EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
No to Oligarchy
The American people are hurting. As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, homes, life savings and their ability to get a higher education. Today, some 22 percent of our children live in poverty, and millions more have become dependent on food stamps for their food.
And while the Great Wall Street Recession has devastated the middle class, the truth is that working families have been experiencing a decline for decades. During the Bush years alone, from 2000-2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. The average American today is underpaid, overworked and stressed out as to what the future will bring for his or her children. For many, the American dream has become a nightmare.
But, not everybody is hurting. While the middle class disappears and poverty increases the wealthiest people in our country are not only doing extremely well, they are using their wealth and political power to protect and expand their very privileged status at the expense of everyone else. This upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class which has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country.
The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last 15 years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record.
Last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses, and police officers. As a result of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere, the wealthy and large corporations are evading some $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes. Warren Buffett, one of the richest people on earth, has often commented that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
But it's not just wealthy individuals who grotesquely manipulate the system for their benefit. It's the multi-national corporations they own and control. In 2009, Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in history made $19 billion in profits and not only paid no federal income tax -- they actually received a $156 million refund from the government. In 2005, one out of every four large corporations in the United States paid no federal income taxes while earning $1.1 trillion in revenue.
But, perhaps the most outrageous tax break given to multi-millionaires and billionaires happened this January when the estate tax, established in 1916, was repealed for one year as a result of President Bush's 2001 tax legislation. This tax applies only to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of our population. This is what Teddy Roosevelt, a leading proponent of the estate tax, said in 1910. "The absence of effective state, and, especially, national restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.... Therefore, I believe in a ... graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate." And that's what we've had for the last 95 years -- until 2010.
Today, not content with huge tax breaks on their income; not content with massive corporate tax loopholes; not content with trade laws enabling them to outsource the jobs of millions of American workers to low-wage countries and not content with tax havens around the world, the ruling elite and their lobbyists are working feverishly to either eliminate the estate tax or substantially lower it. If they are successful at wiping out the estate tax, as they came close to doing in 2006 with every Republican but two voting to do, it would increase the national debt by over $1 trillion during a 10-year period. At a time when we already have a $13 trillion debt, enormous unmet needs and the highest level of wealth inequality in the industrialized world, it is simply obscene to provide more tax breaks to multi-millionaires and billionaires.
That is why I have introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act (S.3533). This legislation would raise $318 billion over the next decade by establishing a graduated inheritance tax on estates over $3.5 million retroactive to this year. This bill ensures that the wealthiest 0.3 percent of Americans pays their fair share of estate taxes, while making sure that 99.7 percent of Americans never have to pay a dime when they lose a loved one. It also makes certain that the overwhelming majority of family farmers and small businesses never have to pay an estate tax.
This legislation must be passed because, with a $13 trillion national debt and huge unmet needs, we cannot afford more tax breaks for millionaire and billionaire families. But even more importantly, it must be passed because the United States must not become an oligarchy in which a handful of wealthy and powerful families control the destiny of our nation. Too many people, from the inception of this country, have struggled and died to maintain our democratic vision. We owe it to them and to our children to maintain it.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
119 Comments so far
Show AllAccording to the Supreme Court, the corporations are the "new people!"
And because of our system of "legalized bribery" called "lobbying" which has contaminated virtually everyone in Congress, they're well on their way taking over our country!!!!!
There's no stopping it! We now live in a plutocracy and should be calling it by its rightful name!!!
What Bernie calls "illegal behavior by Wall Street" is no longer illegal. Wall Street spent the past 30 years funding the decriminalization (more commonly called deregulation)of laws that would have made their behavior illegal.
We need a new Preamble: "WE the coporations ..."
I support S3533.
I also think we should have a tax on Wall Street transactions, a progressive income tax like we had in the past, Social Security taxes on all earned income not just income up to $108,000, and penalties on offshore banking and outsourcing jobs.
I agree with you completely, but I doubt that will ever happen with the crooks we have in congress. (With the exception of Mr Sanders and a few others of course.)
Recently, I read someone's proposal of another measure you could add to your list: a tax -- or even a ban -- on the import of goods produced under unacceptable working conditions abroad.
That would actually get this country straightened out, an idea anathema to the corrupt power brokers in DC.
JAMALH said "I support S3533. I also think we should have a tax on Wall Street transactions, a progressive income tax like we had in the past, Social Security taxes on all earned income not just income up to $108,000, and penalties on offshore banking and outsourcing jobs."
All of these are good suggestions. Here's another, one which ought to be easy to understand and therefore able to get some grassroots support: raise the personal exemption and/or standard deduction to say, 25K per person. That would mean all or most of the working poor wouldn't have to pay any tax and it would lower the effective tax rate on the remainder benefiting low income wage earners most. The wealthy would also get it, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to them. Just think what you or I or others who are struggling could do with that come tax time.
Or install a modernised version of Huey Long's "Share Our Wealth" proposal.
That was the proposal that turned the elites' faces green with fear, and very possibly got Huey murdered. The elites've been pounding metaphorical stakes into his heart ever since. They want to make sure *that* proposal doesn't come back from the grave.
Estate tax policy is one of those dull, boring matters that have a huge impact on the lives of us all. Citizens ignore the nitty-gritty details of democracy at their peril. The powers-that-be count on us not caring about such recondite topics as the estate tax. But it is critical for society, as this article points out.
The difficult part of societal change is in monitoring and impacting the small details that make up the fabric of the economy, the educational system, and the justice system. Can we find the time to form a civil society counterpart to those of great wealth who look after only their own interests? If not, things will get worse.
Hymenaea courbaril, this is so true: "Citizens ignore the nitty-gritty details of democracy at their peril." Especially when the society has never been democratic - ever. Democracy, at best, seemed like an achievable ideal, but no more.
>>>Can we find the time to form a civil society counterpart to those of great wealth who look after only their own interests?
Gosh, how are you gonna get the people to ponder this question? Not those who read and comment here on CD - but the others who are hooked on mindless TV shows, the latest gadget and all kinds of insane distractions? Actually, come to think of it, they are not so insane from the oligarchs' point of view - because they get to make money from those distractions while keeping the people distracted. How much more clever and sinister can you get?
>>>If not, things will get worse.
This point should be driven home when we talk to people, including youngsters. We may get labeled as the party pooper, but that's a small price to pay.
Here's a small detail from the New York Times:
"Legacy for One Billionaire: Death, but No Taxes"
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
This billionaire passed on Nine Billion dollars to his heirs
and paid NO TAX AT ALL.
But if you are on Medicare and apply for food stamps there is the little fine print that gives the state the right to take the amount that was paid out, by the state, for your medical and food..from your "estate".
Sanders has no credibility whatsoever. He voted for the Corporate Model Health Bill void of a public option; he voted for the financial bill that is filled with loop holes and escape clauses for Big Money entitites. The fact is Sanders loves the oligarchy; he is owned by it. He bows to it; and he licks the hands of his corporate pay masters just like all his brethren in the Senate. Another bought and paid for piece of ----- fill in the blank.
You should run for Senate. I'm sure you'd be perfect.
Ever consider running for twit of the year? No doubt you could give your hereos Sanders, Hartmann, Flanders, Katrina VDH, et al, a run for their money.
Bitter much? Cut well-meaning people some slack- there are plenty of greedy, soulless fuckheads out there upon whom you could direct your disdain and disgust. Just because Bernie, Thom, Laura or Katrina don't see the world in the same way that you do, doesn't mean they are somehow evil.
You certainly don't read CD too much. This website is full of left wing purists
Oh no I see it all the time, but we really ought to cut folks like Bernie some slack. The man is one of the few not bought and paid for by the Corporate Overlords.
Do you really believe that? Really?
Then he is a fool. Why assist them if they aren't paying him?
Why must we ever cut those in power some slack? That is so upside down and backward I don't know how to respond to it. Do you think the rulers will ever cut us any slack?
"Cut them some slack" - good grief. Let's just beg and crawl and grovel while we are at it.
I'd add Dennis Kucinich to that list. He had principles. He drew a line in the sand. He stated that he absolutely would not under any circumstance vote for the health care insurance company profit maximization bill. And, then he took a most impressive ride on Air Force One.
BodhiHawk: I never read read anything so stupid in my life.....well not quite.
Then read yourself. Is this another one of your sock puppets hamster?
"The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last 15 years."
The reason these rich people have gotten away with so much is that there are so many people here that are under the illusion they can be really rich also so they allow this to happen. Really pathetic.
"The reason these rich people have gotten away with so much is that there are so many people here that are under the illusion they can be really rich also so they allow this to happen. Really pathetic."
So true, hard to believe but so true...
Hi Fennec,
Sociology nowadays can measure the degree of false consciousness. About 4 years ago the New York Times ran the results of a survey in which people were asked which percentile of income they thought they were in. The astonishing result was that 19% of the population thought they were in the top 1%, and another 20% thought that they were going to be at some time in their lives.
So right off we have 39% of the population identifying with the top 1%. I would expect, however, that the "Great Recession" has reduced this figure by quite a bit, although I haven't seen the survey repeated.
We could call a lot of those people "pathetic." But that is not our job. Our job is to help educate the victims of false consciousness, which, by the way, since Karl Marx used the term, is not a new phenomenon nor a uniquely American one.
We could give lectures on the reality of class, but a far better method is to provide opportunities for real and SATISFYING class solidarity. It is much harder to harbor illusions about your class position when you are a member of an active, democratic union or, for one other example, a struggle to improve public education for your kids. Let's get organizing, friends. Being right will only get you just so far.
Part of their misunderstanding, of course, comes from the failure of government to reveal the wealth of the *actual* top 1%.
All part of what Chomsky identified as the truncated spectrum of acceptable political discourse. It's a near-impossibility to understand exactly where one is in the rat race, and if we do manage to winkle it out, it's literally a crime to talk about certain ways of possibly fixing the core problems. It's a very nice setup--for the oligarchs.
"being right will only get you so far"
Wise words.
Hi Laurenceofberk(ley) I am one that does agree with some of what you say. 2 things though. 1, being of class solidarity isn't something I really wish to obtain at least for myself. I am more of a Paleolithic type that would just as soon run for it. Fight or flight. Most primitives learned to survive by running for it. 2nd, I do consider something that I see as "pathetic" to call it as such. As you can see I do not consider myself and educator. The right or wrong game is just that a game. The problem comes in when someone will go to the "ends of the earth" not to be wrong, even if their ideas and beliefs do not work at all. Being stuck in "right" does not allow for anything creative or unusual. Thanks for your thoughts and insights.
The truly sad thing is that so many Americans think that the estate tax applies to average peoples estates. It is amazing how easy it is to mislead some folks.
Game over Bernie. The Class War being fought against 99% of us by the plutocrats is for the most part won ( by them). Next on their plate is the demolition of SS and Medicare and any other parts of the old New Deal safety net and a return to a 19th century Gov't ( except for the parts that feed the oligarchs , the military etc.) They own the POTUS, Congress and the SCOTUS what's left? They could care less if the rest of us rot and die, they have billions out here on Earth to replace us with. If we rise up and try to resist ( not likely given their able use of drugs and violence ), they will use half of us to kill the other half, if need be, that's their whole game ( divide and conquer). Welcome to the "new" Roman Empire .
Old Mr. Sanders does seem to be a bit behind the ball with his "...the United States must not become an oligarchy..." statement.
Is that the Walton family I hear laughing?
He lays out all the reasons why we are ruled by an oligarchy, and then concludes we must not "become" one.
I guess it's hard to see the Oligarchy when you're a part of it. Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous respect for Senator Sanders. He is one of only a very few members of congress who doesn't deserve to be publicly flogged, tarred and feathered and rode out on a rail. If we had more public servants like Bernie this country would look very different.
All the same this country is clearly in the grip of an oligarchic club of sociopaths and dynastic Aristocrats. Unfortunately, the American people have been fed a steady diet of lies and propaganda since birth. Don't expect the masses to wake up until the pain of severe economic dislocation leaves them no other alternative. Maybe then some of these crooked plutocrats will get what they deserve.
If all Senators and Representatives were like Bernie, we'd surely have a better government, however much of what Bernie says rings hollow, when I recall his determined defense of the Democratic leadership's decision to not pursue impeachment proceedings in the house, or real a real criminal investigation into the crimes of the Bush Administration in the Senate.
You got me there. The failures to even investigate the crimes of the previous Administration represents a criminal dereliction of duty and frankly stupid political strategy on the part of the Democrats in general and the White House in particular. Bernie is I believe a man motivated by sincere convictions, working within a broken system. I hope my admiration is not too misplaced, but I am willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt that while we cannot know the motivation behind all of his actions, we can at least hope (trust?) that he is motivated by virtue and guided by wisdom.
We should take care not to confuse cause and effect. Elections and voting and candidates are effects of the political situation in the country, not causes. If the political situation were such that 100 Socialists could be elected, we wouldn't need to elect them. Creating that new political situation can never be accomplished through partisan electoral politics.
There is some sort of feedback loop here, some sort of repetitive and futile pattern in people's thinking. "Sanders is better than Senator X. If there were more people like Sanders in office, things would be better. So we should 'try to elect' people like Sanders. But that can't happen without a radical change in the country. But we can't have people advocating for radical change in the country, because that will scare people and they won't be persuaded to elect more people like Sanders. So we will have to slowly convert people to our belief system." I have watched "progressives" and "liberals" go around and around on this for decades now, like hamsters in a wheel frantically running and getting nowhere.
After each hitter disappointment, the same stale and failed approaches are promoted once again, as though it were the first time anyone had even thought of them. "I know! We can work within the system to elect progressives!!" Then come election time, it will be settle for the lesser of two evils once again, then the bitter disappointment, and then we will once again hear "Hey! I know! We can work within the system to elect progressives!!"
Feingold voted no on financial reform: Sanders voted for the Bill. The reason, as Feingold tells it, is the bill is nothing more than another corporate give-away that leaves in place the same model and circumstances that led to the first financial collapse.
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/05/20-17
"Stupid is as stupid does."
Bernie ought to save his lip-service, "I am a champion of the downtrodden" speech for the rest of the herd who follows his forked-tongue two step.
I guess Feingold was standing up to Sanders, too, since Sanders voted for the tripe legislation?
Feingold: 'Standing Up to the Unholy Alliance Between Washington and Wall Street'
Statement by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)
WASHINGTON - Wall Street and its allies have been calling the shots in Congress for decades, so they must be glad to see how things are shaping up on financial regulatory reform. Congress is about to vote on a final bill that fails to fix the key flaws in the bills passed by both the House and Senate. At the start of this process I made clear that I had a simple test for financial reform -- will it stop another financial meltdown? This bill fails that test, and I won't support legislation that fails to protect the people of Wisconsin from the pain of another economic disaster. And I don't need to be lectured about this issue by people who supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for this terrible recession.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). "This bill caves to Wall Street interests," Feingold said in a statement. "It doesn't meet the test of preventing another financial crisis, and it won't get my vote." (File)I had hoped I would be able to support the legislation, given the clear need for strong reform. I cosponsored a number of critical amendments during Senate consideration of the bill including a Cantwell-McCain amendment to restore Glass-Steagall safeguards, Senator Dorgan's amendment that addressed the problem of "too big to fail" financial institutions, and another "too big to fail" reform offered by Senators Brown and Kaufman that proposed strict limits on the size of those institutions. Each of those amendments would have improved the bill significantly, and each of them either failed or was blocked from even getting a vote.
After that, it wasn't a close call for me. It would be a huge mistake to pass a bill that purports to re-regulate the financial industry but is simply too weak to protect people from the recklessness of Wall Street. That would be like building an impressive-looking dam without telling everyone that it has a few leaks in it. False security is no security at all.
Since the Senate bill passed, I have had a number of conversations with key members of the administration, Senate leadership and the conference committee that drafted the final bill. Unfortunately, not once has anyone suggested in those conversations the possibility of strengthening the bill to address my concerns and win my support. People want my vote, but they want it for a bill that, while including some positive provisions, has Wall Street's fingerprints all over it.
In fact, reports indicate that the administration and conference leaders have gone to significant lengths to avoid making the bill stronger. Rather than discussing with me ways to strengthen the bill, for example, they chose to eliminate a levy that was to be imposed on the largest banks and hedge funds in order to obtain the vote of members who prefer a weaker bill. Nothing could be more revealing of the true position of those who are crafting this legislation. They had a choice between pursuing a weaker bill or a stronger one. Their decision is clear.
On this bill, like the others that preceded it, the biggest financial interests have won.
I've seen this too many times before. When I was in the Wisconsin State Senate, I chaired the Senate Banking Committee for nearly a decade, and fought against enactment of an interstate banking law that resulted in the concentration of financial assets and most large Wisconsin banks being bought up by even larger out-of-state banks.
Shortly after I came to the U.S. Senate we considered a national interstate banking bill, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act of 1994, which accelerated the concentration of financial assets, and the creation of "too big to fail" firms. I was one of only four senators to oppose that legislation. Five years later, I was one of only eight Senators to oppose the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall and paved the way for this disastrous recession, which has been an economic nightmare for so many Americans.
Those two measures -- the 1994 law and the 1999 law -- accelerated the trend toward increased concentration of financial assets, aggravating the problem of "too big to fail." Before those two laws were enacted, the six largest U.S. banks had assets equal to 17 percent of our GDP. Today the six largest U.S. banks have assets equal to more than 60 percent of our GDP.
Ultimately, it was the threat of the failure of the nation's largest financial institutions that spurred the Wall Street bailout. I opposed that measure as well, in part because it was not tied to any fundamental reforms of our financial system that would prevent a future crisis and the need for another bailout. We could have had a much tougher reform package if the bailout had been tied to such a measure.
Every single one of those bills caved to Wall Street and the biggest financial interests, and so does the current regulatory reform bill. Economist Dean Baker called this bill a "fig leaf," and former IMF Economist Simon Johnson has slammed the bill's failure to address "too big to fail." These experts paint an accurate picture of this bill's failings, and frankly those failings shouldn't come as a surprise. Many of the critical actors who shaped this bill were present at the creation of the financial crisis. They supported the enactment of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, deregulating derivatives, even the massive Interstate Banking bill that helped grease the "too big to fail" skids. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the final version of the bill looks the way it does, or that I won't fall in line with their version of "reform."
This bill caves to Wall Street interests, it doesn't meet the test of preventing another financial crisis, and it won't get my vote.
How many czars do we have now 100 more? less?
>^^<
Oligarchy and plutocracy mean pretty much the same thing: the few and/or the wealthy steal the power from the many and impose their wishes/rule. One could also argue that we are moving from those lovey descriptors to neo-feudalism.
I take issue with those who are so critical of Sanders about his affirmative votes on the health insurance and finance bills. Neither of them provides the kind of real changes (regulations) that are necessary, but both of them do provide relief to many citizens who've been suffering for quite a while. Something is usually always better than nothing in the Now....the rest of the changes can be introduced in the next few years. It's not about 'settling' it's about securing the best possible outcome at the moment.
I intend to send this email to a number of my family members and friends who don't yet seem to understand the gravity of the mess we're in - seeing those numbers with the T's and B's after them should get their attention for once.
"It's not about 'settling' it's about securing the best possible outcome at the moment."
To assert, that the health care monstrosity of a bill secured the best possible outcome "at the moment", is one whopper of a premise to your argument.
As far as the health care bill providing relief to citizens "who've been suffering for quite a while", I would ask, what relief are you talking about? There are zero effective cost controls, the insurance companies will be able to just price high risk pools with pre-existing conditions sky high, and even higher by the 2014 when the subsidies finally kick in. The subsidies that are DIRECT subsidies to the insurance companies, through the individuals ill and poor enough to be the 'carriers' of such. Over 20 million Americans (many children of course) still will not be able to afford coverage, even with subsidies, yet those of legal age, will be fined by the federal government for not being able to afford an over-priced private product.
So your premise is the above, in the world of possible outcomes, was the best?
I just recently had hours cut at my job, and no longer qualify for coverage under my employer's health insurance pool. I sought out COBRA, and found that the subsidies for that program had been cut. Although COBRA would allow me to have kept the insurance I was using, the cost of my premium as an individual was over twice the amount I was paying, and after paying rent, I would hardly have any money left over. So, I have no choice, but to find another job (good luck in this economy right?) or go without health insurance at age 51.
Perhaps you can counsel me with where the relief is for me?
I'll check back, because maybe you know something I don't.
Surely you can imagine people who have children, who work, yet can't afford health care for their kids, and the intense pressure that life itself would exert on them.
That monstrous Health Care Industrialist's Bailout Measure, that was in your view "better than nothing in the Now" (what does Eckhart Tolle have to do with Corporate profits) only guarantees that we have a for profit health care delivery system for generations to come, not matter what "the rest of the changes" "introduced in the next few years" will be.
Check out "Crash Course" on Youtube. This isn't just another little recession. Exponential growth had limits- we've basically reached those limits. Economic contraction is antithetical to the entire structure of our political and economic systems. Prepare for turbulence. We're about to hit a serious patch of Austerity followed quickly by an emergency landing.
"Surely you can imagine people who have children, who work, yet can't afford health care for their kids, and the intense pressure that life itself would exert on them."
People who cannot afford health care insurance will be required to purchase health care insurance. If they cannot afford it they will be fined so that they won't even be able to take a kid to the doctor and pay cash because there will be none left after paying the fine. What if they can't pay the fine? Debtor's prison?
If I could afford to I'd move to one of those "damned socialist" countries like Norway or Sweden or Germany or France.
Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold aren't perfect, but they're among the best we've got (along with Weiner and Grayson).
So, let's support them when they are right and straighten them out when they seem to be wrong.
Jim Shea
You're pushing a myth that we can "straighten out" these guys - give up on them.
The U.S. must not become an oligarchy!@@@!#^*. Please Mr. Sanders! I respect Bernie, but that statement has to be one of the most outrageous statements I have ever heard from him.
the only thing outrageous about this statement is how late in the game it's coming. we've *been* an oligarchy. lucky for bernie, there are still a few spare seats on the train so we can make room for him.
So what are you saying? That an oligarchy is the only way to go, or that we have already become an oligarchy? I would say we have already arrived at the latter. The only question remaining "is how much more will it grow to our collective peril?"
Yes we are an oligarchy. To answer the question "how much more will it grow to our collective peril?" There will be no end to its growth. Your are not dealing with normal people. They are mentally deficient, in the same way someone who hoards, junk, animals, etc. Just like someone who cant help themselves from adopting one more dog, after they already have 50, these people will demand more money even if the have already accumulated $50 billion. They simply can't or won't stop themselves. They are too sick to even realize they have a problem
Just like hoarders of animals, and household junk must be stopped at some point, so do these money hoarders, because they will never stop on their own. The fact that politicians are allowing them, empowering them, enabling them to continue with their reckless, addictive behavior bodes very ill for all our futures.
Yes.