host

powerclown, welcome back !

Whether we realize it, or not, we are all involved in the struggle of our lives, and it has been ongoing since at least the beginning of the industrial revolution. Since that time, and probably earlier, most of us and our ancestors have been involved in a life or death competition with those who control the bulk of the wealth, and hence, the political power.

These elite are very serious about this competition, but the question is, are we?

Here's where "we" were....here's what they are doing to take and keep a larger portion of the "pie". The main ingredients of the "pie" are the assets of the country, and the the amount of political influence each side can summon to legislate/regulate or achieve via executive decree, what it perceives to be in it's own best interests.

In 2005, the Gini coefficient in US households<a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f04.html">reached .44</a>, from a low of .349 when Lyndon Johnson left office in 1969.

"We" are losing this struggle, and the "losses" can be measured. I don't think that it matters whether a 90 percent "top tax rate" was "fair", or whether 50 percent inheritance taxes levied against millionaire dollar plus estates, was "fair".

Here is what the richest are doing to compete....to change the status quo that is already moving in their direction at a disturbingly impressive rate:
Until recently, capital gains taxes were at least as large, as a percentage, as income taxes levied on earned income. Each of these changes, shifts some of the tax burden away from the richest few, and onto the rest of us. The changes are symptomatic of increasing political influence of the rich, and diminishing political influence of the rest of us.

The result is a significant shift in who possesses what percentage of the "pie", and as the OP article stated, the quality (i.e. liquidity, appreciation, maintenance costs, risks.....) of the assets controlled by each of the two competing groups.

This discussion is not about entitlement expectations from government. It is about the lack of reaction to the very real erosion of the bulk of the US population's wealth and it's political influence on the agenda of it's federal government. The government should be acting in the best interests of the most people, while protecting the rights and property of the least of us.

It is not doing that.....it hasn't since sometime during Nixon's administration. The result is that a Moroccan, for example, who achieves citizenship in France can rest assured that his savings and property will not be wiped out by an unplanned illness (are there planned illnesses ?), if he becomes unemployed or is unable to work, he is eligible for government benefits, and the government will provide medical treatment to deal with his illness.

In contrast, in the US, thanks to the campaigns in 1993 by insurance and medical industry opponents of Clinton admin. health care reform, a relatively small PR investment <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_and_Louise">(Harry & Louise ads)</a> resulted in the destruction of the agenda to provide a safety net of government managed medical care that our Moroccan in Paris example can rely on.

The bankruptcy "reform" bill was passed last year and signed into law by president Bush. Passage of that legislation was long a goal of the banking and credit card company lobbies. When it was passed by the house and senate towards the end of the Clinton administration, the president refused to sign it. and the house and senate did not have the votes to override his veto.

The two senators and all of the republican house delegation from Georgia voted for the "reform" bill, and voted against all amendments proposed by democrats that would have exempted households filing for bankruptcy that could prove illness as the cause of insolvency. Even though the effect of the new "reform" law was that everyone contemplating filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed in record numbers before the new "reform" law went into effect last October 17, here was today's headline:
Has the bankruptcy "reform" lowered the rate of interest or the terms of any of your credit card or consumer loans? The rates levied were high enough before the "reform", to cushion the small level of default protected by former chapter 11 bankruptcy law. The "reform" was simply a windfall profit, bought by a small, in proportion to the gain, lobbying effort by large money center banks who own politicians like Sen. Joseph Biden D-MBNA, who voted for the "reform", despite it's impact on his won Delaware constituents and despite the refusal of republicans to be influenced by a Harvard study which found that 50 percent of household bankruptcy filings were caused by illness, ironically, mostly in households that enjoyed private medical insurance benefits.

If you've read Russ Winter's article linked in the OP, consider one of his conclusions because it supports my point that in this "struggle" the rich hold and allegiance only to themselves and their own profits, not to a country:
My genes are "weary" from the moves that the last five generations have been forced to make to chase opportunities to sell their labor to the highest holder of capital, and as Russ Winter commented, they've moved many of the former US job opportunities to China, to further enhance their profits.

I am not a violent person, but I am an observant one. I think that is counterproductive to renounce it as an option in this competition. At least four of my ancestors fought under Washington in the continental army in the American revolution....Begin, Rabin, and Shamir certainly never renounced violence to achieve the founding of their state of Israel

I once had a quote from Ghandi as my "sig" here at TFP. Ghandi preached non-violence, and he was killed by an assassin. Nelson Mandela and his ANC would probably never have achieved liberation from white supremacy in South Africa if they had renounced violence.

Martin Luther King Jr. preached non-violence and like Ghandi, he too was assassinated. Here's a sample of what is now happening to his "dream":
I'm all for organizing and participating in non-violent protests and in civil disobedience, but my experience is that you don't get taken seriously by the opposition when you do only that, and I predict that it will be the heavy handed responses of the "authority" controlled by the rich who will react first with violence against those engaged in non-violent protests.

The competition in this class warfare to stop the ever rising Gini number and the incessant reduction of our portion of the pie....a war to get our government out of their hands and back into ours, must begin with discussions like....this one. The reaction, so far, seems to indicate that many are not inclined to do that. I ask what the harm is in an exercise like this one. And.....if we refuse to discuss it now.....when will it be appropriate to do so. The Gini number in Japan is about .25, in Canada and in Europe, it is much lower than in the US. Mexico is Gini .54 and violence is the predicted reaction when it reaches .60.

Why would anyone defend the politics and the economic system that the US currently operates in, when it appears to be taking our living and our social conditions in a direction that is closer to the circumstances experienced in Mexico, than in Japan, Italy, or in Canada?

Consider the steps that our opposition has already taken, how much they have achieved in tax reduction, in bankruptcy protection laws, and in eroding our rights to privacy, due process, and 4th amendment protection. They created DHS, and we are on the verge of needing permission from that agency to leave the country, unless we walk or swim away.

They've got control of the pentagon, and they've even created their own mercenary armies:
I recognize that it is a challenge and even a threat to be exposed to the ideas that the rich are not your friends, that their agenda runs counter to that of yours and your family's, and that you have more in common with the poor folks of New Orleans, stranded in the Superdome during the hurricane Katrina and subsequent levy failure disaster in September, 2005, than you do with George Bush or his friend Erik Prince and his private Blackwater "army" that Bush authorized, paid, and set loose in the flooded New Orleans streets.

That appears to be the case, though, and you should be able to mull it over, discuss it, accept that the developments are accelerating away from a direction that even preserves, let alone enhances, your civil rights, personal wealth, physical or economic security, political influence, or employment opportunity. IMO, this is a real description of what is happening, and I conclude that our competitors expect us to attempt to counter their agenda, that they are taking steps to make it easier to observe us and listen in on our communications, and to arrest us, hold us indefinitely, or to lock us down, en masse. They are not ruling out force as a tool to blunt our competition, and their focus on capital investment is not related to American endeavors.

But some of you say that we should either not discuss this, or if we do, renounce violence as a tool to compete with our rich opponents, or launch violent attacks against them right now.....in a "put up or shutup" fashion.....is that the jist of some of your posts?

As roachboy has posted, some of the reaction to this thread is predictable but incoherent. Why not, instead, if you disagree, show us where we have it wrong in our assessments of the direction, velocity, and probable outcome of the political and financial agenda of the rich?