what the US and Britain opposed was Mossadegh's desire to nationalize Iran's oil industry using a payment formula that had been used by the British. The oil was under Iran after all. The installation of the Shaw gave us today's aggressive theocracy.
The USSR was a brutal dictatorship that was indeed a threat to the West, but the "red" witch hunts were out of line. And somehow Hitler-supporting rich guys seemed to get a pass, even in WWII. Fanatics and despots of any sort have always been the problem.
Prime Minister of Iran in 1952 to 1953 elected as such by the Iranian Parliament at a time when parliamentary elections were in fact considered legitimate in Iran, William P.
Oh, Mossadegh. I took a college course from Richard Cottam, who was with the CIA and participated in the overthrow of Mossadegh and the reinstatement of the Shah.
A few years ago, I was taking a class in International Relations at the local community college and I brought it up (I'm really old, compared to my fellow students) and they all gaped at me. Granted, 1953 was a while ago, but still...
I like that. Yes, I think from now on, I'll be an Eisenhower Democrat. That sounds better than the "yellow-dog democrat" I am now (but my voting habits won't change).
I don't feel any partisan loyalties, but on the basis of party values, I always voted for Democrats, save for two of three (back in the day) Repubs for minor offices.
I still do too. When I was 7 years old, in 1952, my sister and I would march proudly on the sidewalk in front of our house with little American flags, chanting "I like Ike!" I was going to say, I bet he wouldn't be a Republican today. But instead, I'll say, I bet if he were alive today, the GOP might still be a Grand Old Party.
I view Ike as a great military commander and a reasonable president. I think he would loathe Trump, as would Lincoln. No doubt he'd have a thing or two to say to "Republican" leaders.
SCOTUS making decisions that effect the course of American life based on cases made up of outright lies
When judges so blatantly ignore the obvious in order to shape society, when their political loyalties can be seen even by the myopic, the Supreme Court has left behind their stated role in Government and have become, ironically, UnConstitutional in the whole
I see one possible silver lining in this current court. They like their power and don't want to give it up to a dictator. There are a lot of Trump related rulings coming, ---- I don't think they will go his way. At least I hope not.
Jeri, I have found that many people, both liberal and conservative, often accuse their opponents of being stupid simply because they don’t agree with a point of view. This is a major mistake which undermines one’s ability to see their opponents clearly.
Repubs are not stupid so much as they are greedy, ignorant, and without scruples. Dems are far from perfect, but never in my long life have they matched republican’s evil aims.
The wealthy have generations of experience in perfecting and bringing the strategies necessary to prohibit the making of laws or enforcement of tax policies that would put their gains at risk. HCR is right. This is fascinating stuff to follow. I won't put my meager investment portfolio up as collateral for any effort to hold the wealthy or Supreme Court accountable, least of all be fair about their responsibility for 99% of American's needs for a well funded government that works on our behalf. Their legal teams get more in fees, I suspect, than net taxes paid by them.
Be careful of generalities. Half of my extended family are Republicans. They are not stupid or evangelical; they hold religious and economic views diametrically opposed to mine. And due to the algorithms in all kinds of social media, they have found like-minded people. Unfortunately, as explained on NPR, research finds that social media not only reinforces their preexisting beliefs but also reduces their empathy for others with opposing viewpoints. Which is why there is a lot of silence at family gatherings!
Mine too. Large family so there are the ignorant, the religious nuts, the stupid, the greedy, the haters (of whatever stripe), and some who have changed stripes.
Agreed that they are greedy, ignorant, and without scruples, but not certain why that isn’t stupidity. Surely it doesn’t show intelligence to be consumed by all of the above.🤣
I think of ignorance as a sometimes deliberate lack and stupidity as a trait that can't be educated. Not saying that there is not a lot of stupid out there. Cults can attract both it seems, especially by the greedy with zip scruples. Just my take, need to check Webster
Totally agree. Malign/demeaning ad homina is considered the less valid of argument forms, but it is also the most widely practiced. This, for example, is what the right eco chamber has done with Biden.
They have morals all right, THEIR morals. Immense wealth is an essential foundation for an aristocracy philosophy of governance and civilization. Check out Edward Gibbons. Fascism/communism were run by people who existantially figured "they knew better". That feeling has hardly gone away, albeit somewhat muted.
Ike did not imagine concentration and deregulation of media. I know "smart" and educated MAGAs. The vulnerability to lockstep cult ideology. It is clear that cult adherence can allow people to believe practically anything and abandon morality. Terrorists do that.
Today's Dems are yesterday's Reps; things have gone only right. This has happened because of the concept of "compromise"—but, with perhaps a few exceptions, the only ones to compromise are the dems. That this still works shows the weakness of the dems. It is frightening—and all they can do is beg for money through emails. They have my vote, my support but I've no money. Whatever happened to reforms in campaign financing? Seems that its been "privatized" (like Fox News)....Citizens United and the disgusting "Corporations are People" (what about these international corporations?) I'm ranting, and this is why I so appreciate Heather Cox Richardsons clear and informed voice.
Like almost everything else in America, money is so important. The Dems have to appeal to the rich to receive enough money to compete in elections. They have been very successful with rich liberals, but rich liberals have different expectations than poor Democratic Socialists. It's pay to play.
I like the “stupid” part best. That’s my thought about many Republicans in Congress. They look stupid and they seem greedy. Others are crafty and mean. Finally: all who voter against certifying the election are traitors. Time for a total “restructuring.”
For someone who is an economic dunce, Heather, you and some of the comments below have educated me more than my economics teachers in college and the main stream media. I am old now, however, you have made economics come alive. Thank you!
You are right to couple money and power, every bit the two strands of a DNA-like double helix, just as are those parallel strands of race and class economy in America. As to feudalism, you are right. Most here put the focus on ‘saving democracy’, when it was killed off long ago.
We’ll have democracy under a socialist umbrella, worker co-ops, etc., or we won’t have it all. The ‘insurrectionists’ on 1/6, and those who supported them, are not the enemy, no matter how hard current media darling Lynn Cheney tries to make it so. Jeff Bezos is. Yanis lays it out in less than two minutes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKJ3hp0E20Q
What I think he means is the the Jan 6 people were the pawns who were manipulated by the very rich by using racism, fear of communism, sexism and religion to get those folks to do the dirty work. They are still at it today.
Brown Shirt Pawns ?? Not responsible for their own stupid actions?? “He made me do it”??
I don’t disagree that the rich and powerful manipulate the MAGA Mass ( think tumor) but the definition is clear and the two classes are only dangerous when they work in concert
Pawns? No. Adults do not get to claim they were manipulated by rich folks. The Redcaps were not children, so they are entirely to blame for January 6. They rampaged because they wanted to. .
1776 much? The ‘insurrectionists’, and by that I mean the rather minuscule number of those who met that definition at the Capitol on 1/6, didn’t have the wrong idea, just the wrong target. Had they stormed the corporate offices of Raytheon, Bank of America, Pfizer, etc., as long as they didn’t hurt human beings present in those offices, and confined their protest to property damage/messaging only, they would have been, as the Brits would say, spot on.
They might have been just as unaware as is a liberal class of people who think Republicans are a bigger threat to democracy than corporate capture of the duopoly.
Tom, wealth is omnipresent in modern society, no sense picking on Bezos. Wealth finances much if not most of modern politics. Did before i was born too. Modern corporations feel dutibound to contribute financially to the parties, often with indifferent allegiance, eg 60/40 according to who's in power. Not that the wealthy dont have champions! And i think Im gonna read Liz Cheney's new book. Rachel Maddow interviewed her Monday night, just watched it over morning coffee.
Plenty of books you should read before Cheney’s, if you haven’t already, like The Devil’s Chessboard, The Jakarta Method, Silent Coup, The Division of Light and Power, Glass House, Democracy Incorporated, etc.
Feudalism: yes! Their idea of a perfect world is assuring that workers from childhood through senescence are competing for poorly-paid jobs, with no safety requirements or <horrors!> unions. Kind of like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where the peasants are toiling in the dirt. King Arthur (a billionaire) rides by on a white horse. One peasant says “there goes the king” and the other peasant says, “how do you know he’s the king?” Peasant #1 says “He ain’t got any shit on him.”
I think the billionaires finally realized they don’t need a middle class to buy their products; there are billions of people in other countries who can be consumers.
"The word 'free' is used three times in the Declaration of Independence and once in the First Amendment to the Constitution, along with 'freedom.' The word 'fair' is not used in either of our founding documents." - Reagan mentor Milton Friedman
Yet the words "just" and "justice" are. What's unfair about that?
Under the current trajectory of SCOTUS, the 1% will have justice, the rest of us will be left with "Just Us". At its best, justice can be a restorative process, loving even, righting errors in a way that benefits all those involved and society in general. At its worst, our legal system can be an exploitive hope extinguishing nightmare. With the safety valve of justice gone, things tend to explode - something that almost never benefits anyone.
Wilhoit: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Thanks for showing me that quote again. What conservatives want to conserve is the in-group and what makes them happy. They are happy to have all the wealth and to assert their moral superiority over members of the out-group
It seems to me to be a case of malignant ego. We all have one, the word is Latin for "I", but when I seeks to dominate others, it can become a big problem. It's the antithesis of the notion of unalienable rights; the antithesis of compassion.
also
"Conservatism" sounds too respectable. There is a use for the word I admire. A prudently cautious "conservative" estimate, or what we used to call "conservationists" (now "environmentalists). I consider the scientific method conservative. Like the word "Republican" for a movement bent on dismantling our republic, or "Citizens United" for rule by the rich, it just seems like one more attempt to mislead.
I would argue even the 1% will not be experiencing justice when the table is tipped their way. They will live in fear of being othered and when resources dwindle sufficiently, they will turn on and prey upon each other.
I recall reading about South American oligarchs who live in armed compounds and always travel with a retinue of machine-gun toting guards. Sounds like a gilded prison to me. Seems to me like a nasty way even for the lords of the manor to live.
My dad knew colleagues working in Bogota in the 1950s. Your house had to have bars on all of the windows, and you should keep your lifestyle very modest so as not to be a target of thieves or kidnappers.
He seems to have been clever, but clever need not be moral or wise. I am more aware of his impact than his biography, but my guess is that much of the celebration of his sociopathic attitude had to do with pleasing the very rich and powerful. I think that thumb on the scale majorly influences much of our aggregated social perceptions.
What was the benefit of slavery for the struggling poor white, as compared to a thriving and equitable working middle class? Or a brand of Christianity that subjugates itself to the wealthy, and embraces aggressive wars, justifies torture?
Or his trickle-down economics, the biggest economic con job since Ponzi, which cemented him forever in the Rich and Corporate Hall of Fame. (And reinforces your notion of why he was so celebrated by sociopaths--he made them trillions from tax cuts.)
They also complain a lot about immigration and refuse to change the policy. I think this is because they like to use the border issues as a tool to beat on Dems.
That and employing the cheapest labor possible. CEO's will hire children to work. As Tyson Foods does. CEO's love to hire illegal immigrants. That's why they don't want the problem fixed. It pays for their private jets.
Oh, the churches are being opportunistic. But definitely the same people - many of whom are lay people - that are behind the uber-wealthy mega churches are also behind a more general feudalisation.
"The real deal breaker is the wealthy want all government spending to benefit only them, but they do not want to pay any taxes."
Yep. "Welfare for white people" completely dwarfs the sum total of ALL other forms of government support for the people of the United States if you include tax cuts for the wealthy PLUS massive giveaways to the wealthy.
Just look at the period from 2007 to 2014 on the below government debt chart which shows government debt increase as a function of time.
We had "shovel ready" money to "shovel" into big banks for YEARS, from 2007-2014, vastly increasing the deficit. Unfortunately, Obama, not mentioned by Dr. Richardson, was one of America's biggest deficit spenders of all time. A huge fraction of that money went to big banks. It's OK though, because, Obama's first speech after he left office was at a big NY Bank where they paid him $400,000 for an hour and a few minutes of "speech".
Similarly, Mr. "Fiscal Responsibility", Ronald Reagan is also one of the bigger deficit growers while simultaneously giving TV speeches about "fiscal responsibility". See the graph below.
The truth is EVERY American President since Jimmy Carter, who paid down debt during his entire administration role modeling "fiscal responsibility", has been irresponsible with debt.
Sometimes Clinton gets a pat on the back and he did, after initially ramping the debt up quite a bit, then rolled it off a tiny bit. Not much.
It has been a drunken party of welfare for white people my entire adult life.
As HCR said in today's letter, tax cuts are the chief drivers of the deficit, not spending on social projects or entitlements. Just as tax law shows what a society values, budgets also reveal the values of those who write them. A few years ago, I discovered I was eligible for a little known mortgage assistance program offered by the federal government (I did not apply). At the time. my income was in the low six figures. I also discovered the federal government spent roughly 3 times the amount on mortgage assistance programs as on affordable housing. Money is not going where it is most needed.
While there was much to admire about the Obamas and his presidency, you are spot on when it came to economics. Much of that money to bail out financial institutions could have been rerouted to those who had been scammed with ridiculous mortgages - documents that were designed to destroy the dream of home ownership and send that equity into the hands of the very same nobles who created the financial mess.
The propaganda about the big banks failing was just that. For every failure, there would have been vulture capitalists ready to swoop in and eat up what assets remained. The stock market and retirement portfolios were hardly spared anyway. So my IRA and 401k would have dropped 55% instead of 45%? (Fortunately, we patient ones became whole again over time).
Instead, millions of Americans - who couldn't understand the incredibly complex loans they signed on to - either walked away from their homes or lived financially "under water" for many years. This caused economic punishment and stagnation - if you can't afford to move because if you sell your house you can't pay off the mortgage, what are your job choices? It was like jail.
Obama suffered from the influence of the nobles. He wanted to be a president of "all the people" - but he was too impressed by the con men on Wall Street.
And he didn't respond forcefully to the Russian war theft of Crimea. And here we are. Dealing with an emboldened Putin who plays the long game of chess.
But I really like Obama. I wish we would hear more from him right now. He has been active and supportive. But Obama has the chops and media pull to blast into every TV studio and to dominate social media if he put more into it.
He has the speaking talent and charisma that few of today's leaders enjoy. I wonder why he hasn't become a more vocal partner in the campaign called "Biden/Harris"? The tradition of past presidents remaining silent after leaving office has been decimated. Time for one who has the respect and admiration of the nation to get on the hustings full time - overtime, maybe even. I'd like to see him launch a full on broadside towards what has become a drift towards fascism in the GOP and among those Wall Street con men he helped in 2008.
This is a war. We need all the big talent guns we can recruit.
Mr Alstrom, I’d like to “like” your comments about President Obama, whom I too greatly admire. But I can’t. Your assessment of his presidency, of his moral fiber, is infuriating:
“Obama suffered from the influence of the nobles. He wanted to be a president of "all the people" - but he was too impressed by the con men on Wall Street.”
Seriously? Obama was brand new in the job as President of the United States. Thank the Higher Power the man is brilliant, surrounded himself with a brilliant, agile, adaptive staff, and availed himself of the guidance of the best and brightest minds he knew to come to decisions about a pending global financial collapse. (His process must have worked, right? You admit: “Fortunately, we patient ones became whole again over time.” Dare we say “patient AND PRIVILEGED”?)
Yes, I agree President Obama’s guidance would be so welcome and comforting to so many of us right now. But we need to remember: His presidency, that of a BRILLIANT BLACK AMERICAN, is what riled up these fools, this crazy Zeitgeist. It’s what led to the likes of fascist strongmen crawling out from under rocks, what gave MAGAs permission to say out loud and proud the hate and fear roiling in their hearts. President Obama is already in their sights. He needn’t martyr himself. I think we need to be satisfied that he continues to work behind the scenes with the other leaders who have backbone and moral certitude, and can help our defense against this Dark Age.
It's a variation of the claim one still hears today that the Confederate casus belli had nothing to do with slavery, and that Lee was preparing to free the slaves had he only got the chance.
Wow! Heritage Foundation published that? He himself was “racially divided.” I naively thought that would show bigots that they might be wrong. But I forgot . . . African ancestry is so, so powerful it can wipe out any trace of European ancestry, to the great-great-grandparent generation.
Imagine how Obama's process might have lifted us out of a Great Recession much faster if the true victims of the manufactured mortgage crisis had been made whole instead of the uber rich. A parallel concept was applied when the Pandemic was addressed financially. Checks written directly to the people. There were errors along the way, of course. But it helped Jack and Jill Everyday and boosted the economy nicely.
A few big institutions going bust and being absorbed by others was blown out of proportion by the ruling class.
And the creators of those instruments of mortgage doom went unpunished - many were rewarded for their careers of plunder.
Obama was hardly alone in his naivety. The whole nation bought the scam.
I am still am fond of him. There were so many days when the news cycle was wonderfully boring as he competenly and gracefully handled the office. After the Bush insanity, there was a sense of trust and international respect.
Obama’s big mistake was overestimating the American people. He, like many of us, thought that the Tea Party was so off base it would be obvious to everyone. He was also aware how much he was limited by being a Black man. He couldn’t be aggressive. He had to be charming.
Yes Bill, every time I hear Obama speak, either currently or a replay of a former time, I long to hear more from him. He is intelligent, engaging, and so charismatic. More peptalks for our home team would certainly be welcome. Hopefully, these will be coming soon...
Do remember, however, that the wealthy and slightly less so in fact almost entirely finance the federal government. Also, growing wealth inequality has become global in nature. And for sure the GOP has been successfully engineering lower taxes which they want to be covered by reduced social support spending. I certainly agree they should pay more, by a bit! here's Oxfam's take on the wealthy and taxes.
No, I disagree. The very wealthiest World billionaire club does not pay a higher tax rate than the lower middle class. Yet, they are quite successful at having #ALL# the spending directed at their interests, rather than the interests of the people who need roads to go to work.
i didnt say they pay a higher rate. Even at their lower rates (likely mostly tax deferred, so eventually it comes to roost) they pay for the federal government. Easy to check that out. The single biggest expenditure i believe is military. Last thing GOP would cut.
The real deal breaker is the wealthy want all government spending to benefit only them, but they do not want to pay any taxes.
The ultra wealthy, or at least those of the 1% for whom the "love of money" trumps any other possible consideration, are keen on installing the dynamics of feudalism in the 21st Century; the essence under the gobbledygook of "Reaganomics". For those for whom unlimited accumulation of money and power is their raison d'etre, there is no room for compromise.
"This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight Eisenhower 1954
I still like Ike
I call myself an Eisenhower Democrat
Just after WWII, there were questions about what party Ike preferred. In fact, there were serious efforts by Democrats to have him run on their ticket.
I grew up in one of those "I like Ike" households. My folks had served under him in the war. Their loyalty was solid. But their dearest and closest friends were dedicated Democrats. There was a time (for some of us) when religion and politics were less important than who won at bridge and what brand of beer was brought to the table.
Then came Vietnam, Nixon, Watergate. That sent me politically to the left. And my folks never spoke of politics again. They were disgusted. Their political party was the party of corruption and shame.
Senator Angus King (ME-I) was courted by the Republican Senate Caucus to join them. Senator Collins (ME-R) and King still collaborate quite often.
It would be interesting to have a President that declared themselves to be Independent, but in all likelihood, both parties would do what they could to undermine them.
My wife and I were at the airport in Portland, Me and both Senator Olympia Snowe (who I have the utmost respect for) and Senator Collins were waiting for the same flight. The entire time we were waiting to board the flight they didn't even look at each other.
Olympia retired when the Maine Republican Party trolled her incessantly to become uber conservative. She chose to retire instead. Too bad Collins didn't do the same.
Gary, Suzie Q is all talk and no walk. How many times have we heard her proclaim some principle (in that god-awful voice) only to have her vote to overturn that principle.
OMG, you are so right.
Leonard Leo hosted a fundraiser for her in his home in Northeast Harbor (They must have lost my address) and also found millions of dollars so she could buy her reelection in 2020.
Her 20 minute speech when she tried to justify voting to approve Kavanaugh was an embarrassment. I can never forgive her for voting for him.
You've got that exactly correct! Snowe is held in great esteem to this day, Collins--not so much,
McCain wanted a bipartisan ticket initially, if one calls Joe Lieberman another party.
He was talked out of a ticket of 2 old, white men in favor of Palin
Steve Schmidt: now the campaign manager for (wishful thinking) Democrat spoiler, Dean Phillips.
I had thought of voting for McCain in that election, BEFORE he put Palin on the ticket.
I am very distantly related by marriage to Palin. My sister's husband is the link. Interestingly, both of them, and of course, my two nephews by my sister, had a very close call with nonexistence in the autumn of 1620, somewhere in the north Atlantic, when their ancestor fell off of the Mayflower during a gale. Here's that story:
"In the fall of 1620, the Mayflower's ability to steady herself in a gale produced a most deceptive tranquillity for a young indentured servant named John Howland. As the Mayflower lay ahull, Howland apparently grew restless down below. He saw no reason why he could not venture out of the fetid depths of 'tween decks for just a moment...
"The Mayflower lurched suddenly to leeward. Howland staggered to the ship's rail and tumbled into the sea.
That should have been the end of him. But dangling over the side, and trailing behind the ship was the topsail halyard, the rope used to raise and lower the upper sail. Howland was in his midtwenties and strong, and when his hand found the halyard, he gripped the rope with such feral desperation that even though he was pulled down more than ten feet below the ocean's surface, he never let go. Several sailors took up the halyard and hauled Howland back in, finally snagging him with a boat hook and dragging him up onto the deck."
--Nathaniel Philbrick, Mayflower, a story of courage, community, and war
You do realize that most of the people reading this won't have any idea what bridge is or why it was played.
Funny!! I just bought a new 4-pack deck of cards to replace my worn out ones. I want to feel the cards when I play solitaire! I still remember the giant penny jar my folks would pull out when the aunts & uncles came over for pinochle or poker....Don't say good old days, Terry, please don't!!
They really don't even know what to do with a deck of cards. (Old woman here shaking her head at "kids these days").
In my youth, college kids played bridge.
Indeed, and if I show this to my daughter, I'll get "OK Boomer."
I LOVE bridge, but haven't played in eons because nobody knows how to play anymore. We played in college a lot ('70s), along with Spades and Hearts. For a while my family was enamored with Italian canasta, which my grandmother brought back with her after a lengthy sojourn in Italy in 1970. It's lots of fun -- you use 3 decks of cards, plus all 6 jokers! I came from a real card-playing family (bridge, set-back, rummy, poker, hearts, even Mille Bornes!) -- poker games on Christmas Eve was our family tradition. Kids now look at you like you're from another planet if one suggests just about any card game! Sad.
I miss playing bridge. I used to play a cutthroat game with a group of plaintiffs' attorneys. They played a killer game, like kill or be killed. I would go home with my shoulders up around my ears, I was so tense.
My Dad was a Life Master at bridge. It's really an enjoyable game, if one isn't faced with an attorney who would rather disembowel you than let you take a trick.
In college, we played Spades and Hearts, usually sitting on the floor and passing around a bottle of Cheracol cough syrup. Original formula with cocaine in it. Good times.
We're about the same age, and share game history. Rummy and gin rummy were breaks from bridge and canasta.
Really? Not ever to have heard of bridge? But then my linen chest is “floored” with a McGovern poster.
I'm old enough to remember reading Omar Sharif's column on bridge to learn whatever I could, and I suspect most of the folks reading this don't recognize Sharif as either a bridge expert or one of the finest actors of his generation.
Your closet may not be the only one.
It was the only card game I liked. I had some native ability with it, but never wanted to get as technical as serious players are. I like the fact you got to play hands solo, with a teammate, and also as a "dummy", which let you go for a snack.
Oh I don’t think that’s accurate! I would bet that most do!!
Depends on how old you think we all are.
Ah, Bill, i do remember the good old days when who won at bridge and beer brands were more important than politics. My mother passed on before things got really awful, but my father remained a R until he got dementia. He listened to Rush and I can only wonder if he would support death star. I can't remember what exactly sent me to the left, but I was always a D as a voter. It caused no end of arguments when I was home as if that would have changed my mind.
It's interesting. They had 18 formative years to get their point across yet think another argument will help their progeny see the light, rather than being curious about the reasoning of their family member's point of view. Example: my MAGA car parts manager brother expounded upon the reasons for homelessness and asked zero questions nor wanted to hear the opinions of his psychiatrist sister and public policy son. (Love that Dunning Kruger effect!).
Sounds like my mother. She listened to ALL the right wing radio programs, and she got dementia as well. Wonder if it's a precursor? ;)
I am SURE that listening to Rush is a precursor ..or, a cause, of brain damage.
Same with my elderly aunt! Prayed for Limbaugh every night, she told me. ARGH. Now she's got dementia. God has answered her prayers!
Yikes !
I have my folks’ “I Like Ike” button in my desk drawer.
me too!
And I have my Mother’s for Stevenson in my life’s collection of Democrats we’ve voted for these many decades. She loved Stevenson for his intellect and humor.
Wear it!...I have one ...somewhere.
You did not know Stevenson. As good as we want to remember Ike, Adalie Stevenson was an excellent alternative to good old Ike. He had more government experience. But a war hero close to the end of the war was hard to beat.
But imagine, we once had that choice: gold OR platinum, Stevenson OR Eisenhower. There was no bad option. Now? Trump or DeSantis? Gag.
He would be considered a traitor by current crop of repubs. John Birchers called him a “commie” early on
Stevenson was both brilliant and would have been a good successor to the presidents of the time.
First section of one of the major highways is named for him! He was governor of IL before I was born.
I have been on that highway more than once!
Truman refused to participate in the overthrow of the Mossadegh government. Eisenhower approved it in his first year in office. We will never shed our responsibility for that, and nobody reading this will live to see an end to its malign consequences.
American hubris in foreign policy is a topic for serious students of history. G.W.
Bush was the front man for Chaney, 9the father), Rumsfeld, Rice who somehow felt American power was capable of controlling any situation.
"banana republic" outlook... Was Iran thing about oil mainly, and/or fear of social revolution? Whatever, Iran got islamic fundamentalism back in spades for that. And you might want to ask what all the motivations behind that were....
Frank, probably both. We have done so many awful things in the pursuit of oil and also the worry about socialism and communism, creating problems we still see today. i think we can thank the recently passed Kissinger for some of this.
Kissinger, J Edgar Hoover, and the "Rumsfield and Cheney" duo were some of the most long-lastingly toxic players ever involved in policy. The hubris of these men has poisoned the world.
Michele, May this give you a laugh: my college roommate when I visited her in the 1970’s (?), told me in all seriousness that, having known Kissinger’s wife in high school (Bronxville,NY), that we could not trust anyone that she married. As she was a very bright friend from a very bright family, I never forgot the story and conclude that she was correct.
You left out the biggest motivation- the Soviet Union operation to forcibly take over the government of Iran.
Growing up as a confirmed liberal/progressive I didn’t credit the concern about the international spread of communism. However, public examination of government archives since the fall of the USSR have revealed how powerful and extensive was international communist movement and it was directed by the USSR. They were willing to sacrifice the well being of their citizens to use their resources to spread their ideology.
I was shocked to learn a few years ago that the American communist party was followed day to day orders directly from the USSR.
If you are speaking of the the Overthrow Mossadegh, what the US and Britain opposed was Mossadegh's desire to nationalize Iran's oil industry using a payment formula that had been used by the British. The oil was under Iran after all. The installation of the Shaw gave us today's aggressive theocracy.
The USSR was a brutal dictatorship that was indeed a threat to the West, but the "red" witch hunts were out of line. And somehow Hitler-supporting rich guys seemed to get a pass, even in WWII. Fanatics and despots of any sort have always been the problem.
Never knew that. I like to blame John Foster Dulles for any Ike failure.
Thank you for that chronology. By the time I knew that history, it was far too late to protest. Then there’s Chile.
Prime Minister of Iran in 1952 to 1953 elected as such by the Iranian Parliament at a time when parliamentary elections were in fact considered legitimate in Iran, William P.
Oh, Mossadegh. I took a college course from Richard Cottam, who was with the CIA and participated in the overthrow of Mossadegh and the reinstatement of the Shah.
A few years ago, I was taking a class in International Relations at the local community college and I brought it up (I'm really old, compared to my fellow students) and they all gaped at me. Granted, 1953 was a while ago, but still...
And the Roosevelt kid had a hand too.
I still will never buy products from BP, nor trust machinations of government that don't see cleansing sunlight.
I like that. Yes, I think from now on, I'll be an Eisenhower Democrat. That sounds better than the "yellow-dog democrat" I am now (but my voting habits won't change).
I don't feel any partisan loyalties, but on the basis of party values, I always voted for Democrats, save for two of three (back in the day) Repubs for minor offices.
I still do too. When I was 7 years old, in 1952, my sister and I would march proudly on the sidewalk in front of our house with little American flags, chanting "I like Ike!" I was going to say, I bet he wouldn't be a Republican today. But instead, I'll say, I bet if he were alive today, the GOP might still be a Grand Old Party.
I view Ike as a great military commander and a reasonable president. I think he would loathe Trump, as would Lincoln. No doubt he'd have a thing or two to say to "Republican" leaders.
I like Ike, too. My dad thought he was a terrific president.
Certainly Ike was better than any Republican president since.
Their numbers are no longer negligible and they are not stupid, just with no morals.
Jeri
SCOTUS making decisions that effect the course of American life based on cases made up of outright lies
When judges so blatantly ignore the obvious in order to shape society, when their political loyalties can be seen even by the myopic, the Supreme Court has left behind their stated role in Government and have become, ironically, UnConstitutional in the whole
And the new "Ethical Guidelines" amount to nothing but used dishwater. Where there is no accountability, justice itself becomes fiction.
No argument here, they have become our “monarchy.” They who must be obeyed…
I see one possible silver lining in this current court. They like their power and don't want to give it up to a dictator. There are a lot of Trump related rulings coming, ---- I don't think they will go his way. At least I hope not.
SCOTUS Gang of 6 is beholding to Leonard Leo and Citizen’s United
They’ve already abdicated their power to him. Without him, a MAGA President will crush the Court
Jeri, I have found that many people, both liberal and conservative, often accuse their opponents of being stupid simply because they don’t agree with a point of view. This is a major mistake which undermines one’s ability to see their opponents clearly.
Repubs are not stupid so much as they are greedy, ignorant, and without scruples. Dems are far from perfect, but never in my long life have they matched republican’s evil aims.
The wealthy have generations of experience in perfecting and bringing the strategies necessary to prohibit the making of laws or enforcement of tax policies that would put their gains at risk. HCR is right. This is fascinating stuff to follow. I won't put my meager investment portfolio up as collateral for any effort to hold the wealthy or Supreme Court accountable, least of all be fair about their responsibility for 99% of American's needs for a well funded government that works on our behalf. Their legal teams get more in fees, I suspect, than net taxes paid by them.
Be careful of generalities. Half of my extended family are Republicans. They are not stupid or evangelical; they hold religious and economic views diametrically opposed to mine. And due to the algorithms in all kinds of social media, they have found like-minded people. Unfortunately, as explained on NPR, research finds that social media not only reinforces their preexisting beliefs but also reduces their empathy for others with opposing viewpoints. Which is why there is a lot of silence at family gatherings!
Mine too. Large family so there are the ignorant, the religious nuts, the stupid, the greedy, the haters (of whatever stripe), and some who have changed stripes.
Agreed that they are greedy, ignorant, and without scruples, but not certain why that isn’t stupidity. Surely it doesn’t show intelligence to be consumed by all of the above.🤣
Not stupidity, but lack of wisdom.
I think of ignorance as a sometimes deliberate lack and stupidity as a trait that can't be educated. Not saying that there is not a lot of stupid out there. Cults can attract both it seems, especially by the greedy with zip scruples. Just my take, need to check Webster
Dumb like Foxes?
Totally agree. Malign/demeaning ad homina is considered the less valid of argument forms, but it is also the most widely practiced. This, for example, is what the right eco chamber has done with Biden.
And confirmation bias should be in the forefront of our vision.
But when you see real stupidity, better to recognize it!
They have morals all right, THEIR morals. Immense wealth is an essential foundation for an aristocracy philosophy of governance and civilization. Check out Edward Gibbons. Fascism/communism were run by people who existantially figured "they knew better". That feeling has hardly gone away, albeit somewhat muted.
Ike did not imagine concentration and deregulation of media. I know "smart" and educated MAGAs. The vulnerability to lockstep cult ideology. It is clear that cult adherence can allow people to believe practically anything and abandon morality. Terrorists do that.
I think tricky Dick did plant the germ of media control, and he would have pursued it but for those pesky tapes. My take anyway.
“Love of money” trumps everything. So well put. Thank you. That sums up so much.
Today's Dems are yesterday's Reps; things have gone only right. This has happened because of the concept of "compromise"—but, with perhaps a few exceptions, the only ones to compromise are the dems. That this still works shows the weakness of the dems. It is frightening—and all they can do is beg for money through emails. They have my vote, my support but I've no money. Whatever happened to reforms in campaign financing? Seems that its been "privatized" (like Fox News)....Citizens United and the disgusting "Corporations are People" (what about these international corporations?) I'm ranting, and this is why I so appreciate Heather Cox Richardsons clear and informed voice.
Like almost everything else in America, money is so important. The Dems have to appeal to the rich to receive enough money to compete in elections. They have been very successful with rich liberals, but rich liberals have different expectations than poor Democratic Socialists. It's pay to play.
Isn't money the American culture?
I like the “stupid” part best. That’s my thought about many Republicans in Congress. They look stupid and they seem greedy. Others are crafty and mean. Finally: all who voter against certifying the election are traitors. Time for a total “restructuring.”
For someone who is an economic dunce, Heather, you and some of the comments below have educated me more than my economics teachers in college and the main stream media. I am old now, however, you have made economics come alive. Thank you!
You are right to couple money and power, every bit the two strands of a DNA-like double helix, just as are those parallel strands of race and class economy in America. As to feudalism, you are right. Most here put the focus on ‘saving democracy’, when it was killed off long ago.
We’ll have democracy under a socialist umbrella, worker co-ops, etc., or we won’t have it all. The ‘insurrectionists’ on 1/6, and those who supported them, are not the enemy, no matter how hard current media darling Lynn Cheney tries to make it so. Jeff Bezos is. Yanis lays it out in less than two minutes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKJ3hp0E20Q
“The insurrectionists aren’t the enemy”??? IOW, overthrowing the government is ok on its face?
When did definitions disappear?
What I think he means is the the Jan 6 people were the pawns who were manipulated by the very rich by using racism, fear of communism, sexism and religion to get those folks to do the dirty work. They are still at it today.
Brown Shirt Pawns ?? Not responsible for their own stupid actions?? “He made me do it”??
I don’t disagree that the rich and powerful manipulate the MAGA Mass ( think tumor) but the definition is clear and the two classes are only dangerous when they work in concert
"Not responsible for their own stupid actions?? “He made me do it”??" Nuremburg trials. Banality of evil.
Pawns? No. Adults do not get to claim they were manipulated by rich folks. The Redcaps were not children, so they are entirely to blame for January 6. They rampaged because they wanted to. .
1776 much? The ‘insurrectionists’, and by that I mean the rather minuscule number of those who met that definition at the Capitol on 1/6, didn’t have the wrong idea, just the wrong target. Had they stormed the corporate offices of Raytheon, Bank of America, Pfizer, etc., as long as they didn’t hurt human beings present in those offices, and confined their protest to property damage/messaging only, they would have been, as the Brits would say, spot on.
“Minuscule”?
“Didn’t have the wrong idea”?
But they “didn’t” storm private business. Why deflect?
Definition mean things to serious people
They might have been just as unaware as is a liberal class of people who think Republicans are a bigger threat to democracy than corporate capture of the duopoly.
Deflect that.
Tom, wealth is omnipresent in modern society, no sense picking on Bezos. Wealth finances much if not most of modern politics. Did before i was born too. Modern corporations feel dutibound to contribute financially to the parties, often with indifferent allegiance, eg 60/40 according to who's in power. Not that the wealthy dont have champions! And i think Im gonna read Liz Cheney's new book. Rachel Maddow interviewed her Monday night, just watched it over morning coffee.
Maddow and Cheney deserve each other - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5lVPIJPn1Y
Plenty of books you should read before Cheney’s, if you haven’t already, like The Devil’s Chessboard, The Jakarta Method, Silent Coup, The Division of Light and Power, Glass House, Democracy Incorporated, etc.
JL, The more I hear them prattle on, my mind keeps getting drawn to the "Divine Rights of Kings."
Feudalism: yes! Their idea of a perfect world is assuring that workers from childhood through senescence are competing for poorly-paid jobs, with no safety requirements or <horrors!> unions. Kind of like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where the peasants are toiling in the dirt. King Arthur (a billionaire) rides by on a white horse. One peasant says “there goes the king” and the other peasant says, “how do you know he’s the king?” Peasant #1 says “He ain’t got any shit on him.”
I think the billionaires finally realized they don’t need a middle class to buy their products; there are billions of people in other countries who can be consumers.
Wow, that was almost 80 years ago!
They complain a lot about Social Security but they reject any proposals to raise the gap and pay their fair share.
"The word 'free' is used three times in the Declaration of Independence and once in the First Amendment to the Constitution, along with 'freedom.' The word 'fair' is not used in either of our founding documents." - Reagan mentor Milton Friedman
Yet the words "just" and "justice" are. What's unfair about that?
Under the current trajectory of SCOTUS, the 1% will have justice, the rest of us will be left with "Just Us". At its best, justice can be a restorative process, loving even, righting errors in a way that benefits all those involved and society in general. At its worst, our legal system can be an exploitive hope extinguishing nightmare. With the safety valve of justice gone, things tend to explode - something that almost never benefits anyone.
Wilhoit: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Thanks for showing me that quote again. What conservatives want to conserve is the in-group and what makes them happy. They are happy to have all the wealth and to assert their moral superiority over members of the out-group
It seems to me to be a case of malignant ego. We all have one, the word is Latin for "I", but when I seeks to dominate others, it can become a big problem. It's the antithesis of the notion of unalienable rights; the antithesis of compassion.
also
"Conservatism" sounds too respectable. There is a use for the word I admire. A prudently cautious "conservative" estimate, or what we used to call "conservationists" (now "environmentalists). I consider the scientific method conservative. Like the word "Republican" for a movement bent on dismantling our republic, or "Citizens United" for rule by the rich, it just seems like one more attempt to mislead.
I would argue even the 1% will not be experiencing justice when the table is tipped their way. They will live in fear of being othered and when resources dwindle sufficiently, they will turn on and prey upon each other.
I recall reading about South American oligarchs who live in armed compounds and always travel with a retinue of machine-gun toting guards. Sounds like a gilded prison to me. Seems to me like a nasty way even for the lords of the manor to live.
My dad knew colleagues working in Bogota in the 1950s. Your house had to have bars on all of the windows, and you should keep your lifestyle very modest so as not to be a target of thieves or kidnappers.
Thnx. Some thoughts to knaw on at breakfast! Thank you🤗
Friedman was a fraud, to put it mildly.
Nobel should repossess his Prize.
He seems to have been clever, but clever need not be moral or wise. I am more aware of his impact than his biography, but my guess is that much of the celebration of his sociopathic attitude had to do with pleasing the very rich and powerful. I think that thumb on the scale majorly influences much of our aggregated social perceptions.
What was the benefit of slavery for the struggling poor white, as compared to a thriving and equitable working middle class? Or a brand of Christianity that subjugates itself to the wealthy, and embraces aggressive wars, justifies torture?
Or his trickle-down economics, the biggest economic con job since Ponzi, which cemented him forever in the Rich and Corporate Hall of Fame. (And reinforces your notion of why he was so celebrated by sociopaths--he made them trillions from tax cuts.)
They also complain a lot about immigration and refuse to change the policy. I think this is because they like to use the border issues as a tool to beat on Dems.
That and employing the cheapest labor possible. CEO's will hire children to work. As Tyson Foods does. CEO's love to hire illegal immigrants. That's why they don't want the problem fixed. It pays for their private jets.
Our food chain would be almost nonexistent without the migrant farm workers doing the work that ‘Americans’ won’t do!
All the House GOP does is whine and complain with absolutely no substance for solutions!
Every right wing Govt. in the west is using immigrants as fodder. They know it makes people scared for their jobs and healthcare.
But you can bet, Jean Mueller, they’re cashing their own SocSec checks!!!
It's properly feudal. Even the churches are in on it, as in the 13th Century.
Annis, you could even say the churches are behind it.
Some churches definitely are.
Oh, the churches are being opportunistic. But definitely the same people - many of whom are lay people - that are behind the uber-wealthy mega churches are also behind a more general feudalisation.
And the "divine right of kings", even if they wear a red hat rather than a crown.
mike,
"The real deal breaker is the wealthy want all government spending to benefit only them, but they do not want to pay any taxes."
Yep. "Welfare for white people" completely dwarfs the sum total of ALL other forms of government support for the people of the United States if you include tax cuts for the wealthy PLUS massive giveaways to the wealthy.
Just look at the period from 2007 to 2014 on the below government debt chart which shows government debt increase as a function of time.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt
We had "shovel ready" money to "shovel" into big banks for YEARS, from 2007-2014, vastly increasing the deficit. Unfortunately, Obama, not mentioned by Dr. Richardson, was one of America's biggest deficit spenders of all time. A huge fraction of that money went to big banks. It's OK though, because, Obama's first speech after he left office was at a big NY Bank where they paid him $400,000 for an hour and a few minutes of "speech".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39710529
Similarly, Mr. "Fiscal Responsibility", Ronald Reagan is also one of the bigger deficit growers while simultaneously giving TV speeches about "fiscal responsibility". See the graph below.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt
select MAX at the top for the timeline.
The truth is EVERY American President since Jimmy Carter, who paid down debt during his entire administration role modeling "fiscal responsibility", has been irresponsible with debt.
Sometimes Clinton gets a pat on the back and he did, after initially ramping the debt up quite a bit, then rolled it off a tiny bit. Not much.
It has been a drunken party of welfare for white people my entire adult life.
As HCR said in today's letter, tax cuts are the chief drivers of the deficit, not spending on social projects or entitlements. Just as tax law shows what a society values, budgets also reveal the values of those who write them. A few years ago, I discovered I was eligible for a little known mortgage assistance program offered by the federal government (I did not apply). At the time. my income was in the low six figures. I also discovered the federal government spent roughly 3 times the amount on mortgage assistance programs as on affordable housing. Money is not going where it is most needed.
Well said, Mike.
While there was much to admire about the Obamas and his presidency, you are spot on when it came to economics. Much of that money to bail out financial institutions could have been rerouted to those who had been scammed with ridiculous mortgages - documents that were designed to destroy the dream of home ownership and send that equity into the hands of the very same nobles who created the financial mess.
The propaganda about the big banks failing was just that. For every failure, there would have been vulture capitalists ready to swoop in and eat up what assets remained. The stock market and retirement portfolios were hardly spared anyway. So my IRA and 401k would have dropped 55% instead of 45%? (Fortunately, we patient ones became whole again over time).
Instead, millions of Americans - who couldn't understand the incredibly complex loans they signed on to - either walked away from their homes or lived financially "under water" for many years. This caused economic punishment and stagnation - if you can't afford to move because if you sell your house you can't pay off the mortgage, what are your job choices? It was like jail.
Obama suffered from the influence of the nobles. He wanted to be a president of "all the people" - but he was too impressed by the con men on Wall Street.
And he didn't respond forcefully to the Russian war theft of Crimea. And here we are. Dealing with an emboldened Putin who plays the long game of chess.
But I really like Obama. I wish we would hear more from him right now. He has been active and supportive. But Obama has the chops and media pull to blast into every TV studio and to dominate social media if he put more into it.
He has the speaking talent and charisma that few of today's leaders enjoy. I wonder why he hasn't become a more vocal partner in the campaign called "Biden/Harris"? The tradition of past presidents remaining silent after leaving office has been decimated. Time for one who has the respect and admiration of the nation to get on the hustings full time - overtime, maybe even. I'd like to see him launch a full on broadside towards what has become a drift towards fascism in the GOP and among those Wall Street con men he helped in 2008.
This is a war. We need all the big talent guns we can recruit.
Mr Alstrom, I’d like to “like” your comments about President Obama, whom I too greatly admire. But I can’t. Your assessment of his presidency, of his moral fiber, is infuriating:
“Obama suffered from the influence of the nobles. He wanted to be a president of "all the people" - but he was too impressed by the con men on Wall Street.”
Seriously? Obama was brand new in the job as President of the United States. Thank the Higher Power the man is brilliant, surrounded himself with a brilliant, agile, adaptive staff, and availed himself of the guidance of the best and brightest minds he knew to come to decisions about a pending global financial collapse. (His process must have worked, right? You admit: “Fortunately, we patient ones became whole again over time.” Dare we say “patient AND PRIVILEGED”?)
Yes, I agree President Obama’s guidance would be so welcome and comforting to so many of us right now. But we need to remember: His presidency, that of a BRILLIANT BLACK AMERICAN, is what riled up these fools, this crazy Zeitgeist. It’s what led to the likes of fascist strongmen crawling out from under rocks, what gave MAGAs permission to say out loud and proud the hate and fear roiling in their hearts. President Obama is already in their sights. He needn’t martyr himself. I think we need to be satisfied that he continues to work behind the scenes with the other leaders who have backbone and moral certitude, and can help our defense against this Dark Age.
This right here 1000%⬇️⬇️
"But we need to remember: His presidency, that of a BRILLIANT BLACK AMERICAN, is what riled up these fools..."
And they blame HIM for America's racism. ("Obama rekindled a racial divide that had been steadily disappearing in American society."
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/obamas-legacy-weaker-and-more-divided-america)
It's a variation of the claim one still hears today that the Confederate casus belli had nothing to do with slavery, and that Lee was preparing to free the slaves had he only got the chance.
Wow! Heritage Foundation published that? He himself was “racially divided.” I naively thought that would show bigots that they might be wrong. But I forgot . . . African ancestry is so, so powerful it can wipe out any trace of European ancestry, to the great-great-grandparent generation.
Yikes, Becky. I didn't see a "COMMENTS" section; otherwise, I would have left them with one word..."Bull***t!
Imagine how Obama's process might have lifted us out of a Great Recession much faster if the true victims of the manufactured mortgage crisis had been made whole instead of the uber rich. A parallel concept was applied when the Pandemic was addressed financially. Checks written directly to the people. There were errors along the way, of course. But it helped Jack and Jill Everyday and boosted the economy nicely.
A few big institutions going bust and being absorbed by others was blown out of proportion by the ruling class.
And the creators of those instruments of mortgage doom went unpunished - many were rewarded for their careers of plunder.
Obama was hardly alone in his naivety. The whole nation bought the scam.
I am still am fond of him. There were so many days when the news cycle was wonderfully boring as he competenly and gracefully handled the office. After the Bush insanity, there was a sense of trust and international respect.
Obama’s big mistake was overestimating the American people. He, like many of us, thought that the Tea Party was so off base it would be obvious to everyone. He was also aware how much he was limited by being a Black man. He couldn’t be aggressive. He had to be charming.
Interesting about overestimating us. A friend thought he must be in constant fear of assassination.
Yes Bill, every time I hear Obama speak, either currently or a replay of a former time, I long to hear more from him. He is intelligent, engaging, and so charismatic. More peptalks for our home team would certainly be welcome. Hopefully, these will be coming soon...
"I wish we would hear more from him right now." Exactly. Wonder what's holding him back.
Agreed, and the rich have gotten their way, on the backs of the poor. "Poverty, by America," by Matthew Desmond, offers a devastating argument.
Do remember, however, that the wealthy and slightly less so in fact almost entirely finance the federal government. Also, growing wealth inequality has become global in nature. And for sure the GOP has been successfully engineering lower taxes which they want to be covered by reduced social support spending. I certainly agree they should pay more, by a bit! here's Oxfam's take on the wealthy and taxes.
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%202021%20White,same%20year%20paid%2013%20percent.
No, I disagree. The very wealthiest World billionaire club does not pay a higher tax rate than the lower middle class. Yet, they are quite successful at having #ALL# the spending directed at their interests, rather than the interests of the people who need roads to go to work.
i didnt say they pay a higher rate. Even at their lower rates (likely mostly tax deferred, so eventually it comes to roost) they pay for the federal government. Easy to check that out. The single biggest expenditure i believe is military. Last thing GOP would cut.
Mike, that’s it in a nutshell!