Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Disowned by the Ownership Society
Remember the "ownership society," fixture of major George W. Bush addresses for the first four years of his presidency? "We're creating...an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property," Bush said in October 2004. Washington think-tanker Grover Norquist predicted that the ownership society would be Bush's greatest legacy, remembered "long after people can no longer pronounce or spell Fallujah." Yet in Bush's final State of the Union address, the once-ubiquitous phrase was conspicuously absent. And little wonder: rather than its proud father, Bush has turned out to be the ownership society's undertaker.
Well before the ownership society had a neat label, its creation was central to the success of the right-wing economic revolution around the world. The idea was simple: if working-class people owned a small piece of the market--a home mortgage, a stock portfolio, a private pension--they would cease to identify as workers and start to see themselves as owners, with the same interests as their bosses. That meant they could vote for politicians promising to improve stock performance rather than job conditions. Class consciousness would be a relic.
It was always tempting to dismiss the ownership society as an empty slogan--"hokum" as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich put it. But the ownership society was quite real. It was the answer to a roadblock long faced by politicians favoring policies to benefit the wealthy. The problem boiled down to this: people tend to vote their economic interests. Even in the wealthy United States, most people earn less than the average income. That means it is in the interest of the majority to vote for politicians promising to redistribute wealth from the top down.
So what to do? It was Margaret Thatcher who pioneered a solution. The effort centered on Britain's public housing, or council estates, which were filled with die-hard Labour Party supporters. In a bold move, Thatcher offered strong incentives to residents to buy their council estate flats at reduced rates (much as Bush did decades later by promoting subprime mortgages). Those who could afford it became homeowners while those who couldn't faced rents almost twice as high as before, leading to an explosion of homelessness.
As a political strategy, it worked: the renters continued to oppose Thatcher, but polls showed that more than half of the newly minted owners did indeed switch their party affiliation to the Tories. The key was a psychological shift: they now thought like owners, and owners tend to vote Tory. The ownership society as a political project was born.
Across the Atlantic, Reagan ushered in a range of policies that similarly convinced the public that class divisions no longer existed. In 1988 only 26 percent of Americans told pollsters that they lived in a society bifurcated into "haves" and "have-nots"--71 percent rejected the whole idea of class. The real breakthrough, however, came in the 1990s, with the "democratization" of stock ownership, eventually leading to nearly half of American households owning stock. Stock watching became a national pastime, with tickers on TV screens becoming more common than weather forecasts. Main Street, we were told, had stormed the elite enclaves of Wall Street.
Once again, the shift was psychological. Stock ownership made up a relatively minor part of the average American's earnings, but in the era of frenetic downsizing and offshoring, this new class of amateur investor had a distinct shift in consciousness. Whenever a new round of layoffs was announced, sending another stock price soaring, many responded not by identifying with those who had lost their jobs, or by protesting the policies that had led to the layoffs, but by calling their brokers with instructions to buy.
Bush came to office determined to take these trends even further, to deliver Social Security accounts to Wall Street and target minority communities--traditionally out of the Republican Party's reach--for easy homeownership. "Under 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanic Americans own a home," Bush observed in 2002. "That's just too few." He called on Fannie Mae and the private sector "to unlock millions of dollars, to make it available for the purchase of a home"--an important reminder that subprime lenders were taking their cue straight from the top.
Today, the basic promises of the ownership society have been broken. First the dot-com bubble burst; then employees watched their stock-heavy pensions melt away with Enron and WorldCom. Now we have the subprime mortgage crisis, with more than 2 million homeowners facing foreclosure on their homes. Many are raiding their 401(k)s--their piece of the stock market--to pay their mortgage. Wall Street, meanwhile, has fallen out of love with Main Street. To avoid regulatory scrutiny, the new trend is away from publicly traded stocks and toward private equity. In November Nasdaq joined forces with several private banks, including Goldman Sachs, to form Portal Alliance, a private equity stock market open only to investors with assets upward of $100 million. In short order yesterday's ownership society has morphed into today's members-only society.
The mass eviction from the ownership society has profound political implications. According to a September Pew Research poll, 48 percent of Americans say they live in a society carved into haves and have-nots--nearly twice the number of 1988. Only 45 percent see themselves as part of the haves. In other words, we are seeing a return of the very class consciousness that the ownership society was supposed to erase. The free-market ideologues have lost an extremely potent psychological tool--and progressives have gained one. Now that John Edwards is out of the presidential race, the question is, will anyone dare to use it?
Naomi Klein is the author of many books, including her most recent, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Visit Naomi's website at www.naomiklein.org, or to learn more about her new book, visit www.shockdoctrine.com .
© 2008 The Nation
93 Comments so far
Show AllProbably not. The same financiers and corporations which fund the Rs fund the Ds. Hence Nader is looking to run an alternative campaign to fill the void.
very perceptive, as usual naomi.......the savings and loan scam, the accounting scandals, the "fixing" of stock prices, etc. are ALL preconceived ruses to rip off americans at taxpayer expense........just re-establish the timelines of the legislation passed to allow this thievery and the only conclusion possible was that these schemes were hatched even before the introduction of the legislation that permitted this blind theft.
Far too much energy is being expended to convince us all that our system is broken. Guess what? Most Americans understand it's broken. Edwards focused on "the two Americas." Klein's excellent book, The Shock Doctrine, did a remarkable job highlighting the long history of free market abuses. On many progressive blogs, we hear a constant drumbeat accurately portraying the ravages of capitalism. Enough already. All of these arguments are preaching to a very large choir.
These arguments seem like a pathetic plea that is reaching out to those in power to "fix everything." Could you Senators please put forward better policies for the poor? Could you try to create a little more balance between rich and poor. Could we please have a few of our jobs back?
Here's a hint: as important as all these themes are, they are all bandaids. They are all beggars with their hands out. They are all blind men jibbling their pencil cups for loose change.
We need to stop asking for bandaids AFTER the wounds are inflicted. We need to stop being victims. We need to start campaigning to restore power to people and take power away from corporations. Many of the inequities will be repaired when human beings make the decisions instead of those seeking only profits for the companies they run.
The theme should not be "can we get a little more help for these poor people"; it should be can we empower these poor people.
Along the lines of "one man one vote", we need to purge our so called democracy of every policy or law that gives more power to one citizen (or corporation) than any other citizen. The laundry list would include such things as no private campaign funds, no paid lobbyists from for-profit corporations, equal media access (and debate access) for all ballot qualified candidates, restoration of the Fairness Doctrine and decentralization (this means breaking them up!) of massive media corporations.
All the inequities being highlighted are critically important; it's time to move beyond that to focus on the real issue: Power.
I often wonder if some clever monkey has misplaced the little word "of" again in their cute little slogan. (That'd make it "Ownership Of Society", if I'm being a little vague)
Possession is nine-tenths of the law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession.
I'm not referring to squatters, but to the ownership society. Ultimately, their "right" to own is predicated on an underlying coercive defense of it.
Most people just aren't saavy enough, cannot deal in large numbers, don't understand puts/selling-short, have much less insider/sector knowledge, etc. to really make good on the market. Given the various busts, it seems that the publicly-traded aspect is a mixed bag indeed.
As for purchasing a home, the middle-class doesn't "purchase" a home. Rather, it enters into career-long servitude to mortgage lenders -- the ownership society.
95% of mortgages are being paid on time - the ones that aren't will soon offer some nice bargains for the rest of us.
Not everyone is cut out to be a homeowner - renting is sometimes the answer.
So, Naomi, take a deep breath. This too shall pass.
The benefits of owning assets and being master of your own ship aren't going away. As our society cruises toward a breakdown in its ability to continue with huge inter-generational income transfers (social security, medicare, etc...)most folks with half a brain are making plans to see to their own needs.
Why would renting ever be better? It perpetuates serfdom, confers no tax advantage, and offers nothing to pass on to children, younger relatives -- or charity -- upon death of the owner. I'm not referring just to single-residential homes, but also condos in the city, etc. Is it a matter of upkeep? You pay for that, one way or the other, anyway.
The solution to the ownership society (the top 1%) can be one of two ways, which perhaps overlap greatly in destination though not in means. (a) Advocating for a Jeffersonian ideal of the land freeholder, so long as the price is VERY low relative to salary, to the point that many/most people don't need to encumber a mortgage at all. (b) Or else the abolition of the concept of private property.
I'm glad CD readers like Naomi Klein, but the personal fawning gets a little sugary.
If I were a professional writer I'd listen to my critics more than my groupies, since they might occasionally offer suggestions for editorial improvement.
One minor quibble I have is the phrase "sub-prime crisis". Crisis "anything" is a problematic framing. It tends to approach the problem as some sort of unpreventable, unforeseen, and depersonalized phenomena. Like an act of nature or biology. It also suggests alarmist undertones. The sub-prime "thing" is no more a crisis than the S&L's. These problems were seen in advance, deliberately instigated, ignored while they were being set up for failure, and go much further than sub-prime proper.
Whoever came up with the phrase "predatory lending" gets a cigar.
Naomi Klein - Thank you for this excellent article!
Paul Bramscher wrote,
"Why would renting ever be better? It perpetuates serfdom, confers no tax advantage, and offers nothing to pass on to children, younger relatives — or charity — upon death of the owner...."
Well, in some cities, renting is so much less costly than owning, that considerable amounts of money can go into the bank or other inventments instead of upkeep and taxes on a house. And, in a market where the house is declining in value, renting is definitely advantageous.
As a 50-year old in an area where the "bubble" never came, and rented until less than two years ago, I don't regret renting at all. I sure had a lot more money in the bank, and was free of debt. but now, I'm one broken sewer or toppled retaining wall away from emptying the savings account or going even deeper in debt. So, I never understood this emotional appeal of home "ownership" - for most people, doesn't the bank actually own it?
And, as far as the family home I grew up in, when my folks got old and infirm, they sold the house and the nursing home took nearly all the proceeds of it. Bye-bye! the stuff about "serfdom" is surely a bit of hyperbole, isn't it?
Sorry, but if you want to get your own home, the first step is moving to a place where you can afford a home (such as outside any major city). Unless you make a lot of money, you'll also need a spouse or partner to get the initial loan. You may have to start small, or with a fixer-upper, but in the Midwest, for example, it is still possible for most people to get their own place for well under $100K. On the other hand, living single in the large city, you're probably going to rent forever as a trade-off for culture and nightlife.
Until we fully recognize the diabolical nature of the people now at the helm of our nation, we will be helpless to unite to overcome the disaster we are creating. A disturbing piece that gets at the root of this can be found here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm
"...Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.
And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.
Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.
You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.
In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.
You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.
How will you live your life?
What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)?
The answer will depend largely on just what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. ...
Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all.
If you are born at the right time, with some access to family fortune, and you have a special talent for whipping up other people's hatred and sense of deprivation, you can arrange to kill large numbers of unsuspecting people. With enough money, you can accomplish this from far away, and you can sit back safely and watch in satisfaction. [...]
Crazy and frightening - and real, in about 4 percent of the population...."
Recognize anyone? We have a huge challenge facing us if we are to confront the pathology now controlling our nation.
Good on ya, Naomi. I knew you would sooner or later pick up on "the ownership society," which I've been exploring with my students in the context of what Americans mean when they enthuse about "freedom" in what is their unfree society. This article will make a very nice footnote to my lectures -- and a caution that Harpo is quickly catching up with his hero, Bush.
JOSO: Extremely interesting concept! Where does the 4% number come from?
I would take this one step further as to why it is possible for the "powers that be" to be able to act as they do. It goes beyond not having a conscience. I don't know where this concept fits in the scheme of things, but let's call it "The Chosen Ones" or "Selective Conscience" for the sake of discussion.
What I see is a rationalization of evil acts by The Chosen Ones against "The "Others" as being OK because The Others are less than human and only exist to serve The Chosen Ones. With this mode of thinking and feeling, any atrocity is possible. What we are seeing today in America is nothing new. It is just a continuation of what has always been. The Chosen Ones will always subjugate, imprison, enslave, and exterminate The Other at their whim. This has happened throughout the history of the human race. And it seems to run in never ending cycles and circles.
Will the cycle ever be broken? Don't know. Maybe Global Climate Change, Peak Oil, or the worldwide collapse of The Chosen Ones will create a new paradigm for the human race. I have a funny feeling though that there will always be those that seek entry to The Chosen Ones through the acquisition of power and priviledge.
And so it goes......
Is it even in the interests of most of the wealthy to destroy society? This ideology is suicidial for all involved regards of temporary rewards. Of course after watching the major candidates last night I realize although with dificulty the collective nature of delusion.
DKML - Is it even in the interests of most of the wealthy to destroy society?
No more than it is in the interests of a heroin addict to keep getting another hit... and another hit... until the very end... Is it in their interests then?
That's the owership society. The company store model. They got us where they want us now hopefully it will occur to more and more of "us" that we outnumber them by thousands to one and we'll organize and oust the lot. I say hopefully because it's just as likely they'll succeed in turning us against one another in this too.
We didn't choose to join the "ownership society". Our private pensions were switched to 401Ks by our employers, so that they could wipe their hands of responsibility to us after our productive years are over. And we have no brokers to call. We have no power over how our 401Ks are invested. I personally would like my 401K to be invested in a solar energy panel factory. Let me try to call Vanguard and request that!
Americans need to be class conscious, and in some ways they are, but try to convince them to give up begging our politicians for favors, or to vote for non-corporate politicians. You can look at these progressive websites to see how well that goes over.
Renting is just the modern term for serfdom.
The prevalence of rental property -- along with easy mortgages/borrowing -- drives cost of "ownership property" up. It has this effect because the cost of owning real estate is not fully subject to the pricing dictated by supply/demand.
If the going rate of homes were subject to the FULL earning demographic and very limited availability of indentured servitude (the modern mortgage), the price would drop to sensible levels in relation to income.
Ms. Klein is quickly becoming one of my favorite human beings. What follows is an excerpt of any essay that I began three years ago to the day.
" The subversion of socially responsible attitudes here in America takes many subtle routes. Consider for example the un-remarked consequences of the widespread investment in the stock market by average middle-class citizens that occurred in the decade of the '90's. Does anyone besides me sense a connection between this widespread investment by ordinary citizens and the ability to successfully advance the idea that fairness, justice, and responsibility in the workplace and the environment are actually threats to our economic success? Since I began this piece last November the President, his cabinet and staff, and his bureaucratic appointees have waged an unrelenting attack on the progressive aspects of American governance and society.
Worse still, the true results of 20 years of de-regulation and growth by merger and acquisition have now become apparent. Fraudulent stock, reporting, and accounting practices facilitated inflated stock values, which in turn helped corporate brass to gain obscenely fabulous pay and compensation packages. When the magicians' spell was broken by the reality of financial insolvency, the damage had already been done. Bluntly put, the elite of corporate governance robbed middle-class America. These princes and dukes of industry understood the impending denouement and shamelessly ransacked the assets and reserves of their institutions, leaving ordinary investors not only undefended but also holding the bill for their ill-gotten and undeserved executive compensation.
American culture and American commerce is now corruptive, and all of us are corrupted. Most Americans are comfortable with the idea that we now judge all human endeavors and activities first as business prospects. Our memory is so short that we seem to have already forgotten that the progressive laws and programs that are disappearing from America were a direct reaction to the abuses of big business, big money, and big influence. The anti-trust laws, the several labor movements, and the environmental movements all shared the common realization, widely understood, that without restrictions and limits, industry, finance, and trade will abuse and exploit their power. For a very brief time America was in the vanguard of environmental responsibility, and of workplace dignity, safety, and fairness. What happened?
The old saying goes: "nothing succeeds like success;" the new reality can be re-worded as: "nothing can succeed now but success." And success is defined as market share, leverage, and profitability. America did participate with other responsibility-oriented societies in advancing universal rights and environmental awareness. For a short while we accepted the truth that environmental responsibility is a necessary and legitimate cost of doing business and enacted that truth through regulation. Federal laws regarding the workplace and the environment created a level playing field for business, subjecting all to the same requirements, accomplishing what industry would never "voluntarily" initiate. Of course this playing field begins and ends at our shores and the disparity in height of our field to many others around the world is significant."
Sorry for the length of the excerpt. Just to show that even invisible schmucks get what's going on.
Hey Zoya, you read my mind -- I'm forwarding this to one of my profs -- fits right in.
"Ownership Society" is just a SCAM.
This DEMOCRACY is supposed to be "government of the people, by the people & for the people" ..
WE THE PEOPLE ALREADY OWN EVERYTHING!!!
Why buy it back from the CORPORATE THIEVES who STOLE IT?
All great comments...Vince Lawrence excellent comments and OldRascal very true indeed.
The ownership society is floating on a sea of deciet and Bush has been auctioning off the life rafts.
So Maggie the Iron Lady (with the compassion of an iron maiden) came up with that idea!
I remember when Filmon tried to sell low rentals in Canada. Luckily Doer was able to combat that and people were smart enough to talk about whether those who lived in housing would be able to replace the furnace or the water heater or fix the roof (all things that would need to be done soon enough).
Sadly and luckily, Paul Martin as Jean Cretien's Finance Minister, had gutted the low rental housing project so that, by the time Filmon suggested that, the low rentals were pretty old to begin with. So, it was pretty easy in the coffee shops to talk up the idea that they were just suggesting the selling of low rental units because they wished to avoid replacing the furnaces.
In Manitoba we know that -40 C is just as cold as -40 F.
Don't you just hate this about NK though that her argument is presented in such a way that one feels like there is nothing to add to it! You nod and nod and nod and then realize you've got nothing to say.
RE: - Now that John Edwards is out of the presidential race, the question is, will anyone dare to use it?
What does Naomi Klein, a Canadian who votes NDP, mean by this statement?
Is she trying to insinuate that Clinton and Obama are wolves in Edwards's clothing? Silencing of the Lambs?
RE: - Could you try to create a little more balance between rich and poor.
Hey, you left out the middle class (Bush hasn't completely eroded it yet) - it is the rich and the rest of us. We all hurt, though some of us worse than others.
RE: - We need to stop being victims. We need to start campaigning to restore power to people and take power away from corporations.
I think that there is going to be an SPP meeting in NO this April. The last one with The Three Amigos and 30 CEOs took place in Montebello. At least that is how I'm interpreting George Bush's Address:
And tonight I am pleased to announce that in April we will host this year's North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans.
Transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326149,00.html
Video:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080128/george_bush_080128/20080128/
RE: - With Dennis Kucinich out of the race Ron Paul is our only hope.
If I thought that way, one would have to keep sharp objects away from me. Ron Paul feels the same way about social programs for people as he does about social programs for corporations. You know those "charter schools" they are setting up in New Orleans to replace the damaged public schools - Ron Paul is not against that.
Also notice that, unlike Kucinich and Edwards and Gravel yesterday, Ron Paul participated in Wednesday's CNN debate.
RE: - Not everyone is cut out to be a homeowner - renting is sometimes the answer.
More people would be "cut out" for it if wages were higher and bank rates reasonable. Many of the subprime people were making their Mortgage payments before they doubled - and there lies the Repug Tory error. As long as bankruptcy was an individual thing and each person figured that the other person was at fault for losing their homes (and that most people were able to hold onto them), this dream of home ownership for low income earners would continue even as many fell victim and lost everything. However, these subprime mortgages entered the stock market and now everyone and their sister knows about this story.
I received an email relating to the discussion:
Retirement Planning
If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would
now be worth $49.00.
With Enron, you would have had $16.50 left of the original $1000.00.
With WorldCom, you would have had less than $5.00 left.
If you had purchased $1000 of Delta Air Lines stock you would have
$49.00 left.
But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of beer/wine one year ago,
drank all the beer/wine, then turned in the cans/bottles for the
aluminium recycling REFUND, you would have had $214.00.
Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to Drink
heavily and recycle.
Let people you care about know... and tell them to Start Now!!!
Ron Paul is
our only hope
On that slogan you could start a new religion!
Let's break out the koolaide and celebrate it's founding!
If Ron Paul is indeed our only hope, I'll have some of that koolaide.
RE: - the personal fawning gets a little sugary.
If I were a professional writer I'd listen to my critics more than my groupies,
Point taken. I think I avoided commenting on a recent previous article of hers because I didn't have any criticism. I am not a NK groupie (rolled my eyes at "No Logo") but I am an Avi fan. Avi's grandfather coined the phrase "corporate welfare bums."
"Sub-prime crisis" is the phrase the media uses to describe it here - so NK is just using the term most associate with it.
The term "crisis" is used differently in Canada than in the US going by your definition of it. The phrase "crisis in leadership" or "the latest crisis in Parliament" comes to mind. Crisis is just when things reach a boiling point. If something is a really really big "crisis" then it is called a "scandal."
We are not about to call it a "sub-prime scandal" because, as Canadian, we are polite. ;)
Agree with you on the phrase "predatory lending" - yet why is Canada presently going through a housing boom even with your "thingy" going on?
There is nothing wrong with home ownership, but there is in setting people up to fail or in conning people into siding with their oppressors. These lenders were only pretending to make home ownership affordable.
Greener than Thou - let's drink to that. Since I don't have any champaign, I'll toast you with my green tea and hot chocolate glass.
They call it the "Zoo Economy" in some circles. The keepers don't want the animals to get spooked. And certainly don't want them to starve. But want them to do lots of tricks along the way. In this framing, elections are but an exercise in "Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others".
I suppose it is sensible to assume that most people would rather have more stuff or lead more comfortable lives.
Naomi's theories show how us plebes often end up being gamed by the system a intriguing web of corporate, government, and cultural players who in the long run may actually be acting counter to their long term interests. For instance if resources are finite and the mortgage debit structure require accelerating markets, is competitive nest building a wise pursuit?
Key players in the market seem to keep asking for the same interventions that may precipitate their downfall (eg: Citygroup, Enron, WorldCom)
Maybe our economic system truly is a free for all led by that famous 'invisible hand' and brain I guess.
Hey why not sell that bimmer and become a new age bohemian!
Serious poverty amongst Americans is the ONLY way the population will begin to question the system. Americans care only about themselves. When stuffing yourself starts to become truly expensive, the population will finally be angry enough to demand changes. The government's response will be repression and massive incarcerations. The US is heading toward a third world moment.
Did someone say koolaide ! Where is Kesey when we need him !
Political rhetoric is almost always a smokescreen.
The promise of an "ownership society" is no different than the con of "trickle down economics".
The result of both systems was more money at the top !
Some people here are getting away with murder. For gods sake, these people are criminals and deserved to be locked-up. Oh wait...they are the law and the gatekeepers. They have the power and they can wield it as the like.
But, there is a solution to this thievery and madness, lets impeached them and vote them out of office. But wait again...the masses are too ignorant and stupid. We are too far indoctrinated into the system, caring more about meaningless things like abotion rights, school prayer, Anna Nicole Smith, and etc. When there is more important things to worry about like Universal Health care, and affordable housing.
THis is a very interesting article and I applaud Naomi Klein for that..
The chinese see crisis as an opportunity, that is how some people here see it as well. If you are a fatcat ceo of a multinational corporation you probably are laughing all the way to the bank. Anyone that knew anyone that lived through the great depression knew what was happening, Hal Lindsey predicted this in the 70's (it just has taken longer than he predicted) It's not rocket science, it's the same ole story but the safety net has been removed for those that will suffer and those that will just work themselves to death trying to have that american dream.
ownerous society?
Ownership. Dubya got the land to build the Texas Rangers' baseball stadium by eminent domain. The conservatives claim to oppose eminent domain, except when their hero does it.
I am afraid this woman, whoever she is, is drinking too much gatorade. People vote their interest in this country? How absurd. She needs to read an introductory text book. Then she Reagan says convinced people that their interest was in his programs. If they voted their interests, they would certainly nown Reagan's plan was not in their interest. It is easy to produce volumes of data showing that people do not vote their interests but are likely to vote against them selves. Consider the South; when they were solidly Democratic and racist, they would vote for people who would, reluctantly it is true, take a stand against racisim. Once they became Republicans,they vote against their interests because of pseudo "values" arguments that keep them the most backward people in a really backward U.S. Look at the polling data on voters for McCain, and we find that a large part of his support comes from people that oppose the war. McCain is the greatest threat to the planet of any politician in 50 years or more. He is a nut and a war monger. The author, however, is just one of themany mush headed liberals that appear on common dreams. We need slash and burn candidates to defeat this monster McCain, and the dirter the politics against him the better. Maybe we can convince, in that manner, people to vote for their own interest and against more war and misery for the rest of the world.
yes, Treefrog, a "dangerous oportunity" [wei ji]to be precise. dangerous because they may wake the sleeping zombie masses this time.
I remember my dad telling me that when he bought our family's first house, in the 1960s, in Northern New Jersey, the price of the house was equal to one year of his salary.
papiowhisperer February 1st, 2008 12:25 pm
"With Dennis Kucinich out of the race Ron Paul is
our only hope. Change parties and vote RP in your
local primary/caucus if it's not too late already.
I don't agree with RP on everything, but he is the one
DK endorsed. They voted against all the wars, the patriot
acts, etc.
Audio of Kucinich talking about Ron Paul as a running mate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By_zxa1qnj4
Dennis Kucinich asked about Ron Paul on Free Minds TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX1 "
Thanks for the links I agree whole heartedly ,was just sayin the same thing on some other threads.
Joseph Morton: Sir, you may be misreading polls. McCain is not supported by people against the war, but by people against the present conduct of the war. They think he can do better.
I can't understand why Buffet and Gates are getting so little "MEDIA" play. Could it be because they're breaking the "Eleventh" commandment....
Sharing doesn't mean you're weak, it might mean you're smart.
josephmorton February 1st, 2008 6:04 pm:
"Consider the South; when they were solidly Democratic and racist, they would vote for people who would, reluctantly it is true, take a stand against racisim."
Sir, this is not historically accurate. Dixiecrats left what was the Repugs over the Civil War. Repugs were the party of The Abolishinists. After the war, the Dixiecrats negotiated the end of Reconstruction after the Panic of 1873. By 1875 the newspapers of the North were complaining that they could no longer afford to keep Federal troops in the South to maintain the voting rights of Black Citizens against the organized terror/lynching/murder campaigns of the Klan. The Dixiecrat segment of the Democrat Party took over the South and ran Jim Crow and maintained the Plantation Oligarchy that exists to this day. They even worked with FDR on his programs as long as they excluded Blacks.
The break came in 1964/65 with the passage of the Civil Rights/Voting Rights Acts. By the end of '65 Johnson knew he had lost the South. He was right. The Dixiecrats returned to the Repug fold and could wave the Stars & Bars of Jim Crow and Nullification proudly. They have ever since. With all due respect to Kevin Phillips & Nixon's "Southern Strategy", the Dixiecrats were already stripped down and lubed up when Nixon arrived. All he had to do was promise to keep the Blacks, the Hippies, & the Protesters "In Their Place". We got COINTELPRO.
The rest, apart from some State sponsored covert domestic executions, false imprisonments, and ritual defamations, is history. Your voting actually has had very little to do with anything here for about 35 years.
Sorry for the bad news.
RIP
The economic problem is structural. Wealthy interests have engineered the passing of laws that benefit the wealthy. This has been happening over a long period of time. Additionally risk has been shifted to the public, especially the middle class. NAFTA caused American incomes to drop while prices continued to rise. People first took the equity out of their homes to live, then drained their savings, then used their credit cards. All of this was done in an attempt to maintain their standard of living. Now people have low incomes, no health insurance, no savings, no equity in their homes, and the bottom is falling out of the economy. This is no big secret, the poor and the middle class are broke.
Prices are still exceptionally high compared to income and people cannot buy. The poor and middle class have been sucked financially dry. The economy is going nowhere but down.
Stock portfolios? What?
I have put this reference on before and here it is again.
http://www.inequality.org/
Click on "By the Numbers" and page down to the pie charts. As of 2004, 10% of people owned nearly 80% of the stock! So why are people talking about middle class Americans buying stock.
For the other 90% of the people, I suspect that many are like me. I am retired and fortunately have two retirement incomes. Not big ones, but... One of them is connected in some mysterious way to the stock market and varies with it. I have nothing to do with its management.
Naomi Kline is a great nail hitter!
And so many good comments here too like Vince Lewis.
Josepmorton comes close but misses the nail with: "they vote against their interests because of pseudo "values" arguments "
It isn't their "pseudo values argument" so much as it the corporate use of PSEUDO ISSUES that obscure and manipulate reality for a large part of our population. They use fear & hate, sex & sexuality, religion and ideology to create issues that have nothing to do with governance, but everything to do with winning votes. These phony issues are instilled via the corporate loud speakers otherwise known as the pseduo news media and Bush & Co.
A large portion of our hard working, but non reading population is being manipulated in a classic way: Using phony issues that arouse emotion and sending them into every home via TV and newspaper.
A voting populace is only as good as the info they get.
Bush has been quoted as saying in 1998 ( I don't have the actual quote so it something like) that he needed a war so that he would then have the political clout to bring about the economic changes he wanted at home. Which we now recognize as the selling off of America to the highest bidder for his/their own profit.
For Bush war and baseball are the same thing and he blew them both.
As the overseas targets wise up, we are left to prey on each other. Hell, we're not about to get together and make a real plan for an actual civilization. Health Care? Ha! Conservation and Renewables? Get a life! Safety net? Oh, I won't fall...
Edwards is not totally out yet, only suspended. If things fall apart fast enough, he and hopefully Gore too might just find a convention ready for something other than status quo masked as change.