I simply cannot see the connection, and while informative, Professor Richardson’s post was tendentious.
I do not see this as a connection. I see it as a correlation. ‘Connection’ presupposes that a causative relationship. Other issues are protected in this cynical vein.
Tax credits for the wealthy has long been an article of faith (and …
I simply cannot see the connection, and while informative, Professor Richardson’s post was tendentious.
I do not see this as a connection. I see it as a correlation. ‘Connection’ presupposes that a causative relationship. Other issues are protected in this cynical vein.
Tax credits for the wealthy has long been an article of faith (and action) among Republican ideologues, using the trickle-down theory to buttress their stance.
Could we not just as easily insert this economic policy in place of the Pandora Papers story and say that it too is not unrelated to the marches against the Texas abortion law?
To take the comparison at its face, one would have to suppose that the Republicans only ever get elected by playing some sort of shell game. That’s a first premise and I agree with it in general terms. But the back half of it presupposes that dazzle the electorate with the villainy of those who would seek abortions so as to hide their *real* design to protect what the wealthy do with their money.
The Texas law is abominable and clever - one can only hope it is too clever by half and has pride of place among a vast array of good reasons to remove Abbott far from politics.
It has a host of fathers however. The Pandora Papers is just not one of them. That discovery is simply correlative. The fact that trillions of dollars of wealth is hidden to protect it from taxation is both opaque and silent. We who are not wealthy rail against wealth inequity. But it is fed mostly by constant pounding on the issue of income inequality - the corporate payouts of tens of millions annually to chief officers, the staggering wealth of Bezos, the Waltons et al vs the absurdly low minimum wage, the demonization of those who receive entitlements, the need for millions of workers to scrabble together a living from two and sometimes three jobs.
If anything, the Republicans use social issues like abortion, gun rights and woke culture to distract potential voters from the gross inequality of modern life and thereby win elections and protect the oligarchy.
Obviously wealth-sheltering contributes to this inequality but it has never ranked in the top five of voter concerns.
The comparison further doesn’t hold water in that the Pandora Papers, like its predecessor the Panama Papers, is hugely international in scope. On its list are powerful wealthy people from countries which protect abortion and do not seek to chip away at it.
Did the Panama Papers bring the masses into the street screaming for retribution? Nope. It’s too opaque, too dark, too silent, and often, too legal.
Eric O'Donnel. What entitlements? Social Security/Medicare? We let the government hold our money for retirement, paid taxes on it and are now taxed again (thanks to Reagan) as it gets doled out each month at an amount no one can live on. Are there other programs of which i am not aware? Has everyone been so co-opted by Republican rebranding that even in this forum we are made to look like we always have our hands out for government aid which strengthens the Republican 'welfare state' demonization, even of citizens who played by the rules their whole lives. I may be overlooking other programs, please enlighten me about 'entitlements'.
Bravo, CJ!! I too bristle at calling SS and Medicare an entitlements. Until, (within the past 10 years or so)...when the government raised the SS payroll limit above $103,000 to its present $120,000?? limit, the wealthy did not pay SS taxes above that ceiling limit...but they sure got SS benefits well above those making $50,000/ year. And, in addition, until fairly recently the uber wealthy now have to pay a 3+% (?) Medicare Surtax on their higher income, something that they never had to pay before Omama's presidency !
My comment about ‘entitlements’ referred to the Republican trope developed from Reagan’s “Cadillac Queen”. This spawned a Republican industry of demonizing those who receive welfare benefits, food stamps etc. From the demonizing came periodic and crushing reductions in those entitlements.
This series of attacks, like those on abortion, generate anger deflect America’s attention from the predatory oligarchic class and enable populist Republicans go to squeak out election wins time and time again.
They hit on the supposed laziness and lack of initiative to conceal what should be obvious. The middle class is being hollowed out. Those at the bottom economically have little to no chance of rising.
The Pandora Papers are way, way in the background.
I can assure you that I do not bash those who benefit from the financial expectations involved in a fair society.
And plans that are paid into for years like Social Security and Medicare are a matter of simple fairness.
Eric O'Donnell, have you noticed that whenever anyone tries to make the connection between economics and politics, they're called a socialist? This has been going on since before the Civil War. It's how the powers-that-be shut down the discussion and marginalize anyone who brings up the subject. Could this possibly be why you don't see the connection and think it's only "correlative"?
Well first of all, and this mayn’t answer your point, I am quite comfortable with democratic socialism, as practiced, say, in the Scandinavian countries.
I fully believe your point is sincere, but I am really not catching it as you mean it.
I do agree that the socialism chestnut has been used as the term of art to uphold the manic, pedal to the medal capitalism in America. If one is not all in, one is Socialist. And that usually forestalls further argument.
But my point remains I think - *how* the extremely rich protect and enhance their gains, as seen in the Pandora Papers, is not a hot button issue. It is not something the Republicans are uncomfortable with, as in that it could impair their re-election prospects and sleazy connections to the oligarchic class. Thus the Pandora Papers are correlative.
More worrisome to them is being exposed by a mass movement against income inequality. That beast is not silent. It is visible to anyone with eyes. It angers people. Those people in turn could punish Republican politicians who belong to or aspire to belong to the oligarchic class. Reflexively they then turn to hot button social issues to distract the attention of their electorate. That is truly connective.
We should care deeply about the revelations in the Pandora Papers. But the stories are long, complex, and not always illegal (strictly speaking). So that makes this specific issue correlative.
Who transfers the wealth of the people to the super-rich? Who hides the money that has been taken/stolen and pays very little to no taxes? Who attempts to control the memory of the people and in many ways is successful at it? Who defrauds the people and also distracts them from the facts? Is there no connection between taking the peoples’ wealth, spreading lies to control them and then literally passing laws to cement that control?
Is there no logical connection between accumulating wealth, hiding it in shell games, buying the system, (controlling state legislatures, passing national and state bills/policies and controlling the courts) to protect you from exposure and increase your wealth, while advancing your power and control?
I understand the connection between The Pandora Papers, ‘a vast trove of documents that expose a secretive financial universe that benefits the wealthy and powerful’ and the anti-abortion laws passed by the state legislature in Texas. The analogy illustrates the dangerous imbalance of our country’s system. Eric, unfortunately, I was lost in the logic of your comment and baffled by you calling Heather ‘tendentious’ by connecting the two. Perhaps, your will be equally confounded by this reply.
Definition of tendentious
disapproving
: marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view : BIASED (Merriam-Webster)
To further clarify my argument, the 600 marches, comprising of tens of thousands of people across the country, were protesting against Texas' anti-abortion -- the money/power/governmental/forces or Dark Money, which restricted their freedom. They protested against America's version of Pandora's Dark Money.
"So why do they support and advocate for voter suppression, restrictive voting rights "
They do not. This is a lie or an indication that the person repeating it is brainwashed from their media feed. Republicans want free and fair election and want the system to be trusted. It is not trusted today. 85% of OECD countries reject mail-in ballots for a reason.
"tax cuts for high earners and the wealthy,"
That is also political hogwash. Republicans support lower taxes and smaller government. The party is as consistent on this as are Democrats to increase taxes and the size of government.
"unpopular stances on women’s healthcare and reproductive rights,"
There is no unpopular stance on women's health. Just stop with the rhetorical political crap. In terms of reproductive rights, the Democrats position on zero restrictions on abortion is as unpopular as it illegal abortion.
"no support for affordable housing,"
BS. It is in all the liberal-run places where housing is un-affordable and homelessness is rampant. That is because liberals make it more restrictive and more expensive to build new housing. Republicans have an easy solution they advocate... BUILD MORE HOUSING
"and less support for reducing child poverty and income inequality."
Again... bull shit. Republicans want people back to work to earn their own living instead of the fake and broken ideology of government assistance where we eventually run out of other people's money.
I simply cannot see the connection, and while informative, Professor Richardson’s post was tendentious.
I do not see this as a connection. I see it as a correlation. ‘Connection’ presupposes that a causative relationship. Other issues are protected in this cynical vein.
Tax credits for the wealthy has long been an article of faith (and action) among Republican ideologues, using the trickle-down theory to buttress their stance.
Could we not just as easily insert this economic policy in place of the Pandora Papers story and say that it too is not unrelated to the marches against the Texas abortion law?
To take the comparison at its face, one would have to suppose that the Republicans only ever get elected by playing some sort of shell game. That’s a first premise and I agree with it in general terms. But the back half of it presupposes that dazzle the electorate with the villainy of those who would seek abortions so as to hide their *real* design to protect what the wealthy do with their money.
The Texas law is abominable and clever - one can only hope it is too clever by half and has pride of place among a vast array of good reasons to remove Abbott far from politics.
It has a host of fathers however. The Pandora Papers is just not one of them. That discovery is simply correlative. The fact that trillions of dollars of wealth is hidden to protect it from taxation is both opaque and silent. We who are not wealthy rail against wealth inequity. But it is fed mostly by constant pounding on the issue of income inequality - the corporate payouts of tens of millions annually to chief officers, the staggering wealth of Bezos, the Waltons et al vs the absurdly low minimum wage, the demonization of those who receive entitlements, the need for millions of workers to scrabble together a living from two and sometimes three jobs.
If anything, the Republicans use social issues like abortion, gun rights and woke culture to distract potential voters from the gross inequality of modern life and thereby win elections and protect the oligarchy.
Obviously wealth-sheltering contributes to this inequality but it has never ranked in the top five of voter concerns.
The comparison further doesn’t hold water in that the Pandora Papers, like its predecessor the Panama Papers, is hugely international in scope. On its list are powerful wealthy people from countries which protect abortion and do not seek to chip away at it.
Did the Panama Papers bring the masses into the street screaming for retribution? Nope. It’s too opaque, too dark, too silent, and often, too legal.
Eric O'Donnel. What entitlements? Social Security/Medicare? We let the government hold our money for retirement, paid taxes on it and are now taxed again (thanks to Reagan) as it gets doled out each month at an amount no one can live on. Are there other programs of which i am not aware? Has everyone been so co-opted by Republican rebranding that even in this forum we are made to look like we always have our hands out for government aid which strengthens the Republican 'welfare state' demonization, even of citizens who played by the rules their whole lives. I may be overlooking other programs, please enlighten me about 'entitlements'.
Bravo, CJ!! I too bristle at calling SS and Medicare an entitlements. Until, (within the past 10 years or so)...when the government raised the SS payroll limit above $103,000 to its present $120,000?? limit, the wealthy did not pay SS taxes above that ceiling limit...but they sure got SS benefits well above those making $50,000/ year. And, in addition, until fairly recently the uber wealthy now have to pay a 3+% (?) Medicare Surtax on their higher income, something that they never had to pay before Omama's presidency !
My comment about ‘entitlements’ referred to the Republican trope developed from Reagan’s “Cadillac Queen”. This spawned a Republican industry of demonizing those who receive welfare benefits, food stamps etc. From the demonizing came periodic and crushing reductions in those entitlements.
This series of attacks, like those on abortion, generate anger deflect America’s attention from the predatory oligarchic class and enable populist Republicans go to squeak out election wins time and time again.
They hit on the supposed laziness and lack of initiative to conceal what should be obvious. The middle class is being hollowed out. Those at the bottom economically have little to no chance of rising.
The Pandora Papers are way, way in the background.
I can assure you that I do not bash those who benefit from the financial expectations involved in a fair society.
And plans that are paid into for years like Social Security and Medicare are a matter of simple fairness.
Thank you Eric O'Donnell, for setting the record straight.
Very well said!
Thank you.
I apologize for my lack of clarity in the original.
Workers pay into those programs. They are not entitlements.
And too complex for sound bites. Nothing that cannot fit into sound bites ever gets a meaningful exploration in our short-attention-span culture.
Eric O'Donnell, have you noticed that whenever anyone tries to make the connection between economics and politics, they're called a socialist? This has been going on since before the Civil War. It's how the powers-that-be shut down the discussion and marginalize anyone who brings up the subject. Could this possibly be why you don't see the connection and think it's only "correlative"?
Well first of all, and this mayn’t answer your point, I am quite comfortable with democratic socialism, as practiced, say, in the Scandinavian countries.
I fully believe your point is sincere, but I am really not catching it as you mean it.
I do agree that the socialism chestnut has been used as the term of art to uphold the manic, pedal to the medal capitalism in America. If one is not all in, one is Socialist. And that usually forestalls further argument.
But my point remains I think - *how* the extremely rich protect and enhance their gains, as seen in the Pandora Papers, is not a hot button issue. It is not something the Republicans are uncomfortable with, as in that it could impair their re-election prospects and sleazy connections to the oligarchic class. Thus the Pandora Papers are correlative.
More worrisome to them is being exposed by a mass movement against income inequality. That beast is not silent. It is visible to anyone with eyes. It angers people. Those people in turn could punish Republican politicians who belong to or aspire to belong to the oligarchic class. Reflexively they then turn to hot button social issues to distract the attention of their electorate. That is truly connective.
We should care deeply about the revelations in the Pandora Papers. But the stories are long, complex, and not always illegal (strictly speaking). So that makes this specific issue correlative.
Perhaps it will change.
Who transfers the wealth of the people to the super-rich? Who hides the money that has been taken/stolen and pays very little to no taxes? Who attempts to control the memory of the people and in many ways is successful at it? Who defrauds the people and also distracts them from the facts? Is there no connection between taking the peoples’ wealth, spreading lies to control them and then literally passing laws to cement that control?
Is there no logical connection between accumulating wealth, hiding it in shell games, buying the system, (controlling state legislatures, passing national and state bills/policies and controlling the courts) to protect you from exposure and increase your wealth, while advancing your power and control?
I understand the connection between The Pandora Papers, ‘a vast trove of documents that expose a secretive financial universe that benefits the wealthy and powerful’ and the anti-abortion laws passed by the state legislature in Texas. The analogy illustrates the dangerous imbalance of our country’s system. Eric, unfortunately, I was lost in the logic of your comment and baffled by you calling Heather ‘tendentious’ by connecting the two. Perhaps, your will be equally confounded by this reply.
Definition of tendentious
disapproving
: marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view : BIASED (Merriam-Webster)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2021/booming-us-tax-haven-industry/
To further clarify my argument, the 600 marches, comprising of tens of thousands of people across the country, were protesting against Texas' anti-abortion -- the money/power/governmental/forces or Dark Money, which restricted their freedom. They protested against America's version of Pandora's Dark Money.
Let's unpack this for the unknowing...
"So why do they support and advocate for voter suppression, restrictive voting rights "
They do not. This is a lie or an indication that the person repeating it is brainwashed from their media feed. Republicans want free and fair election and want the system to be trusted. It is not trusted today. 85% of OECD countries reject mail-in ballots for a reason.
"tax cuts for high earners and the wealthy,"
That is also political hogwash. Republicans support lower taxes and smaller government. The party is as consistent on this as are Democrats to increase taxes and the size of government.
"unpopular stances on women’s healthcare and reproductive rights,"
There is no unpopular stance on women's health. Just stop with the rhetorical political crap. In terms of reproductive rights, the Democrats position on zero restrictions on abortion is as unpopular as it illegal abortion.
"no support for affordable housing,"
BS. It is in all the liberal-run places where housing is un-affordable and homelessness is rampant. That is because liberals make it more restrictive and more expensive to build new housing. Republicans have an easy solution they advocate... BUILD MORE HOUSING
"and less support for reducing child poverty and income inequality."
Again... bull shit. Republicans want people back to work to earn their own living instead of the fake and broken ideology of government assistance where we eventually run out of other people's money.