Saturday, February 14, 2009
I'm for a revolution.
Heard a professor from MIT on Bill Moyers' Journal last night who thinks America is really run by a handful of oligarchs. Bankers. Rich people. And that they really control our government. Because they've got the money. The influence. And I tend to agree. It's downright scary. The suggestion is that these bailouts are tailored to benefit the few. The oligarchs. And it remains to be seen whether we more ordinary people wake up and seize control and demand economic policies that are aimed for the common good. A good start might be to nationalize the banks and financial institutions. My notion is that things won't change significantly unless we have a revolution. We'll have to take to the streets in every city and town in America and demand change. Even change far beyond what's being touted by the likes of Barack Obama. We need a total overhaul of America's economic and political systems. Unfortunately, that may not happen unless we have a total collapse. Yes, a Depression that would dwarf the Great Depression of the 1930s. --Jim Broede
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Questions: In your brave new world, what happens to philanthropy?
Over 252 BILLION in 2007, by individuals, equalling 82.3% of total giving(over 300 BILLION). It is estimated that the most wealthy 10% are responsible for about half of all giving in the United States.
10% of our population is approx. over 30 MILLION people. By some estimates, this also where 70% of our Nation's wealth is.
What happens to the religious organizations, education, human services, health, public/society benefit, arts/culture/humanities, international, environment and animals, foundations-all areas benefitting from mostly wealthy citizens, when this money is no longer available?
In this day and age, a revolution such as you suggest, would do nothing but get a lot of people locked up.
Maebee---Your point is a valid one. There is no question that if the exceedingly rich became less rich they would have to scale back some of their giving. I may be wrong...but the much of the ‘giving’ done by the rich seems to be geared to things like their churches, their neighborhood schools, and their pet projects.
It often seems that so much of the ‘giving’ done by the rich is nothing but a fluffy ego boost. For example: Giving computers to poor children world wide poor...and sending children to camp for a couple of weeks is not as important as making it possible for children (and the general population of the US) to have access to affordable decent food, medical care, excellent schools, and clothing.
Some worthy endeavors would feel the crunch...but...Like the working poor and middle class have been forced to do for years, they would learn to make adjustments.
Can you imagine the difference that could be made if 40% of the money given by the most wealthy 10% was channeled into efforts that were aimed at the common good? That might even provide enough 'trickle down' momentum to allow others to pick up some of the slack and increase their giving.
Who cares WHY they do it???
There are many, many charitable causes in the U.S., and you are free to donate. If a philanthropist establishes a really worthless cause, broadcast it. Let it be known to all. Show what a fool they are.
These wealthy people simply need to pay the taxes they are required to pay, own up to their responsibilities as Citizens, and follow the laws that are in place for all. People like Madoff and other "high rollers" who are caught fleecing, need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
I think there should be a sort of "Economic Police" to make sure these things are done, and that EVERYONE is contributing their fair share. I DO NOT believe people who have become wealthy should have that taken away. That goes against the very foundation of the U.S. BUT, if in pursuit of that wealth, laws are broken, or the rights of others are infringed upon, they should be arrested.
I DO NOT believe the Government needs to be radically changed. I think the policies in place need to be adjusted, and enforced. I also think the U.S. citizens need to make themselves aware of what is going on, or they are going to find the Government making all of their decisions, and THAT would definitely NOT work.
I have no problem with strengthening health for the poor, but DO NOT take my health care plan away from ME! Do not take MY choice away. BUT, if, for some reason, I lose that plan, make sure I have another to choose.
You take to the streets, Jim. See how many of your neighbors in Twin Pines, or where ever it is you live, are going to hit the pavement with you. Then you'll see what I mean. The Government has proven that they are not capable of making decisions for us. They only need to make sure the choices to make the right decisions, on our own, are in place, and not compromised.
The "Socialism" you preach is communism.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Find out what it means.
I lean to the left, and that makes me happy. --Jim
By the way, Maebee, I think it's long overdue time to rewrite our Constitution. It's archaic. Out of touch with modern times. We should have a Constitutional convention from time to time, maybe every 50 years, in order to modernize it. Constitutions should be updated. Just like science books and history books. A little amendment here and there isn't enough. We're due for an overhaul. --Jim
Among other things, we'd be better off with a parliamentary type government. Or maybe something even beyond that. Real modern. Government types become outdated. Such as monarchies. Let's lead the world to some new style governments. Our founding fathers were good for their times. But they wouldn't have a clue today. Yes, they'd probably be Republicans. Clueless. --Jim
Jim---Thumbs down on rewriting the Constitution. To a certain extent Amendments to the Constitution serve that function.
If Bibles can be updated and modernized, so can constitutions. --Jim
Maebee---Rewriting the Income Tax code in a way that will significantly increase the share of taxes paid by the super rich will require revolutionary thinking. The current financial conditions have the potential of getting such a revolution off of the ground.
The main obstacles are that the Middle Class is segmented and totally unorganized and the working poor are too busy trying to survive.
Oh, Cherie, we can do far better than our founding fathers. We're living in the 21st century, not the 18th century. We have to govern far differently. We are bogged down in an archaic system. People are sick and tired of government because government isn't working. Let's make it work. Make it function. For the benefit of the common good. Our founding fathers really never believed in equality. They just said they did. They were liars. Hypocrites We've had to overrule them many times. And we haven't done it near enough. We still live by many of their empty credos. --Jim
Jim---Considering that there are countless versions of the Bible floating around your analogy is faulty.
I don't care to debate about the validity of versions of the Bible being accurate translations of the words of God...
Changes to the Constitution made through the Amendment process at least provide an audit trail of public thought and require a vote.
Unfortunately, Cherie, if we wait for a vote of all of the people on some critical issues, we won't get things done. Democracies may be too inefficient in modern times. We may have to invent something that goes beyond our concept of democracy. Democracy could be our ruination. Because democracy often is a very slow, slow process. And we need fast action in the modern world. --Jim
Jim--- Your statements about our founding fathers are no surprise. They were human and a product of their time and their environment. Most of them would probably roll over in their graves if they witnessed the ‘equality’ and ‘freedoms’ granted to the US population...but... Given the opportunity of seeing the results produced by their Constitution most would eventually feel pride.
No one will argue that our democratic process can be slow and inefficient...but...it seems to be the best alternative. More democracy instead of less is what I'm advocating.
I’m tired of officials giving lip service to carrying out the public’s wishes and being swayed by behind the scenes political back-scratching, lobbyists and special interest groups. If I could change any one thing about our present system, I would probably give more power to the general public. Instead of just having the right to vote for policy making officials, I would like to see us (everyone of voting age) granted the right to determine more of the policies of our government, and unseat officials who do not carry out their general wishes prior to the expiration of their term of office.
Yes,there would be some mistakes made...but...One of the nice things about our ‘democracy’ is that nothing is ever carved in stone...most mistakes can be reversed.
The problem with democracy, Cherie, is that the votes of stupid people count just as much as those cast by intelligent and well-informed people. Stupid people can even be swayed to vote against their own best interests. All it takes are a few sound bites, and they'll march off to the polls like robots and do as instructed. The Germans even elected Adolph Hitler. And we Americans elected George Bush. Twice. Sure, I'll take Bush over Hitler. But hey, we can still do a heck of a lot better. --Jim
Jim---In the following phrase the word 'more' does not imply 'all'. "...I would like to see us (everyone of voting age) granted the right to determine more of the policies of our government..." A slow transition is what I envisioned.
Sadly, your sentence: "The problem with democracy, Cherie, is that the votes of stupid people count just as much as those cast by intelligent and well-informed people." points out one of the limitations of a true democracy. If I accepted as truth the remainder of your post, I would opt for the continuation of our system as it currently exists.Setting up tests determining 'minimum intelligence and literacy requirements' for voters would probably result (as it has in the past)in the disenfranchisement of individuals.
You make good points, Cherie. I'd probably be disenfranchising lots of potential voters. Moreorless arbitrarily. The thing is, we've perpetuated lots of injustices by allowing for majority rule. Sometimes, the majority wanted an unpopular man lynched. Or denied basic human rights. A majority of Germans once wanted Hitler. Anyway, it's sad that we are living in an age when sound bites often determine how one thinks. No depth. No logical rhyme or reason. We all have the right to determine our actions on the basis of whim. We hold certain truths to be self-evident. As if we don't have to give it much thought. Thing is, many truths are anything but self-evident. Truth can be variable. --Jim
Jim,
FYE, Adolf Hitler was NEVER elected. During the elections, he never received much more than 30% of the votes. It was a methodical takeover by the National SOCIALIST Party(Nazis).
Once the Government THOUGHT the people were going to "take to the streets" to revolt, one of the first freedoms taken away, was "... restrictions on property...". This was done, under the advisement of Hitler.
Once in power, the Reichstag(the national congress) rubber stamped his requests. Sound familiar??? Reminds me of last Friday.
I DID, and still do, support President Obama. I just don't think his ideas, proposals, etc., should sail through the processes, with no scrutiny or objections. AND, I don't think those who DO want to scrutinize and evaluate, should be insulted.
AND I think the Democratic Party is being just as "unbi-partisan" as the Republicans.
"(Obama)Advisers concluded that they allowed the measure of bipartisanship to be defined as winning Republican votes rather than bringing civility to the debate." .”~~Int’l Herald Tribune
For your information, Maebee, it's possible to be elected even without a majority of the popular vote. Hitler was duly elected. Just like George Bush was duly elected in 2000 without a majority of the popular vote. Al Gore had more votes. And there's likelihood that with a legitimate recount in Florida, Gore would have won the electoral votes, too. But the conservative-laden Supreme Court took it upon itself to "elect" Bush. --Jim
Brush up on your history, Jim. Hitler was NOT elected.
Election, March 13, 1932:
Because the "winner"-Hindenburg- did not receive the majority of votes(70% voted AGAINST Hitler), there was a runoff election on April 19, 1932, which Hindenburg won with 53% of the vote(over 63% voted AGAINST Hitler).
Only after:
Hitler was made Chancellor by President Hindenburg in '33,
the Nazi communists created havoc,
Hitler suspended the Constitution and "became" dictator,
President Hindenburg died(8/2/34),
Hitler abolished the office of president,
Hitler became Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.
Hitler effectively GAVE HIMSELF omnipotent power.
Not even close to what has ever happened in the U.S.
Jim---According to what I read at:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp
Maebee appears to be technically correct about Hitler not being elected by the German voters. While visiting the site I noticed that:
The day after the Reichstag fire, “Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to issue a decree entitled, For the Protection of the People and the State.” Justified as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state,” the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties: “
“Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”
In reading the above paragraph, I noticed similarities between it and ‘The Patriot Act” that awarded powers after the destruction of The NYC Twin Towers.
There does seem to be a major difference between the meaning Maebee attaches to the phrase “restriction of property” and your ideas concerning limitions to an individual’s amassing of wealth. I may be wrong...but...Hitler only restricted property of people he classed as ‘enemies of the state’. Your concept asks that the restrictions be placed on all citizens. I can neither condone Hitler’s interpretation and nor accept yours unless the means of restriction you are proposing is taxation.
History may ultimately show that both Hitler and Bush attained power by stealing elections. Stealing those elections in different ways. Yet, stealing in both cases. And both men started so-called pre-emptive wars, didn't they? Not a good legacy for either man. --Jim
By the way, a thorough recount in a very close election can take a while. In Minnesota, the U.S. senate race is still in the recount process and in court 3 months after the election. And we may go a 4th month before we know the winner. Only about 200 votes seem to separate the 2 candidates, with almost 3 million votes cast. Meanwhile, Minnesota has only one senator instead of the customary two. Anyway, maybe we should re-run the election. Wouldn't that be something? What if the run-off was even closer than the initial election? We Minnesotans could be going back to the polls forever and ever. But I'm confident that a winner will be declared. Eventually. Maybe not 'til March. But better late than never. --Jim
skericheri,
I am curious to know, which points of the Patriot Act you deem comparable to Hitler's decree.
Here are 2 key differences:
It requires that any investigation must not be undertaken on citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment.
The Inspector General was directed to appoint an official to monitor, review and report back to Congress all allegations of civil rights abuses against the Dept. of Justice.
On 9/11/01, 2,974 Americans were murdered. The perpetrators broadcast to the entire World, their involvement, and intentions, and still do.
The threat to the German Government was PERCEIVED. Hitler and the Nazis perpetuated a fear among the people, so he(Hitler) could be their "rescuer". The bombing of the Reichstag was staged.
The "Enabling Act" which was requested by Hitler, to be a temporary measure, was one which he made the Reichstag renew every 4 years.
As for Hitler's "enemies of State", they were INVENTED, also:
Jews
ANY political opponents
Roma (Gypsies)
Jehovah's Witnesses
Homosexuals
Poles
Liberals
Soviet prisoners of war
Persons with "Asiatic features,"
Habitual criminals
Sex offenders
People known to have had sex outside marriage
People with physical and mental disabilities.
Those who made jokes about the Nazi Party were also arrested (jokes about Hitler were punished with death)
The "work shy"(unemployed who refused work at a Labour Exchange)
The police were allowed to arrest people on suspicion that they were about to do wrong.
Since my original inquiry was regarding philanthropy, it seems Jim is not going to address it, and I am tired of Adolf Hitler, I will no longer respond here. I will simply restate my main points:
"In this day and age, a revolution such as you suggest, would do nothing but get a lot of people locked up."
"I DO NOT believe the Government needs to be radically changed. I think the policies in place need to be adjusted, and enforced."
"The Government has proven that they are not capable of making decisions for us."
"Adolf Hitler was NEVER elected."
By the way, Maebee, the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity were a relatively small handful of murderers. Not an army. They are criminals. And they should be brought to justice. By international police action. Not by an army of U.S. soldiers. Not by a war. Thanks to George Bush and his neo-conservative allies we have overreacted to 9/11. We have played right into the hands of this little gang. There's no need for a "war" on terror. As a nation, we have deprived many of our own citizens of freedoms. We have become a renegade nation. One that advocates torture, and criminal behavior snd lying and deceit. We commit the same sort of atrocities that we decry. Killing many, many innocent civilians. Far more than the number that died in 9/11. We have become our own worst enemy. It's a dirty rotten shame. We have become the bad guys. We have lost a sense of decency. And we keep on over-reacting. And you, Maebee, are falling right in line. Like a Bushie robot. --Jim
Maebee---This is Jim’s blog he is free to discuss what ever he chooses...We are free to exchange comments about anything within its framework. Had you not muddied the waters by bringing up The Protection of the People and the State decree, I would have gladly taken time to discuss the philanthropy issue in more depth. Right now...I have neither the time or the inclination to play.
In my opinion ‘terrorists’ could be (and should have been) dealt with within our current legal framework. The suspension of the rights of any individual or group should not be justified.
Took a little bit of time for further research of The Protection of the People and the State decree...and will out of courtesy briefly reply to your posting. .
“Article 1 of the German document imposed restrictions on personal liberty, (1) ...and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications (2) and warrants for house searches, (3)
Under Bush's War On Terror we adopted practices granted similar powers. (See numbers cross referenced)
(1)
(To my surprise...Not part of the Patriot Act)
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists Passed 11/18/01
"Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism". The Bush administration chose to call those who it detained under the Presidential Military Orders "enemy combatants" declared them ineligible for protection under the Geneva convention, stripped them of the right of habeas corpus and set up the prisons at Guantanamo that allow them to be held for an indefinite period of time pending judgment by a Military Tribunal. Thankfully...One of Obama’s first official acts will require that the prison at Guantanamo be shut down.
Don’t know the basis of authorization...The CIA may have just gotten creative
On September 6, 2006, American President George W. Bush confirmed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had held "high-value detainees" in secret interrogation centers...some of which are located in other countries.
(2) & (3) Title II: Surveillance procedures of the Patriot Act
Wiretap, computer surveillance, warrants (sneak and peek tactics). If you have the time read through all of the provisions in this section...Their scope is immense and the checks and balances for abuse are nebulous.
Do you have brown eyes??
I neglected to point out that the 2 differences are contained in the Patriot Act.
I don't know if you are addressing me, Maebee. I have blue eyes. But I love brown eyes. Jeanne had brown eyes. And my girlfriend has brown eyes. My cat Loverboy has a blue eye and a green eye. That's interesting, isn't it? May I ask you a question, Maebee? Do you have red eyes? If so, maybe you need more sleep. A bit of rest will do you lots of good. --Jim
I am amazed at your continued compulsion to explain and justify Jim. Whose blog would it be??? And this need to evaluate my responses......
If my original query would have been dealt with, by Jim, we wouldn't even have all of this so-called "muddy water" you speak of(whatever you mean). You seem to have more time than the rest of us, so I'll just thank you for the details provided, and leave it at that.
Yes, Jim, the "eyes" question was for you.
I am well rested, thank you.
Doesn't surprise me that a wise and intelligent woman would support me. --Jim
Maebee--- The 1st paragraph of my reply in no way was a justification of Jim. It was merely a way of politely saying that if you want to dictate the issues covered in a blog, you should start your own.
I'm curious...More time than the rest of whom? There only seem to be 3 of us contributing. My day has been quiet and low key. I don’t know about Jim. Are you having a busy day?
For the sake of clarification... February 17, 2009 8:56 AM is the time stamp on the post of yours that I responded to. I read it several hours later while Charlie was napping.
The portion of my response covering the 1st sentence of your post took me less than 10 minutes... I had researched the Patriot Act the after Charlie went to bed last night and noticed to my surprise that the “non-combatant” issue was not included in it..
I’m certain that the detainees, as well as other individuals whose human rights have been or will be abused appreciate their right to petition as well as the fact an official was appointed to monitor for abuses. Unfortunately petitioning seems to take years and abuse (like beauty) is often in the eye of the beholder. It is fortunate that they were dealing with Bush/U S instead of Hitler/GER...but...that difference does not justify abuse.
In my brave new world, philanthropy keeps flowing in from private sources, Maebee. The rich won't be totally depleted of money. They'll still have plenty to give away. But maybe there'll be less need for it because I expect public funds to be channeled into areas that benefit the common good. Serving the needy and various causes. Anyway, we can take a heck of a lot from the wealthy and they'll still be wealthy. --Jim
I do find historians that say Hitler was democratically elected as chancellor of Germany in 1933. But that because the office of chancellor was not filled by popular election, it might be more accurate to say that Hitler was constitutionally chosen to be the chancellor of Germany, a democratic nation. That there was nothing about Hitler's appointment as chancellor which violated the constitution of Germany. Let’s just say that this issue is open to legitimate dispute/debate. Solid arguments can be made both ways. --Jim
Post a Comment