So, this has been happening....

[weso1]

I'm not an economics guy, but I can tell you that those who have gotten noticeably richer since the Reagan 80's sure knew how to run this plan in reverse, so yeah I know it can be done, but given how loud these poor little mistreated pampered folks are I'll bet the shrieking would burst all our eardrums. It's a hell of a lot better than what else is coming their way one day soon if they don't change their tunes, but I'm sure a grand total of zero of them would believe me on that.

I'll go ahead and repost the same old table that I always post to try and point out how bad things are getting as far as wealth distribution goes but I'm sure it'll just be shrugged off like usual. I know I get on some people's nerves sometimes (and despite what you're all thinking I NEVER do this on purpose), depending on who I'm criticizing on any given day but I really believe politicians use our best emotions and tendencies against us. Weso likes to believe the economy will straighten itself out and the skewing we see is just "one of those things" and will correct itself in time and while I completely respect his right to feel this way, I can't for the life of me see where he gets any evidence to support this point of view.

We all have our blind spots and our preconceived ideas that we just can't or won't give up, and I guess that'll never change, in fact it's my opinion that the only thing that will change any of our mindsets on these political arguments is when something akin to Saul's epiphany on the road to Damascus. That's what happened to me back in the 1980s, though I don't expect any Repubs on this board to pay any heed to it (I gave that up long ago). Until a person experiences what I did way back then I don't guess it would be possible for them to change from a hardcore Reagan Republican to whatever the hell I am now unless they walk a mile in my geriatric shoes.

With that said, I believe that conservatives are just as blind about Reagan and Reaganomics and things like wealth distribution (and the fact that is doesn't all just happen by chance or hard work) as the Dems are when they tell themselves that abortion is totally acceptable because it really isn't a baby anyway, it's just a globule of protoplasm and nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body (which as long as it just affects her own body I would totally agree with) and that the corporations and all rich people are greedy aholes who never do anything good.

Clearly there are good people and bad people in every group, though those at the most extreme ends of things are the ones we all concentrate on because their often the most visible and in my particular case those are the best teaching tools, after all plain old dull drab good people, whatever group they're in are WAY under appreciated, but let's face it they usually aren't the stuff of front page news, though they ought to be.

I wish that whatever side a person was on they could look at this graph and how things have changed in the last 30 years or so and see that if something isn't done and soon we're all gonna be faced with a bunch of stuff we don't like very much. So, you have my permission to pre-ignore it if you so choose. Any of you young tech savvy whippersnappers also have my permission to clean up my tables which as you can see didn't copy over all that smoothly.

Table 2: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2010
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
2010 35.4% 53.5% 11.1%

Table 1: Income, net worth, and financial worth in the U.S. by percentile, in 2010 dollars
Wealth or income class Mean household income Mean household net worth Mean household financial (non-home) wealth

Top 1 percent $1,318,200 $16,439,400 $15,171,600
Top 20 percent $226,200 $2,061,600 $1,719,800
60th-80th percentile $72,000 $216,900 $100,700
40th-60th percentile $41,700 $61,000 $12,200
Bottom 40 percent $17,300 -$10,600 -$14,800
From Wolff (2012); only mean figures are available, not medians. Note that income and wealth are separate measures; so, for example, the top 1% of income-earners is not exactly the same group of people as the top 1% of wealth-holders, although there is considerable overlap.

Source:

My point earlier though was that Reaganomics has been distorted both by the right and the left. Clinton's economic policy was still technically Reaganomics in my book at least.

Also, what effect do you think the arrival of the internet had on the net worth disparity? I'd say it probably had a significant effect. Bunch of new money in that. Is that on Reagan?

 

[BedellBrave]

Well those who don't like the Koch brothers are spot on IMO, those aholes are godawful, I wish more Repubs would distance themselves from these pricks. I had a conversation with a liberal friend the other day and tried to tell him that if he got his legislation or amendment (whichever one they're after today) to get rid of Citizens United and that does actually remove the Koch brothers from politics he would also have to give up his pal George Soros who he refers to as "benevolent", yeah I'm definitely a lib, that's why I get along so well with them. LOL

As for the unions I think that is getting to border on one of weso and bedell's straw man arguments. At one time unions were powerful force in this country but today I think anybody who can't see how far they fallen just isn't looking. yeah a whole bunch of the leadership of the unions that are still around are corrupt as hell but the overall numbers aren't even close to what they once were.

How much money do unions pour into American politics Hawk? Give me a legitimate number.

Or try this, how much do the Koch brothers rank in political donations say to just one union like the AFL-CIO?

I mean, after looking at this chart (link), hey I hope I can fall as far as these poor unions have.

 

[BedellBrave]

Also, you've described the problem with the rich. And note - I'm not disagreeing with your description. Now give us a prescription for solving this problem.

The Time-Warner CEO is getting an $80 million Golden Parachute and here in Charlotte they are wanting the city (i.e., the tax-payers) to pony up $42 million to make luxury boxes in an 8 year old Time-Warner Arena more luxurious. You know, the arena that the city council ignored the vote of the citizens about.

So give us solutions Hawk, not just complaints.

 

[Julio3000]

How much money do unions pour into American politics Hawk? Give me a legitimate number.

Or try this, how much do the Koch brothers rank in political donations say to just one union like the AFL-CIO?

I mean, after looking at this chart (link), hey I hope I can fall as far as these poor unions have.

Sure, those are big numbers. But compare them to the 'dark money' numbers for the 2012 election cycle, BB. It's out there and easy to find. Post-Citizens United spending from the Kochs and Adelsons of the world dwarf the AFL-CIO/SEIU/AFSCMEs.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

How much money do unions pour into American politics Hawk? Give me a legitimate number.

Or try this, how much do the Koch brothers rank in political donations say to just one union like the AFL-CIO?

I mean, after looking at this chart (link), hey I hope I can fall as far as these poor unions have.

You guys just sit back like those trial lawyers you hate so much don't you?? How many times and how many things over the years have you totally ignored while you were searching for an opening you can use to try and discredit 99 facts by finding one weakness? Is that Repub honor? I never said unions weren't a problem, just that in my opinion they weren't the problem they once were. Do you deny how the past few years have gutted many unions? Of course the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters are still uber wealthy, they put aside so many millions/billions during the 60's and 70's they can influence American politics until strug is my age + your age put together, even if they never take in another dime.

Did you ignore the stuff I said about how the Dems would have to kick out Soros if they got CU eliminated? Yeah, the red glare from my mentioning the Koch brothers in a disparaging way probably caused that. My bad!!!

The next time somebody besmirches the honor of the wonderful Koch brothers, ask yourself, or better yet go to a nice reliable website (you know what kind I mean) and ask them how much they stand to gain on the Keystone pipeline Repubs call for every day.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

My point earlier though was that Reaganomics has been distorted both by the right and the left. Clinton's economic policy was still technically Reaganomics in my book at least.

Also, what effect do you think the arrival of the internet had on the net worth disparity? I'd say it probably had a significant effect. Bunch of new money in that. Is that on Reagan?

weso, I don't know what happened to the post I made about this, I'll try again but it'll no doubt be different than the original. Essentially it said that Reaganomics was what started the trend, but it was by no means all his fault, in fact considering his health during his presidency it wouldn't have been that tough for the robber barons of that time to slip stuff past him, and Clinton didn't cause the great economy of his presidency, he just had sense enough not to eff it up by trying to squeeze even more out of it for the top 1%, like you know who did. This is why I don't try and discuss stuff with you guys any more often than I do, you have your preconceived notions about Saint Ronnie and the Good Old Days, which I doubt you all even remember, but I sure as hell do, and anybody who says anything negative about any Repub icon, no matter how true or how innocent immediately gets the Repub Thought Police out to put out the fires of dissent. Eh I don't expect you guys to believe me, that's why I hardly post here any more and that trend will almost certainly continue.

Oh and the last thing I remember from that other post was that my biggest complaint of all against Obama and the Dems is that they can correctly point out the excesses of big business and the top 1% but the best they can come up with to make things better is to raise the minimum wage??? Wow!! If the phrase Whoop Dee ****e hadn't already been invented I'd say let's invent it right now, just for that wonderful solution.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

Also, you've described the problem with the rich. And note - I'm not disagreeing with your description. Now give us a prescription for solving this problem.

The Time-Warner CEO is getting an $80 million Golden Parachute and here in Charlotte they are wanting the city (i.e., the tax-payers) to pony up $42 million to make luxury boxes in an 8 year old Time-Warner Arena more luxurious. You know, the arena that the city council ignored the vote of the citizens about.

So give us solutions Hawk, not just complaints.

When W was a part owner in the Texas Rangers he and his group got a big government grant to go on the new stadium deal in Arlington, as well as the taxpayers footing the bill for the rest of the costs. Jerry Jones used every kind of propaganda BS when he wanted a new stadium, including hiring a real GM for the first time and last time ever (Bill Parcells). As soon as he got the deal passed, Bill decided to "go spend more time with his family". Why do you think the ultra wealthy think they're entitled (I actually enjoy using that word with them) to the rest of us paying for everything so they won't have to tap into their bazillions?? For the same reason our elected officials feel the same way, basically because we allow them to feel that way. They have us buffaloed and they know it.

My plan, which I have said plenty of other times, do away with corporate tax loopholes for any company that outsources jobs. See, I don't want to just "give the rich's money to the poor" I want to give the poor a chance to earn a real living, not minimum wage increase for working at Burger King, but real jobs that those greedy bastards sent overseas so they could make just a few more millions. You see to me, hurting American families, breaking up American families (because married couples argue and get divorced eventually) over money, or the lack of it more than anything else. What do you have then? More single parent families, more kids committing crimes because of no supervision because their single parent is out trying to make a living. You don't have as many positive role models because a single parent working 3 jobs just to make ends meet isn't sexy, but for some reason known only to God himself some ahole rapper talking about how all women are bitches or whores, (or maybe on a good day they might be able to do both) and how they made money by pimping, selling drugs and various other illegal activities and they got rich that way. They took away so many good role models and we're surprised when the kids find bad ones?

My solution, set up a real sweetheart deal for companies who hire American workers and pay them a real living wage and decent benefits, I mean really make it worth their whiles, and tax the living sh!t out of companies like Verizon who made what $80B and paid ZERO taxes on it. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. Stop paying people, colleges, companies, etc. for doing research into finding answers, cures, etc. and pay them a king's ransom for actually finding those solutions. Set up a system for anyone who can create a REAL alternative fuel source and have the NSA keep an eye on those people and if any oil company or anyone who could benefit from keeping us depending on oil and if they catch anyone even approaching those people to try and acquire that technology or trying to keep it from getting out, give those people to me to punish, I'll bet you it wouldn't happen again. No more robber barons doing hostile takeovers, ala those good old Reagan 80's, no more big companies buying out, pushing out, or pulling any sort of shady bullsh!t to keep competition down, and don't even ask for a merger, period. Capitalism is supposed to be based on competition and to me anything that diminishes competition hurts capitalism, you know like those damn socialists.

I'm sick of the wealthy hurting Americans who are trying to do the right thing and work hard to make it, I'm sick of middle class Americans hurting Americans who are trying to do the right thing and work hard to make it,and I"m sick of poor Americans hurting Americans who are trying to work hard and do the right thing. That's MY base, though none of them even know who the hell I am.

Enough solutions? Probably not, but it's a start. So let me ask you a couple of questions and make you a proposal. First I believe you're very much against the ACA (correct me if I"m wrong). So, tell me why you hate it so much, I mean really. How would you seek to correct the wealth disparity in this country? Do you agree with weso, it's just one of those cyclical things and will correct itself, by itself or is it as I said a well conceived and even better carried out system that has changed the wealth ownership percentages? What would YOU do to correct it? Would you put any sort of onus on big business and the wealthy to change?

Finally, I believe that there is for lack of a better word, "political spirit" that blinds good people both sides of the political aisle in this country, they sweet talk their way into our ears, get us used to using their sort of thinking patterns and then when they get us used to that they just exchange their "facts" for the facts we would otherwise recognize when we saw and heard them. I know most on this board will no doubt chuckle or shake their heads in disbelief or disgust, but I'm asking you as a man of God, to do one simple thing, pray!! Ask God if I'm right or if I'm mental and then listen, I mean really listen for his answer. I will gladly abide by that answer as long as the answer comes from God, who most likely hates politics even more than I do.

 

[BedellBrave]

Sure, those are big numbers. But compare them to the 'dark money' numbers for the 2012 election cycle, BB. It's out there and easy to find. Post-Citizens United spending from the Kochs and Adelsons of the world dwarf the AFL-CIO/SEIU/AFSCMEs.

Please correct me if I'm way off base. Do you have figures post Citizens United comparing them?

Did the Koch brothers donate more than $400 million? Link

Link 2 I would have give the WSJ link but the article is behind the pay wall.

 

[BedellBrave]

You guys just sit back like those trial lawyers you hate so much don't you?? How many times and how many things over the years have you totally ignored while you were searching for an opening you can use to try and discredit 99 facts by finding one weakness? Is that Repub honor? I never said unions weren't a problem, just that in my opinion they weren't the problem they once were. Do you deny how the past few years have gutted many unions? Of course the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters are still uber wealthy, they put aside so many millions/billions during the 60's and 70's they can influence American politics until strug is my age + your age put together, even if they never take in another dime.

Did you ignore the stuff I said about how the Dems would have to kick out Soros if they got CU eliminated? Yeah, the red glare from my mentioning the Koch brothers in a disparaging way probably caused that. My bad!!!

The next time somebody besmirches the honor of the wonderful Koch brothers, ask yourself, or better yet go to a nice reliable website (you know what kind I mean) and ask them how much they stand to gain on the Keystone pipeline Repubs call for every day.

Not ignoring it at all and am not trying to discredit "99 facts." I'm just looking at the tons of money being given by union after union after union and am not seeing why you didn't seem to think that was much of an issue. You were the one who threw my name in about some straw man argument. And so I responded. I've also already stated my opinion about the super rich. I am not defending the Koch brothers. I don't care for them. But you were defending unions (and I suppose all the money they pour into politics).

What do you mean that unions have been gutted? Have a bunch folded? Lost a bunch of existing membership? Members actually getting a say over dues? I don't know. it isn't anything I really follow. So, I don't think I can deny it or confirm it. If you want me to like unions though Hawk, I'm afraid my various personal experiences with them make that a mighty difficult task. Glad you've had a better experience.

 

[BedellBrave]

When W was a part owner in the Texas Rangers he and his group got a big government grant to go on the new stadium deal in Arlington, as well as the taxpayers footing the bill for the rest of the costs. Jerry Jones used every kind of propaganda BS when he wanted a new stadium, including hiring a real GM for the first time and last time ever (Bill Parcells). As soon as he got the deal passed, Bill decided to "go spend more time with his family". Why do you think the ultra wealthy think they're entitled (I actually enjoy using that word with them) to the rest of us paying for everything so they won't have to tap into their bazillions?? For the same reason our elected officials feel the same way, basically because we allow them to feel that way. They have us buffaloed and they know it.

My plan, which I have said plenty of other times, do away with corporate tax loopholes for any company that outsources jobs. See, I don't want to just "give the rich's money to the poor" I want to give the poor a chance to earn a real living, not minimum wage increase for working at Burger King, but real jobs that those greedy bastards sent overseas so they could make just a few more millions. You see to me, hurting American families, breaking up American families (because married couples argue and get divorced eventually) over money, or the lack of it more than anything else. What do you have then? More single parent families, more kids committing crimes because of no supervision because their single parent is out trying to make a living. You don't have as many positive role models because a single parent working 3 jobs just to make ends meet isn't sexy, but for some reason known only to God himself some ahole rapper talking about how all women are bitches or whores, (or maybe on a good day they might be able to do both) and how they made money by pimping, selling drugs and various other illegal activities and they got rich that way. They took away so many good role models and we're surprised when the kids find bad ones?

My solution, set up a real sweetheart deal for companies who hire American workers and pay them a real living wage and decent benefits, I mean really make it worth their whiles, and tax the living sh!t out of companies like Verizon who made what $80B and paid ZERO taxes on it. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. Stop paying people, colleges, companies, etc. for doing research into finding answers, cures, etc. and pay them a king's ransom for actually finding those solutions. Set up a system for anyone who can create a REAL alternative fuel source and have the NSA keep an eye on those people and if any oil company or anyone who could benefit from keeping us depending on oil and if they catch anyone even approaching those people to try and acquire that technology or trying to keep it from getting out, give those people to me to punish, I'll bet you it wouldn't happen again. No more robber barons doing hostile takeovers, ala those good old Reagan 80's, no more big companies buying out, pushing out, or pulling any sort of shady bullsh!t to keep competition down, and don't even ask for a merger, period. Capitalism is supposed to be based on competition and to me anything that diminishes competition hurts capitalism, you know like those damn socialists.

I'm sick of the wealthy hurting Americans who are trying to do the right thing and work hard to make it, I'm sick of middle class Americans hurting Americans who are trying to do the right thing and work hard to make it,and I"m sick of poor Americans hurting Americans who are trying to work hard and do the right thing. That's MY base, though none of them even know who the hell I am.

Enough solutions? Probably not, but it's a start. So let me ask you a couple of questions and make you a proposal. First I believe you're very much against the ACA (correct me if I"m wrong). So, tell me why you hate it so much, I mean really. How would you seek to correct the wealth disparity in this country? Do you agree with weso, it's just one of those cyclical things and will correct itself, by itself or is it as I said a well conceived and even better carried out system that has changed the wealth ownership percentages? What would YOU do to correct it? Would you put any sort of onus on big business and the wealthy to change?

Finally, I believe that there is for lack of a better word, "political spirit" that blinds good people both sides of the political aisle in this country, they sweet talk their way into our ears, get us used to using their sort of thinking patterns and then when they get us used to that they just exchange their "facts" for the facts we would otherwise recognize when we saw and heard them. I know most on this board will no doubt chuckle or shake their heads in disbelief or disgust, but I'm asking you as a man of God, to do one simple thing, pray!! Ask God if I'm right or if I'm mental and then listen, I mean really listen for his answer. I will gladly abide by that answer as long as the answer comes from God, who most likely hates politics even more than I do.

Hard to read all that Hawk. I'm going to have to break it down and pull out your bullet points from the rest. May take awhile.

 

[BedellBrave]

My plan, which I have said plenty of other times, do away with corporate tax loopholes for any company that outsources jobs.

My solution, set up a real sweetheart deal for companies who hire American workers and pay them a real living wage and decent benefits,

tax the living sh!t out of companies like Verizon who made what $80B and paid ZERO taxes on it.

Stop paying people, colleges, companies, etc. for doing research into finding answers, cures, etc. and pay them a king's ransom for actually finding those solutions.

Set up a system for anyone who can create a REAL alternative fuel source and have the NSA keep an eye on those people

I'll get to your questions, but are these your basic points to make the rich less rich?

 

[Oklahomahawk]

Not ignoring it at all and am not trying to discredit "99 facts." I'm just looking at the tons of money being given by union after union after union and am not seeing why you didn't seem to think that was much of an issue. You were the one who threw my name in about some straw man argument. And so I responded. I've also already stated my opinion about the super rich. I am not defending the Koch brothers. I don't care for them. But you were defending unions (and I suppose all the money they pour into politics).

What do you mean that unions have been gutted? Have a bunch folded? Lost a bunch of existing membership? Members actually getting a say over dues? I don't know. it isn't anything I really follow. So, I don't think I can deny it or confirm it. If you want me to like unions though Hawk, I'm afraid my various personal experiences with them make that a mighty difficult task. Glad you've had a better experience.

I haven't had a better experience with unions, but I see them as exactly what they are, a necessary evil. I was in a union when I taught in the public schools of OK for 5 of the 6 years I taught in them. Having union representation was the ONLY thing that made it possible to actually keep the parents and especially the administration off your backs to a point where you could actually get away with making little Johnny and little Mary sit the eff down and shut the eff up long enough to actually teach them something. The common misconception is that the administration stands for discipline and making sure the kids learn. Of course some are that way but it was my experience that the vast majority just wanted to keep their high paying jobs and wanted the teacher to maintain discipline, just as long as it didn't offend any kids/parents. Piss off little Johnny or Mary's parents by making them behave and see what happens.

The main MO of unions is the reward members according to time served rather than quality of work done during that time, which could not be more against my philosophies on the subject. With that said, I've worked for companies where management had all the power and there were no unions and it was MUCH worse. This is another generalization but conservatives "typically" give the benefit of the doubt to management/administration and suspect lazy workers for any problems with the work getting done (picture your average Gatom rant about how lazy his workers were/are). They also "typically" picture the job of upper management or CEO as something Hercules himself would have a hard time completing. I've never known a CEO from that group but I've worked for some pretty highly placed individuals in my life and they had assistants to do just about everything for them. Yeah I know "broad brush" but remember that works both ways too. As you rightly pointed out in another post recently, the whole "only the Sith deals in absolutes" really is just a talking point. There are very very very few absolutes in this world.

No offense to you or weso or any other conservative here but if unions block voted for Repubs would we really still be having any of these same conversations about them? Wouldn't all the stuff unions do that piss you off be seen in at least somewhat less threatening or irritating eyes?

Probably the worst (and MOST inaccurate) statement I've ever seen on this forum or anywhere else for that matter (and I don't recall you or weso EVER saying this so this is definitely not at you guys at all) is that maybe unions were necessary 100 years ago for the terrible and dangerous working conditions in factories, pitifully low pay, things lunch harassment of every kind in the workplace, lunch pail fathers, and so on) but they've really outlived their usefulness. They aren't necessary anymore. Of all the horribly wrong statements you have ever or will ever hear that's got to be my #1 worst/most wrong. The same spirit that caused owners and management to mistreat other human beings just so they could make a little bit more 100 years ago is still very much alive today. After all, it's a spirit, it isn't going anywhere until that glorious day when all of them get cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

Hard to read all that Hawk. I'm going to have to break it down and pull out your bullet points from the rest. May take awhile.

You know, ironically I actually hear that more often than you might think.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

I'll get to your questions, but are these your basic points to make the rich less rich?

I know this probably isn't fair because you can't really tell a person's "tone" or any other nuances of speech, intent, etc., from a post on a discussion forum, but to me it seems like while you at least somewhat agree with my description of at least some, and probably most of the rich, to actually do anything about it would be morally and ethically wrong (which since IMO they rigged the system first to get this way, rigging it to bring things back into balance would not be a sin) and probably impossible anyway (which while I don't like this part, in the real world that we all live in is most likely true). If I have misread you I apologize and please by all means straighten me out on this.

Among the very few things I like about Obama is that he rightly points out the BS wealth disparity in this country. Among the many things I don't like about him is that he can see it and point it out, but the only thing he thinks needs to be done about it is to raise minimum wage???? Seriously??? WTF????

 

[Julio3000]

Please correct me if I'm way off base. Do you have figures post Citizens United comparing them?

Did the Koch brothers donate more than $400 million? Link

Link 2 I would have give the WSJ link but the article is behind the pay wall.

Well, I was specifically talking about some types of Super-PACs and so-called "dark money" spending, since their donors can remain secret and can contribute unlimited funds. In the 2012 cycle, the AFL-CIO and AFSCME SPACs spend about $6M each. Americans for Prosperity spent $20M, and American Crossroads spent $104M.

The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that Republican "dark money" outstripped Democratic "dark money" by about 8-1. About 75% of single-candidate Super-PACs active in congressional races were funding conservative candidates.

So, the $400M number . . . the AP article linked in the piece is no longer up, so I can't really comment on it. I know that union leaders expected to spend at least $400M in the 2012 cycle, on all activities, across federal, state, and local races. I'm not disputing the number per se, but I'm also not finding it in black and white. Unions that are NLRB-certified are subject to a higher level of transparency, so we should have a better idea of how their money is spent. Corporations are not subject to the same rules. That leads to a lot of disingenuous talk about how relatively little money the Koch brothers DIRECTLY spend in DISCLOSED spend. Someone will write a piece saying "Hey, the Kochs only donated a couple of million dollars, and Koch Industries only donated $4.9M, but the UNIONS . . ." when in fact, the Kochs have set up a network of shell corporations designed to shield themselves and their donor entities from scrutiny. The Koch network spent at least $412M during the 2012 cycle. Crossroads spent another $325M.

I could make partisan points about this all day. Believe me, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit out there. But the shameful way that the American elections are funded should not be a partisan issue. This has been a hobbyhorse of mine for years. It subverts democracy and is one of the clearest expressions of the truth of Warren Buffett's "my class is winning" statement.

 

[BedellBrave]

A professor friend of mine just posted this elsewhere. I pretty much agree:

"Congressional public policy and votes in America are buying brought to you buy labor unions and big business."

 

[BedellBrave]

Well, I was specifically talking about some types of Super-PACs and so-called "dark money" spending, since their donors can remain secret and can contribute unlimited funds. In the 2012 cycle, the AFL-CIO and AFSCME SPACs spend about $6M each. Americans for Prosperity spent $20M, and American Crossroads spent $104M.

The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that Republican "dark money" outstripped Democratic "dark money" by about 8-1. About 75% of single-candidate Super-PACs active in congressional races were funding conservative candidates.

So, the $400M number . . . the AP article linked in the piece is no longer up, so I can't really comment on it. I know that union leaders expected to spend at least $400M in the 2012 cycle, on all activities, across federal, state, and local races. I'm not disputing the number per se, but I'm also not finding it in black and white. Unions that are NLRB-certified are subject to a higher level of transparency, so we should have a better idea of how their money is spent. Corporations are not subject to the same rules. That leads to a lot of disingenuous talk about how relatively little money the Koch brothers DIRECTLY spend in DISCLOSED spend. Someone will write a piece saying "Hey, the Kochs only donated a couple of million dollars, and Koch Industries only donated $4.9M, but the UNIONS . . ." when in fact, the Kochs have set up a network of shell corporations designed to shield themselves and their donor entities from scrutiny. The Koch network spent at least $412M during the 2012 cycle. Crossroads spent another $325M.

I could make partisan points about this all day. Believe me, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit out there. But the shameful way that the American elections are funded should not be a partisan issue. This has been a hobbyhorse of mine for years. It subverts democracy and is one of the clearest expressions of the truth of Warren Buffett's "my class is winning" statement.

I suspect Julio, that we shouldn't expect unions or corporations or any group of sinners to be purely transparent with what they are doing. That's my overarching point here. We all tend to give certain folks a pass, or minimize their nefarious roles in our ugly political system while going on rants against our "foes."

 

[BedellBrave]

I know this probably isn't fair because you can't really tell a person's "tone" or any other nuances of speech, intent, etc., from a post on a discussion forum, but to me it seems like while you at least somewhat agree with my description of at least some, and probably most of the rich, to actually do anything about it would be morally and ethically wrong (which since IMO they rigged the system first to get this way, rigging it to bring things back into balance would not be a sin) and probably impossible anyway (which while I don't like this part, in the real world that we all live in is most likely true). If I have misread you I apologize and please by all means straighten me out on this.

Among the very few things I like about Obama is that he rightly points out the BS wealth disparity in this country. Among the many things I don't like about him is that he can see it and point it out, but the only thing he thinks needs to be done about it is to raise minimum wage???? Seriously??? WTF????

I do agree with you about the problem.

I think I expand the problem out more broadly than you (I think) to include the "noble" left-leaning filthy rich.

Riches aren't evil in themselves - love of mammon and all.

To do something about wealth disparity isn't of necessity wrong. I am not saying that it is.

Rather it is difficult. Exceedingly difficult.

Be very careful at the steps you take - there could be unintended consequences. And the cure could be worse than the disease. And other such clichés.

Of course, I don't think Jesus was wrong - we will always have the poor among us (and thus the rich). We shouldn't have any allusions that we won't or that there's some political-economic fix. That's the farce of communism in practice.

By that he doesn't suggest apathy - he is being realistic and it was an aside to his main concern at that moment anyway.

As far as I can tell, we can do all that you suggest and Bill Gates and George Soros and Koch brothers and Mark Zuckerberg and Warren Buffet will all still be filthy rich. And the Hollywood elites, the vermin like Miley Cyrus, the upper-level pro athletes, the big wigs in universities and in unions, Joel Osteen, John Hagee, Oprah Winfrey, and the CEOs with their golden parachutes and stock options will still be there sitting pretty.

It's depressing.

I also need to take heed of my own heart though here at this point. Why does it bother me? Is my anger righteous? Or is it the product of greed within my own heart. Nasty business sin.

 

[BedellBrave]

I haven't had a better experience with unions, but I see them as exactly what they are, a necessary evil. I was in a union when I taught in the public schools of OK for 5 of the 6 years I taught in them. Having union representation was the ONLY thing that made it possible to actually keep the parents and especially the administration off your backs to a point where you could actually get away with making little Johnny and little Mary sit the eff down and shut the eff up long enough to actually teach them something. The common misconception is that the administration stands for discipline and making sure the kids learn. Of course some are that way but it was my experience that the vast majority just wanted to keep their high paying jobs and wanted the teacher to maintain discipline, just as long as it didn't offend any kids/parents. Piss off little Johnny or Mary's parents by making them behave and see what happens.

The main MO of unions is the reward members according to time served rather than quality of work done during that time, which could not be more against my philosophies on the subject. With that said, I've worked for companies where management had all the power and there were no unions and it was MUCH worse. This is another generalization but conservatives "typically" give the benefit of the doubt to management/administration and suspect lazy workers for any problems with the work getting done (picture your average Gatom rant about how lazy his workers were/are). They also "typically" picture the job of upper management or CEO as something Hercules himself would have a hard time completing. I've never known a CEO from that group but I've worked for some pretty highly placed individuals in my life and they had assistants to do just about everything for them. Yeah I know "broad brush" but remember that works both ways too. As you rightly pointed out in another post recently, the whole "only the Sith deals in absolutes" really is just a talking point. There are very very very few absolutes in this world.

No offense to you or weso or any other conservative here but if unions block voted for Repubs would we really still be having any of these same conversations about them? Wouldn't all the stuff unions do that piss you off be seen in at least somewhat less threatening or irritating eyes?

Probably the worst (and MOST inaccurate) statement I've ever seen on this forum or anywhere else for that matter (and I don't recall you or weso EVER saying this so this is definitely not at you guys at all) is that maybe unions were necessary 100 years ago for the terrible and dangerous working conditions in factories, pitifully low pay, things lunch harassment of every kind in the workplace, lunch pail fathers, and so on) but they've really outlived their usefulness. They aren't necessary anymore. Of all the horribly wrong statements you have ever or will ever hear that's got to be my #1 worst/most wrong. The same spirit that caused owners and management to mistreat other human beings just so they could make a little bit more 100 years ago is still very much alive today. After all, it's a spirit, it isn't going anywhere until that glorious day when all of them get cast into the lake of fire.

The point isn't unions per se Hawk, it is with not seeing unions as part of the money problem or in downplaying their role.

Yes, there is a place for unions - I just wish they were more noble and didn't have this "rent a mob," "thug," "entitled," sadly-well-earnd reputation. I have watched union employees milk their employers (and in this case the energy consumers of a particular state) dry. I have crossed a picket line and have been a scab as I tried to make ends meet. I have watched family members who have been in unions have battles of conscience over how forced dues were being spent, not for them, but for left-leaning politics that went against their very moral fabric. And so sorry - much of this is personal. Highly personal.

I am not inclined to give them a pass.

But not giving them a pass doesn't then mean that I give arsehole employers, CEOs, etc., a pass. I wasted a year of my life working under a most despicable, arrogant, misleading, bombastic excuse for a business owner. Then again, I've had some very fine people to work for both in the small business world and the corporate. I know scum and decent folks can be found in what ever group we want to discuss.

 

[Dalyn]

A professor friend of mine just posted this elsewhere. I pretty much agree:

"Congressional public policy and votes in America are buying brought to you buy labor unions and big business."

A professor wrote that sentence?